Columnist misunderstands Christianity

In Matt Gillum’s column “In loco parentis” he writes: “In the ages of ignorance, [religion] was a powerful way of explaining and coping with phenomena. No longer. Science has solved the riddle of human existence and tsunamis and, in the centuries to come, will be the force to deliver us from evil.” I find his conclusion to be problematic and untrue.

Gillum rejects the possible harmony between science and theological beliefs that many people have found in their lives. The argument that he fails to give any credence to is, that in our “age of enlightenment,” religion remains a “coping” mechanism for dealing with disasters, a role that science’s explaining power does not even purport to fill.  Even the non-religious cannot deny the psychological benefits provided by religion and spirituality. It is presumptuous to consider religious belief an abdication of reason, as I have yet to hear a rational argument that disproves the existence of a divine being.  

Next, while science provides better and better causal explanations by the day, I doubt any scientist would say that the riddle of human existence has been solved. The comprehensiveness of scientific reasoning does not require that God’s role in the world be any smaller.

Finally, Gillum exhibits a misunderstanding of the Christian faith when he inserts the line “deliver us from evil” from the Christian prayer, “Our Father.” When we as Christians ask God to deliver us from evil, we are asking to be delivered from the sins of this world, not from natural disasters. Christianity does not view the tsunami or cancer as an “evil.” We do not believe that Jesus Christ died to save us from our natural disasters and illnesses. That said, it is not inconsistent with Christianity to push towards an alleviation of human suffering. Improved meteorological and geological detection systems and cancer treatments or cures—great products of science—certainly have a place in the Christian worldview.

William Lavy

Trinity ’05