Introduction
A central question for many Christians is "how can I resist evil?" Often, such a question gets answered with a passage from Scripture such as this one, from Paul's letter to the Ephesians:
"Put on the armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." -- Eph 6: 11-12
Such passages are all too frequently taken at literal face-value, and the result is one of the most common conceptions of "good vs. evil" in popular theology: the explanation of suffering and "evil" in the world as being the result of a great spiritual war between the forces of Light and the forces of Darkness, with each "side" led by a personal, anthropomorphic being. Granted, most Christians are careful to avoid the heresy of dualism by further explaining that the leader of the forces of Darkness, the Devil, is not equal-and-opposite to God, that all things at least started out as part of God's creation. But even so, this explanation is dissatisfying, at best.
Such an "us vs. them" theology is problematic on several levels. To begin with, it is far too simplistic to give us any real understanding of why things happen the way they do in our lives and in our world. Moreover, it focuses our personal struggles against evil on outside agents, rather than on our true, inner selves. And most importantly, it creates the classic dilemma of western philosophy -- the so-called "problem of evil": if God is both all-powerful and all good, why does (or better, how can) He allow evil to continue to exist in His creation?
Obviously, one of those points must give if we are to construct a coherent, consistent, and tenable position. Thus, some folks conclude that God cannot be all-powerful, if evil exists in God's creation; others deduce that God must not be all good (at least not according to our human understanding of the concept of "good"). Few people seem to question the third point, however -- the notion that there is in fact evil in this world, marring God's creation.
But if we are to examine this apparent conundrum from a Christian perspective, we must first look to those basic elements which define our spiritual lives as Christians, and first among those essential elements is our relationship with God through Christ Jesus.
On the nature and purpose of our relationship with God
What kind of God would create a Hitler? Or an Osama bin Laden? Or a Jeffery Dahmer? Do we limit God's omnipotence and say that, since He gives us free will, He is utterly powerless to prevent the evil some of us choose to do? Or do we modify our understanding of God and say that perhaps He isn't entirely benign? Both of those options are theologically repugnant. There has to be some way of reconciling our experiences within God's creation, including all the suffering we see around us, with our understanding of God as almighty and perfect in His love for us.
Perhaps what we need is a better way to frame the discussion. As I mentioned above, the essence of the Christian faith is the covenant relationship between God and us, His children. We are called into that relationship, and whenever we stray from it (which is a good way to understand "sin"), we are called to return to it. And we are given to know that God will always welcome us, as the father welcomes the prodigal son returned home. In fact, one of the best ways to picture our relationship with God is in terms of family: God is the parent, and we are all His children.
Now, would a good parent ever wish for his or her child to suffer? Absolutely not, by definition. On the other hand, though, would that good parent want for his or her child to remain a child forever? Isn't it the parent's purpose, the parent's very reason for being, to help the child grow and mature into the fullness of adulthood? Of course it is. It is the relationship with his or her parents which guides the child through the life experiences which eventually transform that child into an adult. And a good parent wants his or her child to have those experiences, and for that reason--so the child will have the opportunity to learn and grow and develop into a wise and capable adult.
Likewise, living in relationship with God is inherently transformative, as that relationship guides and shapes our understanding of, and our reactions and responses to, the inevitable life experiences we all face in this world. Being in relationship with God does not allow us to remain static and unchanging. On the contrary, it requires -- demands -- that we learn from each experience, whether positive or negative, whether pleasurable or painful, demands that we constantly examine and reevaluate ourselves, our souls, and that we make continuous adjustments in order to live more fully and completely into that relationship with Him. God is always teaching, and in relationship with Him, we are always learning.
Unfortunately, some lessons can only be learned the hard way, through difficult and sometimes painful personal experiences. Consider the hypothetical example of a teenager who gets arrested for shoplifting. The teen's parent has, of course, instructed this child many times over that stealing is wrong. We may assume that the parent has attempted every possible method of conveying the lesson of "thou shalt not steal" to the child. But the child has chosen to steal anyway. Now that act, that choice, cannot stop the parent from loving the child; moreover, as previously mentioned, no truly devoted parent would wish his or her child to suffer, even if the child has been disobedient. But perhaps this parent decides not to bail the child out of jail until the following morning. From the child's point of view, such a decision would be perceived as a punishment -- being forced to pay a penalty for disobeying an order. But from the parent's perspective, we can see that this is likely a necessary experience for this child to have, since the child still (apparently) has not learned that stealing is wrong and ought to be avoided. The parent feels a need to protect the child from suffering (after all, this is a good parent), and will never let the child come to true harm. (God never gives us more than we can handle, even when we're convinced that we can't handle it.) But the need to help the child grow morally and ethically and spiritually is greater, sometimes, than the need to protect the child from all suffering.
