Viruses and the Anthropocentric Problem of Suffering

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has increased awareness of the threat viruses can pose and drawn attention to the different areas of suffering one can be affected by. In this article, I use viruses as a case study to explore the current theological approaches to human suffering. I propose that there is a subjective and anthropocentric perspective on suffering that causes difficulties in the debate, but that awareness of this perspective can allow us to see the enigma within the theological discussion of suffering in a fresh way. This perspective will enrich academic as well as pastoral conversations on the topic.

KEYWORDS:

• Virus
• suffering
• evil
• COVID-19
• coronavirus
• theodicy
• evolution

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In this article the author intentionally decided to use the first person plural at times, in acknowledgment of the fact that the author is – just as the reader – a part of humankind and cannot be excluded from communal statements that share an anthropocentric perspective.

2 The mortality of different viruses varies. Statistics can be found on the websites of the WHO, for example for the major influenza virus pandemics of the twentieth century (WHO n.d.). A summary of some of the main human pathogenic viruses was provided by (Harding 2020).

3 Even bacteria die through viral infections by bacteriophages with a lytic life cycle (Breitbart et al. 2018).

4 The need to find those responsible for the outbreak or severity of the pandemic can be seen in various headlines. Especially international relations. A few examples include (Judd 2020, Kraska 2020, Whipple 2021, BBC 2021, Briggs 2020, Maron 2020).

5 Other examples for viruses where infection can be linked to lifestyle choices are the human papilloma virus that cause cervix carcinoma and the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 that causes AIDS.

6 Pestilence understood as divine punishment is mentioned in many more instances, including Jeremiah 24: 10; Ezekiel 7:15; Jeremiah 14–16; Deuteronomy 32:24, Jeremiah 14:12; Jeremiah 29:17–18; Ezekiel 5:17; Jeremiah 16: 4. All NRSV.

7 One famous example is the introduction of rabbits to Australia in the nineteenth century. There they did not have natural predators, and this quickly led to overpopulation. Only the introduction of a rabbit specific virus reduced the rabbit population (NationalGeographic 2020).

8 In Polkinghorne’s “free-process defence” the genuine freedom of creation to develop was enabled by the self-emptying of God, called kenosis and based on Philippians 2:6–8.

9 The current coronavirus pandemic has shed light on how different circumstances, such as wealth, impact the effect of a pandemic and the amount of suffering (Oxfam 2021, Wheatley 2021). But this is, of course, not only true for pandemics, but also other threats, like the climate change (Goldenberg 2014).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Mirjam Schilling

Mirjam Schilling is a virologist and is doing a DPhil in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.