Terrified By Freedom
To turn to more edifying and important matters, Ross raises an interesting point about theodicy:
It’s my impression – and it’s only an impression, which is why I’d like to see someone do the necessary intellectual spadework to refute it or back it up – that this argument has gained increasing currency even as our material conditions have dramatically improved; which is to say, the less suffering a particular population experiences, the more likely the suffering it does experience will be cited as evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity.
Ross’ impression seems right to me, and you might call it the modern luxury of impiety. If you are relying heavily on agriculture that depends on favourable weather and freedom from blights, as people for most of history did, and you are exposed to the ravages of famine or plague without the protections of extensive food surpluses or medical treatment, the irrationality of blasphemy and doubting God’s benevolence becomes much clearer. At the same time, enjoying plenitude and wealth allows those with the most advantages the luxury of worrying not so much about the suffering that they experience, since they tend to experience relatively little, and worrying a lot more about suffering elsewhere. Questioning God’s benevolence in this context becomes akin to the “pornography of compassion,” as Dr. Fleming has called it, in which people feel obliged to make a great display of how much they care about suffering on the other side of the world–in this case, they care so much that they feel obliged to curse God. With the exception of natural disasters, which are the things that you might think would cause more doubt than human cruelty, complaints against God for things that we do to each other are really quite bizarre. First of all, if you believe that God did not create man with a sinful nature, but that man turned away from God, it is difficult to believe that God can be blamed for what we do to one another. “But why does God permit it?” someone always asks. The standard (and true) answer is that God permits it because He respects human freedom, up to and including the freedom to disobey, because neither obedience nor love would be of any value if it were not ultimately voluntary. This is why it surprises me some that great horrors in history undermine faith in God’s goodness. Actually, it doesn’t surprise me that much that it undermines faith in people who lived through those horrors, but it is a bit odd that those who were not there or not even alive when it was happening will cite such events as their “evidence” that either God does not exist or if He does then God is not good. For these people there is not even the memory of the horror to contend with, but a more removed knowledge about the events, yet as often as not it is the latter who find great horrors more theologically significant than those who survived them.
Yet what these people seem to be terrified of most is the possibility that God really has allowed man such an extensive freedom, and that God is nothing like the caricatured martinet dictator that the sad New Atheists portray Him to be. Indeed, one gets the impression from many complaints against God for permitting suffering that they would very much welcome a deity who regimented and ordered their lives in order to provide maximal security and prosperity. As modern life has become in many respects easier, more comfortable and more secure, perhaps many moderns find the freedom that God has permitted them to be overwhelming and bewildering and their complaints against God are framed in terms that might be used for complaints against their fellow men: “if God really loved us, He would intervene and fix everything.” If you really cared about other people, you would want to meddle in their affairs to an obnoxious degree.
Even though God does intervene in history in dramatic, powerful and world-changing ways (see the Incarnation), what troubles the doubters is that God does not intervene more often. It’s as if they want to say, “Stop respecting my free will and just do something for me!” That this sounds exactly like the statement of a spoiled child is appropriate, because that is what it is. Then, in those moments of chastening and real trial that God permits or wills, the spoiled children whine even more when they are confronted with some small modicum of loving discipline.
This argument from evil never really impressed me very much. People in pre-modern times usually died at much younger ages, of all sorts of diseases that are now curable, and surely suffered much more. But now, we’d consider such things shocking and extraordinary. It’s kind of like how we consider treatments like organ transplants as necessities when they were once miraculous.
Anyway, from a Christian viewpoint, evil is very familiar. I mean, Christ himself even “descended into hell.”
I once read a very interesting quote (I can’t remember where, now) in which the author argued against a Calvinist interpretation of God’s sovereignty by saying “God’s sovereignty doesn’t mean that he is controlling every atom at every moment, but that he has real and powerful enemies, and overcomes them.”
(I realized that that comment seems a little confusing- it should be read as three seperate comments, basically.)
“The standard (and true) answer is that God permits it because He respects human freedom, up to and including the freedom to disobey, because neither obedience nor love would be of any value if it were not ultimately voluntary. ”
But doesn’t this assume that God, who according to Christian theology is an infinite being beyond human comprehension, is constrained by our human concepts of love and obedience.
From a human perspective, that answer would be satisfactory if God was human but he’s not. He is supposed to be able to do anything. So why not create a universe that had no sin, no suffering, and also ensured that our love and obedience was authentic?
“So why not create a universe that had no sin, no suffering, and also ensured that our love and obedience was authentic? ”
He did. Then we screwed it up. That has consequences, and we all live with them.