So it is in the world of God's creation. Our Lord is not some Divine Punisher who exists solely to enforce some abstract and esoteric penal code upon us and to exact penalties whenever we break an arbitrary rule. Our Lord is rather our loving, nurturing spiritual parent, who loves us so much that He is willing to suffer with us, to ensure that we learn and grow and mature into the fullness of what He made us to become, rather than rob us of the wisdom which can come from difficult experiences by shielding us from all that we perceive as suffering.
All of humanity is God's child, and there are lessons we must learn as a race, as a species, if humanity is ever to outgrow its infancy. One of the most important is that we are all One, regardless of race or ethnicity. At the time when Hitler came to power in Europe, it was actually quite common for many people, including political leaders, to think in racial, racist terms. Different ethnic groups were presumed to have distinct and (biologically) inherent natures, virtues, and flaws. Hitler took that philosophy to an obscene extreme and applied it as the justification for state-conducted, systematic genocide. In time, and indeed we must admit it took way too long, the world, confronted at last with the atrocities to which such a philosophy (taken to its extreme conclusion) led, reacted decisively against such madness, finally and correctly labeling it as "evil."
Does that mean that we must acknowledge Hitler as a good and noble soul? Of course not! But it does underscore the oft-overlooked fact that there is nothing which is outside of God. The entire world learned an indispensible lesson at the bloody hands of Hitler, and though there was much, much suffering, our humanity is a little older and a little wiser for it. It grieves me to a profound depth to consider that we had (and still have) so many chances, so many opportunities, to learn such lessons peacefully, without strife, without bloodshed, yet so often we ignore those opportunities, preferring instead the harsh road of suffering and pain -- for we will learn the things we are here to learn ... if not the easy way, then the hard way.
Taken as a complete whole, God's entire creation is indeed good and beautiful. There is a Greater Plan for us at work within and behind this beautiful creation, a Plan whose purpose is the development, the evolution, if you will, of our very souls. If we see what seems (to us) like ugliness in God's world, it is rather like discovering an apparent contradiction in Scripture: it does not invalidate the goodness of the whole; rather, it calls us to look deeper, beneath the surface appearance of things, to see the true beauty of God's work and the true Wisdom in His teachings.
That is not to suggest that suffering is not "real"; it certainly is. To the contrary, it is to suggest that suffering, pain, loss, violence, conflict ~ anything which we would call "evil" or "sin" and rightly condemn as wrong ~ stand not as evidence that God is absent from creation, but as evidence that, from our human perspective, creation is still in progress. The great work is still, for us, unfolding, often in ways that seem confusing, frightening, painful, even pointless at times, and our confusion, our fear, our pain, and all too often our despair are very real. As people of faith, we are called to see these apsects of this world as opportunities for God to manifest in the world through us, for our hands to become the healing hands of Christ reaching out to those who hurt, suffer, fear, and despair.
The good news is that, from the perspective of Heaven, the great wonder of creation is complete: God spoke, and we know how the story ends, with God's pronouncement that "it is good." May God grant us the grace and courage to grow into the full measure of spiritual life for which He made us, that we, too, may see the full glory of His work.
Peace,
Chris
P.S. Tune in next time for reflections on the concept of a personal "devil" ...
How can a moral god be satisfied with his creation when even I can think of much more moral and efficient ways of doing so while still teaching my children valuable lessons? This sounds an awful lot like special pleading to me. No moral person in their right mind would consider a father moral and good for allowing, condoning, or even causing some of his children to suffer torture, torment, and brutal deaths just to teach them all a lesson. This can't even be said for a pet owner and his pets, let alone human beings. I would also find those that make excuses for such a father(or pet owner) to be morally reprehensible themselves. Especially if they appeal to just not fully understanding the entire plan of the father.
ReplyDeleteAre you not claiming a priori omniscience when you claim that you can think of "much more moral and efficient ways" to teach all the lessons that God has to teach?
ReplyDeleteEven if you don't believe yourself to be claiming such omniscience, on a universal scale, how would you do things differently? If you were a god, what would your universe be like? Would there be human beings in it? What would be their nature? How would you set things up, and having set them up, what would you choose as your role? What would your goals be?
