Wednesday, 14 May 2008
-
But what is the point of it all?
I've asked the question a hundred times on the chief motivator of human action. Most people say people are motivated by the pursuit of happiness, but I truly believe, and have written on it, that most people can live without pursuing happiness, but they very rarely survive for long in homeostatic pain. People are motivated by removing themselves from pain. Drugs don't make people happy...they just remove pain. Suicide doesn't make people happy...it removes them from pain. Whether or not the pain is 'worth it' is debateable, but to them the removal of pain overrides any self preservation that the person feels. It really is scary.
On many message boards I see the infamous question: If God is all powerful then he has the power to make men happy, If God is all good then he desires that man is happy. Man is not happy; therefore God is either powerless or not good. I hate this argument; not that I'm intimidated by it in the least, but because it is incredibly stupid. I'll get to it in a minute....
The schism is not the fact that pain exists. Man can look out upon the world and see pain is natural and normal. In fact I would go as far to say that a painless existence is not only impossible, it is un-natural. Pull yourself out of your body for a moment and look out upon the 6.5 Billion people who live on this planet. Take a look at the suffering that they endure, look at the darkness and then think to yourself, "Wow, those Christians are crazy to think that their so called God not only created this mess...but called it good."
And that's the rub...How can a loving God allow man to suffer? It hits me- this is a proof of God. How can a Loving God be made up? We can't look out on the world and interject that...a loving God. I could understand a vengeful God, a Just God, a Wrathful God...but the characteristic of love...I don't see it being made up through the observation of the "natural world." That is an anomaly. Where, in looking upon all of creation, could the idea of a Loving God be made up?
But I'll leave you to think about that for a minute. Back to the argument. Though at first look this argument about God's goodness or power seems to be logical and well played...it is not; and simple common sense completely removes any bite it may have.
Children are curious by nature. They see things...they have to touch and experience them. They have to put things in their mouths, ears, belly buttons...everything. One thing that always gets the kid is the beautiful red glowing coil on the top of a stove. Its incredible, isn't it? so red, so pretty. Kids want to touch it. Now any good parent knows that to let a child play with these things is a horribly stupid thing to do. I can't tell you how many times my mother said "stay away from that!" Sometimes I listened...sometimes I didn't. the times that I didn't were pretty much ALWAYS painful.
Now my parents, the gems that they are, did they caudle me? HECK NO "I told you not to do that, now didn't I? Come here, we'll go put ice on it..." was usually the response I got. Were they upset that I had hurt myself? yes...but in allowing me the freedom to make my own choices, they show that they loved me by allowing me to experience this pain...so that I knew what it was like, and so I could avoid doing that in the future.
Has anyone ever stopped to think that man is responsible for evil...not God? The question about God's Goodness presupposes that Good= the absence of pain; but I think that Good= a God who not only understands this pain, but lets us experience it so that we can grow and help others who are in pain. Christians are to show God to the world...if God is love then Christians need to be Love to the world. And let me tell you...there is much love needed.
-
recommend
- recs 5
-
share
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to Evowookiee's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in Evowookiee's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
.jpg)
Comments (29)
Brian Regan ROCKS! We love him.
"It's a cup filled with dirt. I call it Cup-of-Dirt. You should just move on now." ~ L
This is awth44 again.
revlife rocks! You should check it out.
Of course man causes/ creates the evil. I would have a hard time thinking people would believe otherwise. Good post -
Pretty much what you said, sort of: pain is useful, it is part of the world, and it is often man-made. But pain is different from suffering. Pain happens. Suffering is optional. If you learn from the pain and change your behavior, then you don't have to suffer. Nice post!
Great.
I think I once wrote that the existence of the "Problem of Pain" demonstrates the existence of a loving God: it wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't one.
Very good post!! I'm glad Eric "Pass the Aura" recommended it!
Lonnie
Ever read The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis? I highly recommend it. I hate it when people try to blame God when men are the ones doing evil deeds. Such nonesense.
My philosophy is that pain makes us stronger, better people and brings us closer to each other and to God. I think that putting a negative value judgment on pain is a fallacy. I wouldn't want to live a life without pain. Pain is part of God's design for improving us. If we look at it as a tool and an indicator of the path God wants us on, it becomes something useful instead of something to be upset about. I think blaming it on some "evil enemy" is a cop out.
just visiting from empress8411's site to say that i really appreciated your comments on her latest entry about romance fiction. good queries for me to consider. thank you.
Evowookiee,
Perhaps I missed something, but I have a hard time seeing the intuitive appeal or apparent cogency of this argument. Why assume that this 'loving God' that the human mind conjures up has the properties (omnipotence, omniscience) that classical theism or natural theology traditionally ascribes to it? I could very easily use this an argument against both Catholic and Reformed theology because they both cash out with the similarly troubling formulations of predestination and both assert that God could have created human persons perfected in virtue from the start but chose not to for some unknown reason. How does a person born in a war zone conjure up the idea of a perfect island? Just because nothing directly corresponds to it doesn't mean that it couldn't have been assembled from other sources and the idea of something does not imply its actual existence. The "learning-from-pain" excuse only covers so much moral evil, unless we're going compare historical mass killings and rape to touching a hot stove.
Totally amazing post!
@mr_jargon -
Mr.Jargon-
Again, I disagree with the statement that “God could have created human persons perfected in virtue from the start”. As I have said before, God, by nature is Love and love does require both the lover and the loved. God by very nature is a creator, and thus must create.
If God created man to not have the ability to choose not to love him, how could man choose to love him? How could God fulfill the qualities, the very nature of himself?
