Maureen Dowd has a great editorial in the New York Times where she invites a priest friend to offer his take on a question which often comes up when we deal with adversity and tragedy. In short, he says he doesn't know the answer, but we can take solace in the comfort, love and support of others in trying times.

There is even more powerful stuff in the comments section after the article. I list some of the ones I found truly touching below. I am throwing this out here for general discussion. As one commentator noted, the priest didn't answer the central question and seemed not to know. How does this impact our belief systems? All comments welcome.

nytimes.com

By David Evans - Nevada:

" I have always been suspicious of the aphorism, "You are in our thoughts and prayers." I don't really believe people who utter such boilerplate expressions in the absence of anything better to say ... This priest chooses to be "silent" on this pivotal question. He concludes he does not know why evil exists, but that he is confident there are answers somewhere.. This is Sophistic thinking, pure and simple ....... We are here, at the far end of evolution, for but a short time, after the universe we know has been blazing away for 14.7 billion years or so. We will be replaced. It thus behooves us to live this singular life passionate purpose. Live, Live for what IS."

By Jean Nicolazzo - Providence RI

"When even the priests come to the realization that there are no answers from their god, maybe it's time to move on to the next phase of human enlightenment. There is no all powerful, all-knowing, merciful (or maybe vengeful, we can't seem to agree) capital "G" God. Tortured ruminations to explain evil in the presence of God, like Fr. Kevin's here, are just further proof that the god-myth is inadequate."

Billy - Brooklyn NY

"Even we atheists appreciate people like Father Kevin, who passionately bring love and comfort to so many.

We do not share his beliefs, but we recognize that beliefs such as his enable him to be that powerful and comforting. There is a place for logical people, but comforting others is unfortunately not that place. A person must fully believe in an afterlife, and the better angels of our nature, to be truly comforting.

Father Kevin is obviously one of those good people. We are better off for his presence. "

Eric - NY

"This is a touching article and touches on many things - most poignantly, the power of human presence and touch to provide comfort to those in distress. "

DavGregMarion - AR

"The reason religion has no real answer for why stuff like Newtown happened begs the question "is there a god at all"?

I have stood at Dachau, at Normandy, at Shiloh and other places where massive numbers of people died and the concept of a loving god does not fit there, either.

If there were such a god that was so concerned with the affairs of humans and was so concerned with justice, would the Trail of Tears, the Middle Passage or the Shoah have occurred? Would the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have had to die? Woud Matthew Shepard have been allowed to be tied to a fence because he was gay? "

As always, an answer can only be as good as the question, and a question is only as good as how it is framed.

When we describe God as an entity or a begin that lives in the heavens and that allows tragedies to happen, when asking "Why, God", the answers are hard to come by.

As longs a the question of God is one of belief (i.e. "I believe, so I don't need to provide any proof), there will always be an inherent contradiction that in some situations will lead to the shattering of the beliefs.

But what about if we describe God as the life energy that sustains all life? What about If we describe God as a feeling within us? And what about if we describe God as a source of pure love we can experience? Is the question still pertinent?

I first read the question "why god?" not as a question to god as to try to understand why he does things, but more as "why god?" more of a question about humanity. Why do humans cling to the belief in god? Why is it that humans need a concept of "god"?

In pre civilization times, god was used to explain forces of nature such as floods, famine, insects, etc.

As civilizations emerged, God became a force for civilizations, justifying wars, reinforcing a social code, etc.

As the world transitioned to an intellectual society, questions arose about God and science. As more natural phenomena are explained, the less God is needed to explain the physical world.

So I guess I would restate the question "why God" as "Why do we still need God?"

@ Jason - A line from your response above got me thinking :

"As more natural phenomena are explained, the less God is needed to explain the physical world"

What about supernatural phenomena? Here is the question that has plagued my mental discourse about the question of God - have we been able to explain away all phenomena which alludes to the existence of something beyond the physical? Can we argue simply that everything can be explained away in the physical world and we just haven't found the answers ? I think the mere possibility of the supernatural opens the door for the possibility of God. That is where the question for this post comes in - how can this God be so indifferent to the suffering of mankind ?

Over the past 500yrs the advancement of understanding of our universe has grown exponentially. While mysteries still remain, the trendline clearly points toward more discovery and less superstition.
The supposition that because mysteries still exist, then there must be a Sentient being in control, misses the point. If god controls the universe, then why are the laws of physics necessary? Do you posit that they are like an autopilot for god, freeing his power to focus on other things? If God is omnipotent, then why would he need an autopilot? why not simultaneously control everything?

The mere predictability of the laws of physics would point away from the hand of god. So we are left questioning the unpredictable. But I would posit that the unpredictable is an indicator of our lack of information, not an indicator of the presence of a supreme being.

I still think that the framing of the question is tripping us. If we define God as "someone", then asking the question "How can God be indifferent to the suffering of mankind"

But if we frame the question differently, we get a very different answer. Per Einstein: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

Or this jewel:

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. "

Oh, the Reason.

Einstein observed that when our relationship to the source of existence is fearful, we try to please or placate our gods. When the relationship is a projection of what we know from our family life, then the God or gods are like parents. If we follow the rules we will be rewarded and if we disobey the rules we will punished. However if we chose to discover and know the relationship between us and the source of life experientially, then we can discover the qualities of tranquility, joy, appreciation, and beauty.