At the very least, you must sketch out some general answers to those questions before you can claim the ability to do better than the current system.
Don't mistake the metaphor (in this case the metaphor of parent/child relationship) for the thing which the metaphor is designed to help us understand.
There is no special pleading going on here ~ no omission of key evidence and no slanting of facts. Simply a figure of speech which may be more or less useful to us as we discuss rather abstract cosmic truths.
So again, if you'd like to take the discussion further, please consider your answers to the questions I just raised: were you a god, what would your creation be like? If there would be something equivalent to human beings in that creation, what would your goals for them be? And how would you got about achieving those goals?
Thanks!
C
I'm not claiming a priori omniscience, nor do I have to. Do you have to provide a short proof of Goldbach's Theorem before being able to tell me that 10 times 10 is not 5,432?
ReplyDeleteIf I were god and decided to create a universe with sentient beings in it, of which I want a relationship with (we already run into problems there if you ask me), I certainly wouldn't create it in such a fashion that it seems exactly the type of universe needed if I didn't exist :) .
I can imagine many different kinds of universes. For starters, one that wasn't tuned precisely to be a super efficient black hole generator. One that wasn't comprised of a 99.99999% uninhabitable, radioactive vacuum. Maybe I'd put a system into place where moral behavior had a direct correlation to your overall health and wellbeing, while immoral behavior caused the opposite. That would be something you could never see in a godless universe. I certainly wouldn't want my existence to go unnoticed or misinterpreted by at least 90% of the people in it. I'd be clear about what I wanted or expected of them.
This brings up a very interesting question. What would a god created universe look like compared to a universe that came into being by natural means. What could we expect to see in each scenario? What do we see in ours?
Very interesting questions.
Thanks for the response, and my apologies for not replying to it sooner.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I find it interesting that so much of your answer to my question about how you would design a universe involves negation: you wouldn't do it this way, or you wouldn't have it that way. I'm more interested in what you *would* do, what it *would* be like, than what it wouldn't.
Can you go into the positive aspect of your answer a bit more? You offer one "maybe," and you say definitively that you'd "be clear" about what you (as god) "wanted or expected" of your sentient creations. Care to elaborate about how, exactly, you'd achieve that goal?
Thanks!
Chris
I can certainly give some ideas of what I might expect from a universe that was indeed created by the christian god. I can also use my imagination and come up with more efficient universes to accomplish what the christian god would typically be agreed upon to want. We can do that. But I don't see how that's really relevant to what we were discussing. Are you implying that I must come up with a better universe than god according to you, or god wins by default? Or that I must imagine a better universe than god according to you before I can criticize him for allowing/condoning unspeakable brutality? The latter of course predicated upon my conceding that god exists in the first place for the sake of argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd are you trying to tell me that you couldn't think up a better way for an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent god to be more clear about his message that he supposedly wants to get across to us than inspiring a small number of people in a simple, primitive, and mostly illiterate area of the world to pass along oral traditions for generations until they are finally written down and translated and copied and added to for centuries? On paper? We could also add visions and miracles that have never been demonstrated to be reliable in any way over the millennia. Would you chose to use the same methods as conjurers and pseudoscience practitioners? Hell,...even just giving all the people who claim to talk to him the same exact message would even be a good start.
But, we can play this game if you want. I'll need some more specific criteria, though. I don't know many christians who would even consider you a christian, so I'm not exactly sure what qualities this god should start with. Does he have a message for humanity? What is it? What else does he want from us?
Or are you asking me to go into this with a clean slate and rough definition of god so I can tell you what I would want and do? If so, we have a problem. Many problems actually. One of which is that I can't understand how a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, sum of all things god would even want anything at all. This can go in many different directions. I just want to make sure we're on the same plane before taking off. :)
Well, before we really take off, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out a couple of basic facts:
ReplyDeleteFirst, although a post about the classic “question of evil” can hardly avoid touching on questions about the very existence of God, the purpose of _Spiritual Travel Notes_ overall is *not* to convince people to believe in God. This blog is intended first and foremost as a forum for folks who are already at least in some way spiritually inclined.
