Natural disasters present a significant challenge to engaged theology, particularly following the decline of traditional explanations that relied on the model of divine punishment. The ongoing occurrence of such catastrophes has become a scandal and is frequently used as a critique of divine providence and goodness. In response, theology has moved beyond earlier models to develop more nuanced answers, drawing on alternative frameworks that offer greater flexibility and depth, after considering merits and flaws of available theodicies. This article reviews contemporary theological approaches to the problem of natural disasters and explores new opportunities provided by research on the function of religion, religious coping mechanisms, and the processes of belief.
When religion and science lose their cultural significance, efficacy or attractivity in explaining the tragedy of natural disasters, an alternative proposal arises, that of conspiracy theories. This article seeks to interpret the contemporary popularity of conspiracy thinking as a kind of alternative theodicy and a serious challenge for Christian theology. For this purpose, the article presents an overview of current discussions regarding the relation between religion and conspiracy theories, with particular emphasis on the theological dimension of the problem. An examination of affinities and differences between science, religious explanation and conspiracy mentality helps to better understand the roots and main features of conspiracism in the contemporary world. It also allows us to revisit an old accusation that finds traditional religion culpable of susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking. This view can be contrasted with another perspectives which links the culture of conspiracy with new and esoteric spiritual movements or with modern rationalism or postmodern culture of suspicion. All these considerations show the limitations of simplified dialectics of religion and rationality and highlight some essential characteristics of a theological reflection on natural disasters and theodicy. The issues discussed bring up some ideas regarding the credibility of Christianity and point to the possible contribution of theology in the current discussion on conspiracism.
This paper revisits our understanding of natural evil and its related defences in the light of relatively new evidence in Complex Systems Science and Science and Technology Studies.Complex Systems Science shows unpredictability is a necessary feature of a universe open to innovation and the emergence of life and consciousness. This casts the Free Process, Natural Order, and Process Defences in a fresh light: God created a truly free cosmos, governed by dependable laws that, however, foster novelty and growth, and natural evil is a necessary by‑product of a living, adaptive creation.In addition, overcoming natural evil has been the key force in developing Science and Technology. Understanding this strengthens the Better Goods and Soul-making Defences by showing that hardship fuels our drive for insight and creating supportive communities.These insights present evil not as a punishment or an anomaly but as an intrinsic component of a dynamic creation that invites both divine freedom and human responsibility.
Regarding animal suffering —a theological problem that relatively recent developments intensify—, I propose two points. (1) For human holiness to be able to emerge, we humans must possess a double inheritance. On the one hand, in our immediate evolutionary past we acquired two immensely adaptive capacities –firstly, the ability to grasp others’ mental contents, and, later, the self-directed speech, which enhances the self-control that had previously emerged at protecting and improving one’s own reputation, i.e., one’s own social interests. On the other hand, we inherit from an enormously long evolutionary process the pleasure–pain pair. This pair, which serves as a guide for behavior, is essential for both animals and humans; yet at times it obscures the knowledge that we, unlike non-human animals, possess of another person’s mental contents. Thus, a conflict arises between pursuing my physical and social interests, prompted by my pleasure/pain, or, by contrast, recognizing that the needs of another person are also important. Consequently, since this conflict makes human holiness possible, we can say that the progressive evolution of animal suffering was one of the causes that made human holiness possible. (2) The horrendous nature of human suffering need not be attributed to the suffering of animals. In moments of pain or danger, animals focus solely on the immediate future as framed by their goal of escaping. This is the only adaptive animal behavior in such situations. By contrast, humans additionally deploy their capacity to evoke past experiences, non-immediate futures, or even states they have already realized are impossible to attain, all of which can at times be useful in the attempt to creatively find a way to escape, but, when they are not, greatly amplify pain.
La pasión y muerte de Jesucristo constituyen un acontecimiento central de la fe cristiana y, al mismo tiempo, un hecho histórico susceptible de análisis médico y forense. El presente artículo propone una lectura integrada que articula la fisiopatología del sufrimiento extremo, la medicina forense de la crucifixión romana y la reflexión teológica, tomando como eje hermenéutico el Evangelio de Juan. A partir del análisis de la flagelación, la crucifixión y la herida del costado, se examinan los principales mecanismos fisiopatológicos implicados en la muerte de Jesús: shock hipovolémico, insuficiencia respiratoria, colapso metabólico, lesión pulmonar y posible cardiopatía de estrés inducida por una descarga catecolaminérgica extrema. Estos datos se ponen en diálogo con la literatura médico-forense contemporánea y con los hallazgos procedentes del estudio de la Síndone de Turín y del Sudario de Oviedo, cuya coherencia con los relatos evangélicos ha sido ampliamente discutida en el ámbito científico. Finalmente, el trabajo ofrece una reflexión teológica y antropológica sobre el sufrimiento corporal de Cristo, mostrando cómo la vulnerabilidad extrema del cuerpo crucificado no es un mero dato biológico, sino el lugar teológico donde se revela el sentido redentor del sufrimiento humano. De este modo, el artículo pretende contribuir al diálogo entre ciencia y fe, mostrando la fecundidad de una aproximación interdisciplinar rigurosa y respetuosa de los distintos niveles de conocimiento.