Also, God is not constrained by our concepts. If God were constrained by our paltry concept of love, He would probably never have made us, much less delivered us from perdition.
“So why not create a universe that had no sin, no suffering, and also ensured that our love and obedience was authentic? â€
I know the standard Christian interpretation is, as Daniel says, that he did create a perfect world, but we screwed it up. Another, more radical interpretation is that he not only created a perfect world, but that we have only imagined that we’ve screwed it up. In reality, the world remains perfect, but we see only our own imaginings of evil within it. Salvation, therefore, does not exist in time, but in the restoration to Christ’s Grace, which unveils the world from sin, in every moment in which one’s gaze “meets the mark”.
Another, more radical interpretation is that he not only created a perfect world, but that we have only imagined that we’ve screwed it up. In reality, the world remains perfect, but we see only our own imaginings of evil within it. Salvation, therefore, does not exist in time, but in the restoration to Christ’s Grace, which unveils the world from sin, in every moment in which one’s gaze “meets the markâ€.
So is evil imaginary or is it real? If it’s just the former, then this radical interpretation deserves to be rejected. (Although it is the perfect sort of nonsense that Gaius Baltar’s new cult loves to swallow.)
Daniel, I am surprised that you are essentially waving off the issue that keeps some (decent and serious) people I know hostile to Christianity and religion in general. Moreover, I would even claim it is the number one problem for most intelligent, sensitive and earnest non-believers.
You seem to be ignoring two bitter arguments that you should be well familiar with from Russian literature. One is the suffering of the obviously innocent, that is, little children. I do not think your explanation would satisfy Ivan Karamazov. The other is Tolstoy’s, concerning the “we” who “screwed it up:” that there is no good reason why all men, and especially children, should have to suffer from Adam’s transgression. I doubt there is, or can be, a satisfactory rational solution to these two and hence to the theodicy problem. Dostoevsky had Alyosha hugging Ivan instead — and that was probably part of the answer which the unfinished novel could have been conceived to become.
Note that a certain, and rather prominent, strain in Russian religious thought — from Dostoevsky to Berdyaev to Fedotov to Florovsky to Levitsky — has seen man’s God-given freedom as fearful, terrible and tragic. “The tragedy of freedom” is the title of Sergei Levitsky’s opus magnum. Fedotov wrote: “To acknowledge it [the freedom of choice between good and evil] means to place freedom above love; to acknowledge the tragic meaning of history; the possibility of hell. All the social instincts of man protest against such “cruelty.” … In the ancient myth of the Fall, which underlies Christian theodicy, Gods creates man free, knowing that with this terrible freedom, man will ruin God’s beautiful world. And God wants to save the fallen world not by a word of command (“so be it!”) but by the sacrifice of His own Son.” And yet, the tragedy of freedom is still here.
“So is evil imaginary or is it real? If it’s just the former, then this radical interpretation deserves to be rejected. (Although it is the perfect sort of nonsense that Gaius Baltar’s new cult loves to swallow.)”
tedschan,
I don’t know of Gaius Baltar.Is he interesting?
My view is that of a non-dual understanding of God. In such a view, there is no such thing as metaphysical evil. The “original sin” of man was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, meaning to see the world dualistically. This “cast them out” of the Garden of Eden, meaning the non-dual reality of God. So it is by knowing dualism that evil comes into being, along with good, neither of which is actually real, but are the product of illusory, dualistic mind. Confusion comes in because dualists like to think of God as “good”, and thus they also create the necessity of evil, which must oppose God. But in reality, God is not good, nor does he oppose evil. He transcends both, and knows no evil, because he does not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is why Jesus could love unconditionally, sinner and innocent alike – he had not eaten of this tree, and therefore does not know good nor evil. His “eye is single”, meaning non-dual, and therefore, his whole body was full of light.
So basically I would say that both good and evil are imaginary. Only God is real. The world seen as God’s creation is likewise neither good nor evil, but purely a manifestation of love. The problem of theodicy is a problem of false perception, in other words. We only see evil in the world because we have become dualists, and this misses the mark, it sees the world falsely, condemning us to a life of sin. Restoration to Christ means restoration of our “single eye”, which allows us to see the whole world as full of light. This is not idealism, but pure realism, seeing the world in reality rather than in illusion.
conradg
I don’t know of Gaius Baltar.Is he interesting?
That’s a reference to Battlestar Galactica, which has been mentioned by Mr. Larison from time to time.
My view is that of a non-dual understanding of God.
Apostolic Christianity is not Manichean or dualistic, either.
In such a view, there is no such thing as metaphysical evil.