Moreover, since I myself am Christian, this blog is written primarily from a Christian perspective. While it is humorous that your first-hand experience with other Christians is so limited that you “don’t know many christians[sic] who would even consider [me] a christian[sic],” all that really indicates is that your knowledge of the breadth and depth of Christian perspectives on theology is perhaps a bit lacking, since I haven’t posted anything in this blog that hasn’t been espoused in some form or another previously in the history of Christian thought.
Third, if you want to continue this particular line of commentary, you’re going to have to drop the false notion (which you have repeated twice, now) that the authors of the biblical texts were “simple, primitive, and mostly illiterate” just because the area of the world in which those texts were created might at different times have been described in those terms. For one thing, the cultures that created those texts were neither primitive, nor simple, nor were they illiterate (either literally or culturally/theologically) for most of their history. For another, the sages who composed the written texts that became Judeo-Christian Scripture were clearly “above average” in their respective societies. So let the whole “myth” of the “primitive, shepherding simpleton” go, man – such inaccuracies are, well, beneath you.
(cont'd)
Cont'd:
DeleteLastly, to address this particular comment, yes, I am trying to tell you that I could not think up a better way for an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God to be clearer about his/her/its message than by creating the reality we observe and have observed around us throughout human history. I’m also telling you that you cannot think up a better way. That is indeed why I invited you to try – and in these two exchanges so far, you’ve found it difficult even to begin that conversation. You started out by saying everything you wouldn’t do, instead of what you would do. Now you’re asking for rules and criteria, which I gave you when I initially asked the question.
You’re taking issue with the fact that different people have had different experiences of God. That’s a ridiculous complaint, given that different people are, um, different. What would you expect? You and I wouldn’t even experience a movie or a meal the same way; how much less should we expect to experience the numinous the same way?
You also take issue with the fact that sacred scriptures have been and still can be interpreted in different ways. In a later blog post, I’ll be explaining that it is precisely that quality of requiring interpretation that makes a spiritual text *useful* at all, that makes it “sacred.”
As for your ludicrous notion that visions and miracles aren’t “reliable,” well, that’s exactly what your objection is: ludicrous. You use “reliable” when you mean “unrepeatable.” Let’s be more precise. Just because something cannot be repeated, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Also, please refer back to the bit about different people being different and experiencing the same stimuli (and interpreting them) differently. That’s inseparable from our nature as human beings.
Point being, it’s not really a game; it is, rather, just the way it is. The only way it could be.
So, to recap: the purpose of this blog isn’t to create belief within the unbeliever. As I’ve said before, if you’ve never experienced anything to convince you God is real, then you *shouldn’t* believe! But if you have had such experiences, and the attempt to make sense out of them has led you to some profound spiritual questions, this blog is meant to be a safe, inviting place to begin conversations and encourage each other in the search for understanding. Dig?
Peace,
C
I don't have limited experiences with christians. I'm just acknowledging that you are in quite the minority within christianity whether you want to admit it or not. So, I need some clarifications from you sometimes before proceeding with a particular discussion if I'm to prevent misrepresenting you. The fact is, that you are unrecognizable as a christian to most christians. I didn't imply that as a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI never said the authors of the bible were illiterate. How would that even make any sense? They'd have to be literate to write it. The new testament was written in greek by highly educated scribes. What I said was that none of those stories couldn't have come from a typical shepherd living at that time. And yes, they were primitive.
"...it is precisely that quality of requiring interpretation that makes a spiritual text *useful* at all, that makes it “sacred.”
No. That is precisely what makes something unreliable. And coincidentally plays right into everyone's confirmation biases. If a line of reasoning leads to multiple conclusions, many of which are mutually exclusive, then that line of reasoning is faulty and unreliable. Nazi propaganda could be considered "sacred" in that case, and one could easily argue for it being god's word using your relativistic approach.
"I am trying to tell you that I could not think up a better way for an omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent God to be clearer about his/her/its message than by creating the reality we observe and have observed around us throughout human history. I’m also telling you that you cannot think up a better way"
So, it's an argument from ignorance then? I'm sorry, but logical fallacies are not great pathways to truth. Yet you keep insisting that they are not logical fallacies and they are the only pathway to find your spiritual truth. This shouldn't be convincing to anyone interested in reality. "I can't think of a better way and neither can you, therefore ____". The only suitable word or phrase for that blank space is "nothing". I can imagine better ways. But I have a feeling you will not accept any of them because of your presuppositions. In which case, it would be pointless.
