I know you can't wait for me to dive into this project and get all jiggy with it already. Be patient. I'm a slow reader. Also, I've recently been diagnosed with a severe case of (to use the technical medical terminology) Dummynogginitis. You can see how this might impede things. So slow your roll. Don't crowd me now.
Last night I spoke to a small throng of theists in a sort of facilitated discussion type thing, wherein I presented some of the questions I've often posed to defenders of the faith. Given the recent turn of events, some of these questions don't hold quite as much sway for me now as they once did. Be advised: most of these pertain to Christianity, and sometimes specific forms of Christianity. If you are not a Christian, feel free to modify accordingly. Also, to avoid being labelled a sexist, I revert annoyingly back and forth, referring to God as both he and she. Perhaps even sometimes it.
And so, as a bit of
1. How do you deal with the so-called Problem of Evil? (Paraphrasing Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?") I prefer to call this the "problem of suffering," as I have issues with the metaphysical assumptions and connotations of the term "evil," but for the sake of familiarity, I'll continue to call it the Problem of Evil. (Just be aware of this in your answers; many Christians try to deal with this argument by attempting to dispel the notion of evil altogether, but that wouldn’t apply given the way I’ve phrased the Problem of Evil.) Also, despite the fact that the following analogy involves violence caused by human free will, I have in mind here both natural "evils" (hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, diseases, birth defects, etc.) and artificial "evils" (humans abusing free will–assuming that exists–to hurt, mangle, and kill other sentient beings), so mere human free will won’t get God off the hook. Here’s an analogy I like to use. Imagine I’m walking down the street and I happen upon a big, muscular man attempting to rape and kill a woman in an alley. Now, I’m a wimp and couldn’t possibly hope to be able to help the woman without getting us both killed. But imagine I’ve got a gun (or some other equalizer). While I don’t have to kill him (though if I had to, I think this could be justified), I can shoot him in the leg or wherever might incapacitate him and get the woman to safety. So, I know about the problem, I have the power to help out, and I’m (supposedly) a decent person, meaning I should want to help out. In every morally relevant way, I’m analogous to God in situations of extreme suffering/evil. If I didn’t take the necessary action to save the woman, what would you think of my moral character? It seems to me that, if she exists, God is in this sort of position every time a person suffers and/or dies unnecessarily, with no apparent meaning or purpose, with no apparent good coming of it. (Even if some good does come of it, can God not cause good without causing such immense suffering? And isn’t it wrong to use people only as means to an end?)
2. Why did God create Lucifer, knowing he would eventually become Satan and wreak such havoc on God's creation? (Side-note: Not to be insulting or offensive, but doesn't this–and several other aspects of the Biblical narrative–strike you as obviously mythical, obviously a fable, obviously the creation of mere humans rather than the melodramatic events of an actual supreme deity's life? Don't you think the fact that many of the Bible stories have pre-cursors in older cultures also indicates the human origins of the Bible rather than its divine origins?)
3. Will we have free will in heaven? (Well, not me, of course, as I'll be roasting for all eternity in hell; deservedly so, too, don't you think?) If there is free will in heaven, is it still true that there is no sin, no suffering, no wrong-doing in heaven? If it is possible to have free will in heaven while everyone freely chooses to do good, why didn't God create heaven on earth in the first place? A place where Adam and Eve were free to sin, but they didn't, as we are told will be the case in heaven? (Side-note: If there is no wrong-doing in heaven, how was Lucifer even able to rebel against God?)
That's all for now. More fun brain-scratchers to follow anon.
And that's the bottom line, because Revvy Pudge says so!
The first one bothers me, and it bothers my mom too (we talk about the problem of evil all the time), but I recently had a Christian explain it to me this way: God supposedly created paradise in Genesis, but we flubbed it up when Adam and Eve sinned and doomed us all for eternity. I have trouble with that story too--and I REALLY have trouble with the "original sin" concept, or babies being born with sin on their souls. Ridiculous! Babies are innocent when they emerge into this whacky world! As for the second two, I've never really thought about those. I do agree that it makes no sense for God to create something if he "knows" it'll suck (why waste the time??). Anyhoo, thanks for the deep thoughts over my morning coffee, Rev Pudge! :)
ReplyDeleteI don't see how (1) and (2) are logically distinct problems. The question why God created Satan is, in my view, very much the same as the question why God would create a world that contains humans who go wrong and thus create evil and suffering.
ReplyDeleteAre these questions based on the assumption that Christianity is true and the resulting context? My problem with questions such as the first one is it assumes there is such a thing as evil to begin with. Many of the things we might refer to as evil are actually necessary cogs in the machine of life.
ReplyDeleteDenise K,
ReplyDeletePlease be careful not to spill your hot coffee on the deep thoughts. That could be painful. And I don't want a lawsuit on my hands.