Acc. to Catholic Tradition (and I’m fairly sure that it is the same for the Tradition represented by Orthodox Christianity), metaphysical evil does not exist in itself. So in that sense, there is no such thing as metaphysical evil.
The “original sin†of man was to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, meaning to see the world dualistically. This “cast them out†of the Garden of Eden, meaning the non-dual reality of God. So it is by knowing dualism that evil comes into being, along with good, neither of which is actually real, but are the product of illusory, dualistic mind. Confusion comes in because dualists like to think of God as “goodâ€, and thus they also create the necessity of evil, which must oppose God. But in reality, God is not good, nor does he oppose evil. He transcends both, and knows no evil, because he does not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is why Jesus could love unconditionally, sinner and innocent alike – he had not eaten of this tree, and therefore does not know good nor evil. His “eye is singleâ€, meaning non-dual, and therefore, his whole body was full of light.
So basically I would say that both good and evil are imaginary. Only God is real. The world seen as God’s creation is likewise neither good nor evil, but purely a manifestation of love. The problem of theodicy is a problem of false perception, in other words. We only see evil in the world because we have become dualists, and this misses the mark, it sees the world falsely, condemning us to a life of sin. Restoration to Christ means restoration of our “single eyeâ€, which allows us to see the whole world as full of light. This is not idealism, but pure realism, seeing the world in reality rather than in illusion.
Your problem is that you attribute to evil only a mental existence, when it has some sort of reality, though not one proper to things. Rather its existence is parasitic on the good, being the absence of something that is due or should be present. In which case the ignorance which accompanies ‘original sin,’ as you understand it, is also evil, even if you do not want to make that predication. And the knowledge that replaces this ignorance is ‘good,’ being the sort of perfection that human beings should have (but have lost). If you accept that this knowledge is better than the ignorance which it should replace, and that Christ is right to restore this knowing to us, then He must have a reason to–that is He knows that is a good we should have, and this knowing is ‘better’ than the evil of ignorance which it replaces. Otherwise you’ve simply moved the problem of a capricious and arbitrary God somewhere else.
As for Christ’s love of mankind, it is unconditional because it is a Divine Love, and is prior not posterior to us as the object of love.
Since members of Apostolic Christianity who retain the faith that has passed on to them will never accept your version of gnosticism, it’s rather pointless to try to persuade them that your resolution to the problem to theodicy is correct and should be adopted.
Tedschan,
“Your problem is that you attribute to evil only a mental existence, when it has some sort of reality, though not one proper to things. Rather its existence is parasitic on the good, being the absence of something that is due or should be present. In which case the ignorance which accompanies ‘original sin,’ as you understand it, is also evil, even if you do not want to make that predication. And the knowledge that replaces this ignorance is ‘good,’ being the sort of perfection that human beings should have (but have lost). If you accept that this knowledge is better than the ignorance which it should replace, and that Christ is right to restore this knowing to us, then He must have a reason to–that is He knows that is a good we should have, and this knowing is ‘better’ than the evil of ignorance which it replaces. Otherwise you’ve simply moved the problem of a capricious and arbitrary God somewhere else.”
This is precisely the attribution of “good” to God (and the knowledge of God) and “evil” to the dualistic ignorance of God that confuses the matter, and prevents us from understanding these things clearly. As I said, God is not good, God transcends the dualism of goodness. Knowledge of God is not “good” either, but transcends goodness. Likewise, ignorance of God is not evil, ignorance of God gives rise to both good and evil. So it is not God that is the source of goodness, it is ignorance of God that gives rise to goodness, as it also gives irse to evil.
In practical terms, it is not just the evil we encoutner in life that is the product of ignorance of God, it is also the good in life that is the product of our ignorance. So this ignorance of God is not merely evil, it is also good, in that it gives rise to both, to the entire dualistic mind that sees good and evil everywhere. God is not moved by some motive of “doing good” to bring us to the knowledge of Himself. He is merely moved by Himself to be Himself in all things, which of course includes us. So God is not trying to be a do-gooder, and Christ is not a do-gooder either. They are merely acting as One God restoring us to the knowledge of God. God is not opposing evil, therefore, he is simply making it clear that God is Supreme, and has no “other” to oppose.