Ok. So you claim that my notion of visions and miracles being unreliable is "ludicrous". Putting aside for a moment that those are KNOWN unreliable pathways to truth for countless reasons, lead to mutually exclusive results, and also happen to be a breeding ground for charlatans, pseudoscience practitioners, and conjurers. I'd love a demonstration as to the reliability. :)
An omniscient, omnipotent god using that as his prefered method of communication is laughable. He'd have better results with courier pigeons. At least then we wouldn't have to sift through billions of interpretations and those who are delusional.
As to your last paragraph, are you saying that you only want replies from people who have had these experiences and already buy into what you're going to say? If so, I'm gone and I apologize for wasting your time. But I specifically asked if you wanted me to post here. You knew very well that I would probably be challenging you on much of what you had to say. I'd have thought you would be ready and willing to defend your reasons. Those with good ones usually are.
Relax, my friend. No need to resort to thinly veiled insults. I did indeed welcome you to post here, and you remain welcome to do so. However, you cannot be surprised if I -- or any other blogger -- were draw a line at letting any one participant pull a blog off-topic, now, can you? So challenge away, but stay on topic. If you want to get into all the reasons that you, personally, refuse to believe that God exists, that's cool -- have your say (which I have both invited and allowed you to do). But understand that the purpose of this blog is not to prove to you or anyone else that God exists, and therefore such a personal statement of why you choose not to believe is, by definition, off topic ... and don't mistake such an off topic comment for a "challenge" to the line of reasoning I've posted.
ReplyDeleteYou have already posted some excellent challenges and counterpoints to my initial thesis regarding the so-called problem of evil, and I have answered them all. This "why should I believe God exists?" and "why should I call the Bible sacred?" stuff is off topic and a non-issue in terms of challenging my assertion.
Lastly, your experience with Christians must be limited, whether you realize it or not, because there are many -- many -- who are exactly like me. I'm nothing special, man. There may be plenty of fundamentalist literalists who wouldn't call me Christian, but most of the many, many Christians I know have serious doubts about the "Christianity" of those fundy literalists. :-)
P.S. I'm not going to play silly-buggars with you as you equivocate to get out of repeatedly dismissing the Bible as the product of primitive pastoral storytellers. Backpedal if you wish; your implications are clear, and they are historically inaccurate (i.e., flat wrong). You don't want to accept that, fine, but don't expect me to let it slide. You're sharp enough to be held to a higher standard.
Peace,
C
I think you might be reading into things I've said a bit too much. I didn't insult you. I wouldn't have a problem just doing it, if I wanted to. And would you please stop projecting onto me? I have never said that I refuse to believe that god exists, nor did I state that I have reasons for doing so. Not accepting something because of insufficient evidence is NOT refusing to believe something. I don't even know why you brought that up.
ReplyDeleteYou might see it as drifting off topic, but the points I addressed were brought up by you. If I take issue with a particular piece of "evidence" that you're using to make a point, wouldn't it best serve the discussion to address that first? I take issue with the very foundation that you're building to respond to the problem of evil. No argument or point I was making centered on you convincing me that god exists. I don't know where you got that from.
Your answer to the problem of evil boils down to special pleading and the argument from ignorance. Thinking actions by god as good or moral while those same actions performed by humans to be immoral, is special pleading. Even if you try and use the excuse that we can't fully understand god and his plan. Not only is it a copout, but it also brings about the problem of how you're able to understand anything about him at all. And, "I can't think of a better way and neither can you, therefore ___") is the argument from ignorance. These are not convincing as solutions to the problem of evil.
This isn't off topic. These are counterpoints to your very responses to the problem of evil. And you didn't address them. Anything else you want to read into is your business.
I never said you were the only christian I've ever met with your beliefs. Why do you keep reaching like this? I said most christians would not consider you a christian in the same sense. Your type is a rarity. Most would agree when you get more clear about just what it is you believe. That doesn't mean the christians I'm talking about must be fundamentalists. And it certainly doesn't mean I've never run into someone with similar beliefs as you.
P.S. I didn't backpedal on anything. You really seem like you're reaching again. I will gladly discuss the bible and its history with you anytime you'd like. :)
My apologies. Perhaps you didn’t intend the final comment of your previous post (“I'd have thought you would be ready and willing to defend your reasons. Those with good ones usually are”) to be as snarky as I read it to be. If I misunderstood, I ask your forgiveness. I’m in the midst of grading last minute papers and final exams, so it’s quite possible that I wasn’t in the most positive frame of mind when I responded to your post. Let me attempt to respond to your current post as openly and constructively as I can, to try to make amends.