I'm glad the attempted solution to #1 isn't compelling for you. See #3 for some of my thoughts on this response. Furthermore, isn't it unfair to punish/doom(!) all of humanity for the sins of two hapless individuals? And myriad other objections to this line of reasoning.
Thanks for reading and commenting! 10-4 good buddy!
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your critique. You may very well be correct. However, before I completely concede like the craven coward that I am, allow me to offer a potential defense of the distinction(s) between the two questions.
While I definitely agree that the questions are closely related, #2 is a sort of preemptive strike against invoking Satan as the solution to the Problem of Evil. The first question already being so long, I felt it might be better to have a completely separate question to address the issue.
Also, if you take the Lucifer/Satan story seriously, it appears that he wreaks havoc far beyond merely this planet, this life, and this realm, whereas #1 was more closely focused on the incalculable suffering on this planet, or perhaps in this universe.
Finally, as you can see, I use the question of Lucifer/Satan as a jumping board to discuss a few other issues explored in the side-note of the question.
Hope this helps!
I really appreciate having people challenge my assertions and assumptions. It helps and it'll be necessary for me to get through this process!
Take care!
Adam,
ReplyDeleteLikewise, I appreciate your challenges as well!
I think I dealt (briefly and probably insufficiently) with the "evil doesn't exist" solution. I noted that I don't necessarily endorse the use of the term "evil," due to the metaphysical baggage that such a term often entails. This is why I prefer to call it the problem of suffering.
However, if people want to use the term "evil" I'm willing to do so as well, as long as it is understood in a naturalistic context, somewhat like what you suggest. (In such discussions, I prefer not to get bogged down in trivial disagreements over semantics.)
That said, I don't want to turn a blind eye to horrendous, gratuitous, seemingly pointless suffering and write it off as the "necessary cogs in the machine of life." Perhaps you don't have this sort of suffering in mind, but rather the necessities of knowingly subjecting ourselves (of our own volition) to some amount of suffering in order to bring about some greater good (the typical examples of going to the dentist, exercising, etc.) If this is all you mean, of course I agree.
But I wouldn't want to say that children born with painful diseases, animals burning alive in forest fires, and genocide are "necessary cogs in the machine of life." It seems to me that if we have the ability to stop such things (or remedy such things once they're instantiated) we ought to. (I know this opens up a new can of gummy worms, but that'll have to wait for a future post.)
Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to read and comment on the blog! Even if we disagree, it means a lot to me that people are willing to consider my silly thoughts on things!
Beers!
I'll take a stab at #3. First, not that I would be able to tell, but I don't think there's any logical problem here. It seems like more of just an good interesting/challenging question. This is what my brief research has found:
ReplyDeleteThis world is where we are undergoing our trial(s). That's why we don't already have heaven on Earth. Perhaps on this world we have the free will to sin but in heaven it's a bit different. In heaven, it's possible that people could sin but they have a "modified" free will being in the presence of the "all-good" God. This is the "unmediated presence of God" response that it looks like Paul Copan discusses and John Loftus criticizes on his blog here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/10/paul-copan-and-free-will-in-heaven.html
If you accept this account, then it makes sense that God didn't create a perfect Eden like you described. You need the "full free will" to be able to properly test your creations, but once a person is in heaven, it's acceptable for the rules to change a bit. It seems like to deny/remove the trials and tribulations part of Christianity would, well, make you not a Christian (or at least a very atypical one).
As to the bit about how Lucifer rebelled, it could be that Heaven was different before the creation of man. I imagine it could be more like what is described during the Garden of Eden story, the angels and Lucifer had full free will but not a perfectly unmediated connection to God.
I'm not entirely sure how this whole "partial free-will" thing really works out but these seem to be the best responses I can find right now.
Sources/People I'm probably plagiarizing from: Paul Copan, John Loftus, William Lane Craig
Bruce Smith...Did you used to play defense for the Buffalo Bills?
ReplyDeleteWhy you little angel's advocate! I'm sure you realize this is a big fat retreat to the possible, when I'm actually interested in what is (or is most plausibly) true, what's more probable, more likely. We can dream up all sorts of logical possibilities to try to rescue a particular theodicy, but such desperate retreats to the possible don't help us much in this regard.
Why would God need to test anyone? Isn't he/she/it all-knowing? Wouldn't God know in advance who would and wouldn't pass such tests and trials? This world of incalculable cruelty and suffering seems even more pointless and barbaric in the scenario you describe.
I am indeed a very atypical sort of Christian; the sort who doesn't believe in God and isn't a Christian. (Ba-dam-bam-kshh!)
I don't understand what you're saying about Lucifer. Perhaps you could clarify?
Chizz, mate!