There’s a great analogy to this in Hinduism, in which dualism is compared to a rope on a dark road that a man mistakes for a snake. At first he is terrified of the snake, but then someone brings a light and shows him that it’s only a rope. The question then arises, what happens to the snake? Well, nothing, because there never was a snake, it was only an illusion. Likewise, when ignorance is dispelled by light, we see that it never existed. There is not such “thing” as darkness, or snakles, or evil. When light is shown upon the matter, it is seen that they never existed. And likewise with the “good”. That too is no different than the snake, it is something we only imagine to exist in our ignorance of the presence of God in all things. When the light is shown, we see that there never was any good or evil, but only God’s perfect creation. God does not “dispel darkness”, because to God there is no darkness. God is the light which reveals that there never was any darkness, nor good or evil.
“As for Christ’s love of mankind, it is unconditional because it is a Divine Love, and is prior not posterior to us as the object of love.”
Yes, precisely. It is love that is based on prior knowledge of the transcendental presence of God in all things, transcending good and evil.
“Since members of Apostolic Christianity who retain the faith that has passed on to them will never accept your version of gnosticism, it’s rather pointless to try to persuade them that your resolution to the problem to theodicy is correct and should be adopted.”
I’m not trying to persuade you or others of anything, I’m merely having a conversation about theology, because I find such things interesting. I’m not aware of anyone in the history of the world who has ever been persuaded by such conversations, and so I never engage them for that purpose. I do think we learn to think better about these things by being confronted by differing views, or why would anyone ever talk about such controversies, in that any form of controversy requires that we address views different than our own.
And btw, my views are not gnostic, which is a very dualistic theology, though some might be found in what are mistakenly called the “gnostic gospels”.
And btw, my views are not gnostic, which is a very dualistic theology, though some might be found in what are mistakenly called the “gnostic gospelsâ€.
I didn’t identify your views with historical Gnosticism–I said it was a version of ‘gnosticism,’ in which sanctification/salvation is based on attaining a true understanding of reality or wisdom, one which ‘normal’ people lack.
This is precisely the attribution of “good†to God (and the knowledge of God) and “evil†to the dualistic ignorance of God that confuses the matter, and prevents us from understanding these things clearly. As I said, God is not good, God transcends the dualism of goodness. Knowledge of God is not “good†either, but transcends goodness. Likewise, ignorance of God is not evil, ignorance of God gives rise to both good and evil. So it is not God that is the source of goodness, it is ignorance of God that gives rise to goodness, as it also gives irse to evil.
Define good and evil. And then please explain why knowledge is preferable to ignorance. And then why we should vote for one candidate rather than another, or reject murder as wrong.
“As for Christ’s love of mankind, it is unconditional because it is a Divine Love, and is prior not posterior to us as the object of love.â€
Yes, precisely. It is love that is based on prior knowledge of the transcendental presence of God in all things, transcending good and evil.
No–it is prior even to His presence in all things. God’s love is creative of creatures, and is not a response to them, even if you want to say He is responding to Himself in them.
I understand your reference to gnosticism better. But I disgree that normal people “lack” this. Since the higher understanding of reality is perfect love, that would suggest normal people lack the ability to love. They do not. They may simply not be exercising that capacity to it full extent.
I won’t define good and evil, because they are not fixed values which can be defined. That is the problem with dualism – nothing is permanent or unchanging, not even good and evil. Knowledge of God is preferable to ignorance because it eliminates dualism.
Choosing which candidate to vote for is a dualistic decision, and thus not informed by Knowledge of God. Murder is equally immune to some fixed notion of good and evil, as the pinning of medals on the breasts of war heroes tells us.
I disagree with the notion that God is separate from his creations. In my view, God can only create Himself, over and over, and not any separate “thing” outside of Himself. Our ability to love is the sign of God’s presence within our hearts, as our very self. It is only our failure to love that makes us imagine ourselves to be separate from Him, and thus requiring some “response” from Him.
1. Why is murder wrong?
2. Why should one prefer your sort of knowledge over ignorance? Saying that it eliminates “dualism” doesn’t answer the question, it just replaces it with: why should one “eliminate dualism”, instead of remaining ignorant?
1. If you need to ask the question, no answer will satisfy.
2. All our preferences are for dualism. If one lives only by one’s preference, one will never know God. If not knowing God does not bother you, there is no reason I could give for you to choose God. Certainly there is no preference that would point in that direction. If you are bothered by not knowing God, no reason is necessary, nor is it even a choice.
1. That’s just an evasion–I’m asking for your explanation, If you can’t give one, just admit it.
2. Why would not knowing God bother anyone, since you haven’t given a reason for why one should be bothered? Why should someone prefer something other than one’s preference? More obfuscation.
Evasion is not a substitute for a response. You can keep trying to remain consistent, but all you are doing is shifting the question back. Perhaps this is your way of remaining non-judgmental on certain moral issues, or a means of reaping some personal benefit. But intellectually, it doesn’t work.