ReplyDeleteI brought up your lack of belief because you stated in your replies to my more recent blog post about science, superstition, and Christianity, that you didn’t see any reason to believe God exists, nor any reason to consider any writing sacred. Obviously, that viewpoint is going to inform your approach to the so-called problem of evil. Was I out of line to consider points you raised in that other discussion in this conversation? If so, again, I must apologize … though it is difficult for me to see the intellectual value in such artificial separation.
Here’s why I thought it relevant: if one does not believe that God (or a god, or gods) exist(s), then there is no “problem” of evil; whatever seems to be cruel or capricious about the cosmos, that’s just the way it is. On the other hand, if someone has experienced directly the reality of God as loving, powerful, and benevolent, then that person (if he or she is a thoughtful, rational person) must at some point address the challenge of reconciling his or her first-hand knowledge of God with the “reality” of our everyday perceptions and experiences of existence, which frequently does appear to be random, cruel, capricious … in a word, evil.
There have been rare occasions in my life, no more than a handful of moments, profound though they have been, in which I have had such direct experiences of God. As a result, I know that God exists, and I have a deeply intuitive and undeniable sense of God’s power and benevolence. That knowledge precludes for me the possibility that God doesn’t exist, or that God is cruel and capricious or uncaring. Thus, I have no choice but to apply my capacity for reason, to the best of my ability, to reconcile the existence of what I perceive to be evil with what I know to be true of God.
If you or anyone else has not had such experiences of divine presence, power, and compassion, then it would be preposterous for you to presume a loving and benevolent god exists, in light of all the things we can point to in our world as examples of pain, suffering, horror, atrocity. Such a person would have to conclude, I think, either that there is no god, or that whatever god might exist must be a monster. Perhaps that is the point you were essentially trying to make here? Well and good ~ you are welcome to make that point.
Maybe you’re interested to see how someone who has had such spiritual experiences as would require that he or she accept the existence of a loving, powerful, benevolent God deals with the existence of what appears to be evil in our world? Then you are also welcome to engage in that conversation. But bear in mind that to engage in that conversation will require you to suspend your disbelief for the sake of conversation, since this blog is (as I mentioned before) not about convincing anyone to believe in God. That’s why I brought up the question of God’s existence.
(cont'd)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteContinued:
ReplyDeleteOn that same topic, let me also repeat something that I’ve suggested to you in previous conversations: I am well aware of and fully acknowledge the fact that my own personal experiences of the reality of God are not in any way sufficient cause or reason for anyone other than me to believe that God is real. I have never even hinted that you or anyone else should take my word for it. However, given that I am neither insane nor delusional and that the experiences in question cannot be explained away by any other rational means (and I have tried), I have no choice but to accept them and adjust my understanding of reality accordingly. Nor am I unique in that; indeed, I know many, many folks who describe very similar experiences – and again, it is primarily for those folks that this blog is intended, as a forum for the reasoned examination of our spiritual lives and journeys.
Now, let me respond directly to this current comment of yours. My argument does not, in fact, boil down to special pleading. If you really wanted to critique my thesis here, the best and smartest route for you to take would have been to condemn my argument as an example of situational ethics, to say that I’m implying there is no such thing as absolute good or absolute evil. That is a valid criticism of my argument. It is not special pleading because I’m not letting God off the hook for actions for which I would never forgive a human being. I am, on the other hand, saying that whether an action ought to be considered “good” or “evil” depends greatly (if not entirely) upon the context of that action – and that applies to God and man equally.
As for your allegation that I’m arguing from ignorance, well, that’s poppycock too, though I admit you did manage to irk me into a poor choice of words. :) When I said “I can’t think of a better way and neither can you,” that was in response to your apparent inability to describe a better system (you were only able to articulate what it wouldn’t be, not what it would be). For my part, though, I was not throwing up my hands and saying “welp, this is ‘good’ because it’s the best we’ve got”; it really is, in my estimation, a perfect system. Of course, that statement is predicated on an understanding of what the goal of the system is – which is why I asked you what your goals would be, if you were “god.”
So again, these are not counterpoints to my thesis; these are misunderstandings that arise out of initial assumptions you make about reality before you come to the table, assumptions which differ from the ones I make. If you want to critique my reasoning, you must begin with the same set of postulates, the same set of givens. If you take issue with the givens, that’s your prerogative, and again you’re welcome to state that and have your say – but don’t mistake your disagreement with the underlying assumptions for valid criticisms of the reasoning that proceeds from those assumptions. Those are two very different things.