It's mostly a logical defense and I'm not sure it need to be any more than that. Yes, it could be classified as a retreat to the possible, but keep in mind I'm only addressing #3 and not the others which deal more with the problem of evil. I think the need for plausibility differs depending on what issue you're dealing with. Of course the more plausible the better, but without all the facts, religious types can only speculate on this issue. It's like theoretical physics, the goal is to resolve as many paradoxes as you can. We don't have all the info yet, but for now the goal is to put forth an idea that works in the framework of whatever facts/evidence we have of Christianity. And given limited evidence for this specific question, this might be all that's possible. What kind of answer would you find plausible/satisfying?
DeleteAs to why God would need to test anybody, why not for their own good, not necessarily his/hers/its? Would winning a swim meet feel as good if you didn't have the memories and experience of training for it?
With the Lucifer bit, the idea is that Heaven changed that or the angels weren't in "true" Heaven. Their deal was similar to ours was during the whole Garden of Eden saga. We experienced God but we didn't have that unmediated connection which wouldn't allow us to sin. Likewise, Angels didn't live in the "perfect unmediated connection to God" Heaven. Hope that makes sense.
p.s.- I wasn't calling you a Christian, just anybody who took that stance :- P
Mr. Smith,
ReplyDeleteIn this context, #3 is inextricably linked to the problem of evil and theodicy, as many theists/Christians attempt to defend against the problem of evil with an appeal to free will. But if there is a possible world in which we could have free will and no suffering, then this defense doesn't work. And this is not a mere retreat to the possible, since Christians do posit such a world, namely heaven. So, my question remains: if it is possible to have free will in heaven without all the horrendous, gratuitous, pointless suffering, why not just skip to the chase and instantiate that world here and now (or, more appropriately, at the beginning of the universe or this particular world)? Such a world would be incorruptible to the deviant perversions of Adam and Eve and their abominable desire for knowledge. And fruit.
Regarding plausibility, possibility, and not having all the facts...You put this in an interesting way, and you might be right. However, with various branches of science, even the more theoretical aspects must be grounded in reality, plausibility, testability, and falsifiability, etc. While all the evidence might not be in (or even available for some time) for a particular subject, hypothesis, or theory, there is some evidence to go on. I'm not convinced that this is the case with regard to discussions of heaven. I'm not sure we have any of the "facts" about heaven, nor is it clear how to go about falsifying such a claim. And while speculation is a necessary aspect to theoretical sciences (it drives innovation, allows for falsifiable predictions, etc.), it seems that the retreat to the possible in religious discussion might be more of a defensive maneuver, an attempt to rescue one's belief from what seems so undesirable: having to relinquish the faith. I think the motivations for the two (theoretical science and the retreat to the possible in theological discussions) are significantly different.
This is getting too long. I'll cut it off for now and reply to some of your other statements in a bit.
Thanks homie!
-Lead Singer of a Poison Tribute Band
Monsieur Smith,
ReplyDeleteYou asked what kind of answer I would find plausible/satisfying. Here are a few plossibilities. (That's not a typo. I've coined a new term. Plausible possibilities. Plossibilities. Let's make it catch on!)
1. I'm not convinced we have free will now. Some form of compatibilism is most likely true, with a heavier dose of determinism than most people are likely to be willing to accept. So, the question might be a bit misguided from the get-go for one such as I.
2. Perhaps some attenuated form of theism might be more plausible and satisfying. One that doesn't posit heaven and hell. Perhaps one that doesn't anthropomorphize God with personal attributes. This (or perhaps some form or open theism or process theism or deism) probably offers better solutions to the problem of evil.
3. If pressed to offer a plausible scenario within some more specific Christian context, perhaps one could let go of the traditional description of heaven as a place of both free will and eternal bliss. Maybe we don't have free will in heaven. Or maybe it won't be eternally blissful.
4. What I find most plausible and satisfying is, of course, that atheism is true. Haha!
More again soon. I look forward to your pointing out my many mistakes here.
Thanks B-Dawg!
-Holy Prophet of Atheism
Monsignor Smith,
ReplyDeleteThere is something initially attractive about the notion that God tests us for our own good. However, I'm not quite convinced. Mostly because, if hell is as real as heaven, and if hell is as horrible as heaven is SUPREMO (mwah, kissy noise), then those who fail the test will suffer for all eternity. And an omniscient God would know this in advance.
Oh, and winning a swim meet wouldn't feel good to me no matter what. For one thing, I'm a vegan, so I don't eat meet. (Whew! I kill me with the laughing and the thing!) For another, if I were in a swim meet, I would automatically be a dork. And I am just too impossibly cool for that. So your scenario is wildly implausible on at least two counts.
I suppose your clarification of the Lucifer bit makes a little more sense. But it seems like more of the same desperate special pleading and retreating to more and more unlikely possibilities in order to salvage belief in God. This sounds just as made up as any other bizarre mythology I've ever read. It only has currency for us because we're inured to it.
I knew you weren't calling me a Christian, but I saw a chance to make a cheesy joke, and I took it. I will never let truth prevent me from making stupid jokes that only I find funny.
Always a pleasure to whip em out and measure em against the likes of you.
-Muffy Pudge