Suffering and Sacrifice in an Unfinished Universe: The Energy of Love

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This has the potential to be an interesting essay, addressing both suffering and the future of the human race and creation, and reviving Teilhard to the end. But in my view it needs to be ratcheted up at several points, and reordered, as follows....

1) I want to care about the paper's argument, but the structure of the piece works against that. Start with the problem. Get me concerned. A general exposition of contrasts between Teilhard and Augustinian theology regarding suffering and sin is not news. But your purpose seems to be to reach for a strand of theological tradition that helps speak to deficiencies in transhumanism. It is well along in the paper before transhumanism is really introduced, and what you think is troubling about it. Make me care at the outset; make me think there is something at stake, and know what it is. I would suggest posing the problem you see with transhumanism and then telling me who you are going to explore, AND WHY, to give a response to its inadequacy.

2) Relatedly, it is not entirely clear why you put the figures together that you do. Why is the Franciscan tradition exactly the best supplement to Teilhard? Why do Pannikar and Moltmann have cameos, but not someone like McFague or Keller?  Would it make more sense to work with the Franciscan tradition and then build Teilhard's modern concerns onto that framework? I am not saying your approach can't be done, but that you need to make more transparent to the reader why you are making the moves you are making. Otherwise the various thinkers just seem strung together with no cognizance of their particular contexts, and the essay rather breezy. 

3) On a more narrow point, a small matter but worth mentioning, one of Augustine's theodicies - there are at least three - actually has some resonance, in an ancient key to be sure, with Teilhard's preoccupation with evolutionary models. May be worth noting that you are focusing on the historically most forceful of Augustine's construal of suffering and sin....) 

4) Finally, most of the bibliography is pretty dated, leaving aside several that are classics. Seems to me an essay concerned with this topic must surely engage with something written in the last decade, especially around transhumanism and its inheritors. 

Author Response

Thank you for your helpful comments.  In light of them I revised the paper significantly and will upload the new version for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The author develops a clear argument that suffering is integral to both the evolutionary process and to the capacity to develop kenotic, empathic love. Suffering, the author concludes, is necessary for the realization of supremely important moral goods and for the emergence of a unified world. By doing so, the author makes a case for the congruence of evolutionary theory and certain strands of theology. The use of de Chardin and even more powerfully the explication of the Franciscan tradition is very illuminating.

However, the argument has some lacunae and areas of vagueness. First, it seems to identify the doctrine of original sin with the notion of biological transmission and monogenism. While that has often been the case, from the mediating theologians of the nineteenth century through Kierkegaard and Reinhold Niebuhr such an identification of original sin with biological transmission has been rejected. Either the author needs to deal with these other understandings of original sin, or qualify the assertions to make it clear that only ONE version of the doctrine is the problem.

I'm not sure that the author has avoided the problem of the "naturalization of evil." Because suffering seems to be (in the essay) necessary for growth and for the development of solidarity and self-giving love, it seems that suffering is necessary for the cosmos. Is the author differentiating "suffering" and "evil"? If so, the difference must be clarified.

Most of the time, the author quotes theologians who affirm the logically prior transcendence of God beyond the evolutionary process. In these cases the significance of relationality in the evolving cosmos is seen as the externalization of the relatonality within the Trinity. But at other times, when quoting de Chardin, it sounds like "God emerges from the depths of matter," which does not suggest a prior divine transcendence. The author should clarify the connections between these themes.

The author, I hope, can briefly address these concerns. It will be a fine paper, making a significant and timely argument.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  They were very helpful.  In light of your suggestions, I changed the paper significantly. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper adds valuable content to the scholarly work in this area. I would recommend the following enhancements:

1. Expand the introduction to include more clarification on the objective of the paper and the road map. Explain the transhumanist ideals.
2. More discussion on lines 80 - 83.
3. Elaborate on line 104 - how did you reach this point? What references can you give to support your idea?
4. Expand on lines 186 - 188. Here you can develop Irenaeus's ideas on "soul-making". You can also reference John Hick's work. 
5. Include a reference to modern psychology to substantiate line 290. 

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  In light of the comments received, I changed the paper significantly.  Please find the new version attached. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Significantly improved. Ready to go in my opinion.