And once more, if I am out of line in treating all of these comments and responses as part of one overall conversation, let me know … and accept my apologies. Since we’re dealing with complete worldviews here (yours and mine), to me it makes sense to make such connections between topics, but if you prefer to keep each thread separate, that’s fine, too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePt. 1: No need to apologize. Although you could have just as easily taken that statement to imply that I think you would be ready to defend your reasons because you might have good ones. :)
DeleteI didn't really bring up my lack of belief in god here. I've been trying to be direct with my responses and questions. We're talking about a specific argument here. The Problem of Evil, and by association The Argument from Evil. That deals with the reconciliation of the existence of evil and a god who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Although, since the very argument is for the nonexistence of that particular god, one shouldn't be surprised if it did come up. After all, isn't your blog post addressing this problem of evil/argument from evil? Forgive me if I misunderstood. As for the cross post conversations, I think it best to address each individual argument as separate. After all, they are separate.
Whether or not I believe in god, or unicorns for that matter, has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of my arguments or counterarguments in this discussion. While it may be true that I lack a belief in this particular god and there technically is no problem of evil for me, that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out what I see as inconsistencies or fallacies in your argument. Reductio ad absurdum.
I don't see how your personal experiences are relevant here. You either have a good way to reconcile the problem of evil, or you do not. The Argument from Personal(Religious) Experience is a whole other can of worms. It sounds like your saying that because you know that god exists via your religious experiences, you have no choice but to find a way to reconcile the problem of evil somehow. You're starting with the conclusion and looking for evidence to fit, while leaving yourself wide open to confirmation biases. That's called leading the evidence. Not following it.
I don't know why you keep bringing up how I'm implying that you're using your personal experience to convince me. I never said that, nor have I hinted at it. I understand that you don't think it should convince me, and I agree. Revelation is necessarily first person. But I can still criticize what I see as problems in your reasoning in regards to it. And I haven't even done that yet. But I will now. :)
"given that I am neither insane nor delusional and that the experiences in question cannot be explained away by any other rational means (and I have tried), I have no choice but to accept them and adjust my understanding of reality accordingly"
That might as well be the definition of The Argument from Ignorance. That's EXACTLY what it is. Why believe it was god? Why not believe it was Satan trying to trick you? Why not reptilian aliens controlling your mind? You don't know what happened. Experiencing X does not mean that you understand the nature of X. Very often, without proper investigation of X, mere experience will not be sufficient to understand the properties of X. Experiencing lightning in any way, including being struck by it, does not tell you anything about the nature of that experience nor what caused it. You must investigate it in some objective way to find that out. We know many of us in the past thought lightning to be supernatural.
Pt. 2: And who accused you of being insane? Do you think that when I say hallucinations that I must only be talking about some deranged lunatic who eats pennies and punches himself in the face? The human brain is very susceptible to misinterpretations, false memories, hallucinations, self-deception, manipulation, fabrication, and any of the well-documented psychological biases. These things are VERY real and affect every human. You're not an exception. You can't make yourself one by claiming you just know the experience was real, because the very definition of most of the above words include people not being aware of their effects. It's one of the main reasons science is done in the way it is. To minimize these artifacts as much as possible.
DeleteOther people having an experience is irrelevant unless they somehow shared your exact experience, and that's not known to be possible. They are all separate subjective experiences. And you are forgetting that most of them are VERY different, many of which mutually exclusive. How is something that leads to mutually exclusive results reliable in any way? Can you give me a way of differentiating between your personal experience with god and another's personal experience with the Ghost that Never lies who told him with absolute certainty that your experience was a direct result of the reptilian aliens' mind control via telekinesis?
"it really is, in my estimation, a perfect system"
But how can a perfect system include gratuitous evil? Especially when there's a god with those specific qualities. He's omniscient, so he knows how to teach the same lessons without the gratuitous evil. He's omnipotent, so he can accomplish it. And he's omnibenevolent, so he would want to. There's my better system. One without gratuitous evil. There are also the problems of how you know it's a perfect system, and where heaven fits in to this if it is also supposed to be perfect.
I don't think they are misunderstandings at all. My responses have been very direct and to the point in response to what you're writing. I don't know why you've been dancing around different points. And I don't make any assumptions about reality, unless you're talking about hard solipsism. This is irrelevant anyway. Arguments stand or fall on their own without the need for an explanation of the foundation they're built upon. I didn't need to criticize your foundations until you brought them up. I was responding to the points you were making.
Please don't take this as an attack. I genuinely want to hear your responses and better understand where you're coming from.
Pt. 1: Regarding your point about the "argument from ignorance" ... the point is very well taken that experiencing X does not mean that one understands X ~ in most cases. That is why I've maintained throughout our many exchanges that anyone who experienced something that might be "spiritual" is obligated to question, examine, critique, and insofar as is possible test that experience against other experiences, against reason, and against any other logical standard in order to "vet," much less to interpret, the experience.
ReplyDeleteThat is what I have done with the spiritual experiences I've had, personally, and I think it's really the only way to maintain any kind of intellectual integrity when it comes to pursuing a spiritual life. So when you ask how I know that a given revelation or experience actually came from God and not, for example, from Satan, I can answer that I know because I've examined the experience critically in order to arrive at the interpretation I've put forth.
But here's the catch: the "evidence" that convinces me thus is of no more use to convince you my revelation didn't come from Satan than is my "evidence" of the experience itself useful to convince you that God exists. It's all, as you say, necessarily first-person. No, you (or anyone else) can only rely on your own experiences ~ empirical and spiritual (subjective) ~ in order to interpret my "claim" of revelation. If my revelatory claim runs contrary to every single one of your experiences, if it runs contrary to your foundational principles, if it runs contrary to things you "know" to be true, yourself, then you will (rightly) have a great deal of trouble accepting what I proclaim. And vice versa.
For religious folk like me, that is why a spiritual community is so important. While no less fallible than anything else involving human beings, it is one of the more effective ways to test and vet one's individual spiritual experiences, offering a framework built up and tested by millions of people and incorporating billions of experiences and immeasurable efforts of some of humanity's finest minds to create a network of understanding against which one may measure one's personal perceptions and experiences.
Lastly (for pt. 1), I appreciate your passion for objectivity, but again, when you are attempting to investigate that which is by its very nature not objective, it is pointless and completely counterproductive to cling to such an insistence. That's a hang-up that actually blocks understanding, rather than enabling it. I know that seems nonsensical from the "outside," but there it is.
(I won't even get back into the point there is really no such thing as objectivity, anyway; that's a whole 'nuther conversation, innit?)
Pt. 2: As for distinguishing between my subjective experiences and others', see my Pt. 1 reply, above. I doubt that response will seem satisfactory to anyone who's in search of objectivity, but once again, this is an area of inquiry which is inherently, inescapably subjective.
ReplyDeleteI will dispute your assertion that "most" people's spiritual experiences are "VERY different." Cross culturally and across religious frameworks and trappings, that just doesn't seem to be the case. What's remarkable, even to the objectivist, is the comparative similarity of theme, image, principle, motif, and essence, regardless of superficial differences in apparent manifestation. The empiricist may explain such similarities as being the result of common brain chemistry throughout our species, but it cannot be dismissed even thus. If anything, there should be more glaring differences between the spiritual experiences of different people than we tend to see.
But even so, the experiences of others are not irrelevant, unless you're willing to concede that scientific consensus is also irrelevant in the physical realm.
As for the last part of your last reply, I challenge your presumption that there is such a thing as "gratuitous evil." If there's a god, and if its an omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good god, and if we then perceive something that we *think* is "evil," even so we cannot call it "gratuitous," because its very existence in light of the preceding statements would indicate that its existence is necessary in some way, shape, or form.
Put another way, who are you to decide what constitutes *gratuitous* evil? Seems to me that making such a judgment would require omniscience to begin with, and who amongst us humans can legitimately make that claim?
Lastly, when I speak of your "misunderstandings," I'm referring to the conclusions you reach based on either inaccurate or inapplicable/inappropriate postulates, which is not to say that you're not comprehending what I'm saying. In other words, I'm not saying your getting the answers wrong ~ I'm still saying you're asking the wrong questions. Likewise, I haven't been dancing around anything in replying to you; I've merely refused to abandon my initial postulates in favor of yours.
Likewise, I hope that you do not read that as an attack from me ~ it is not intended that way at all, I assure you.
Thanks again for the conversation. If you reply again, please know I will eventually respond, even if I'm not able to do so in a timely manner. Thanks!
C