Many arguments that I’ve encountered about God question the Omnipotence/ Omnibenevolent nature of God, and are used mostly to embarrass Christians when they can’t explain the paradox. The argument puts the Christian on the defensive, trying to justify how God can be all good and all powerful, and yet allow his creation to suffer. No one ever gets into the meat of the question, they just assume that the statements are correct and move into trying to defend their position, and the position that they attempt to take I believe is on unsteady ground.
I am arguing the following:
1. Human Nature is evil
2. If human nature was good, law would not exist to
3. Law exists
4. Human Nature is evil
IF
1. Man creates God through observation of Human Nature, assigning attributes of himself to God…basically creating God in man’s image;
2. Human Nature is evil
3. God is evil
However
4. The attributes and qualities of God are good, to the point that the attributes and qualities of God are antithetical to the attributes and qualities observed of man.
Therefore
5. God defies Man’s Nature
6.Man could not create God by looking at his own nature.
So either Man creates God by looking someplace else, or Man does not create God.
@Evowookiee - I'm not saying that you affirm that God could have created the first humans perfected in virtue, but that since Catholic and Reformed dogmaticians have traditionally done so (implicitly and explicitly) that this argument could be turned against them. I don't know where exactly you historically-theologically locate yourself but I'm assuming you're somewhere in that ballpark.
God by very nature is a creator, and thus must create.
Justify this heterodox claim. Take me from starting assumptions to conclusion.
@Pass_the_Aura - Thank you very much. Your latest article is one of the best things I have ever seen written.
@faerieshadow - One of my very favorite books. I actually draw a lot of this argument from C.S Lewis' perspective on this.
@oceanstarr - I know that many times God allows pain into our lives to instruct; however I don't think that ALL pain is such. Some pain just happens as a result of being human
@Such_Were_You - I am honored that he recommended it. I read his stuff and think to myself, "not only is he a musician in his music, he's a musician in his writing." Thank you for your kind words.
@BoureeMusique - But there is suffering that is not because of action. Kids who are molested at a young age carry the burden of the sins of the people who visit upon them. This suffering is continual and must be addressed.
@sxuldv8 - The issue is that sometimes people try to say "If God exists and he creates, and his creation is evil...God is evil" They hand the responsibility down to God and say God is ultimately responsible for Evil.
@awth44 - More to the proof of God is this: Evil does exist, and Evil is natural...and yet Love exists as well. Since Man's nature is inherently evil, where does the Love (which doesn't make sense with Evil) come from?
@mr_jargon - Sure.
1. God is known by his attributes, Biblically, rationally, and observationally experienced
2. There is a creation, noted by 1.
3. Therefore God creates.
IF
4. God did not create, God could not be known as a creator
5. Therefore God must create.
Absolutely nothing in (1)-(4) entails (5). Absolutely nothing.
@mr_jargon - why not? How do you know God? How do you know if God is good? You know that attribute of him by his practice of it.
God creates. We have knowledge of that. He reveals himself through creation. God doesn't just 'do' things...he is. God is Love, God is Just; God is the Creator. He must do these things to be these things...Since he IS these things, it can be assumed that he must do these things.
How can human nature be evil if God created it?
@Evowookiee - That "God must create" simply does not follow from the premises at all. I might as well have argued that since my uncle's car is red then I must be a millionaire. If you didn't have a son he wouldn't know you, therefore it must have been physically impossible for you to not have had a son. The argument makes no apparent sense whatsoever; I can't even see how the conclusion might seem to follow from your starting data because there's no connection.
@Evowookiee - God doesn't just 'do' things...he is. God
is Love, God is Just; God is the Creator. He must do these things to
be these things...Since he IS these things, it can be assumed that he
must do these things.
Ah, yes. The underlying root of all theological error; the confusion of person and nature. God's essence (what God is) and operations (what God does) are absolutely identical, including foreknowledge and predestination. God has no free choice because that would posit plurality & contingency in God.
Either God is always Creator & Lord or He acquired those powers at the time of creation, but since He always possesses those powers creation must exist eternally. Likewise, God's Justice & Mercy presuppose eternally existent sinful creatures to receive justice and mercy. Created souls must co-exist eternally with God.
If "God" is defined as Uncaused Cause, then what about the Son & the Spirit who are from the Father? How do you distinguish this First Principle's generation of the Son from the creation of the world?
@mr_jargon -
"How can human nature be evil if God created it?" Well, besides the fact that Peter says it is in 2 Peter Paul talks about it all the time in Romans (Romans 8 is a good example.) I would ask you in similar fashion since the devil is also a created being, how is it that he is also evil?
Let me ask you: What do you know about God, and how do you arive at that knowledge?
@mr_jargon -
If "God" is defined as Uncaused Cause, then what about the Son & the Spirit who are from the Father? How do you distinguish this First Principle's generation of the Son from the creation of the world?
John 1:1 says "In the Beginning was the Word...." The word, if one reads the context is Jesus. Jesus exists, and has existed with God and the Holy Spirit. I am a Trinitarian, I do believe that God is three parts one whole. The way that we percieve the interaction is yes, purpose. God the Father, creator, benefactor, Judge...etc. Jesus the Son, Sacrifice, executor of the will, Logos, the Grace or Charis, Power of God's authority on earth. The Holy Spirit Guide, comforter, presence of God in the here and now. And yet, they are all one.
@Evowookiee - I would ask you in similar fashion since the devil is also a created being, how is it that he is also evil?
He had the opportunity to turn either way, but he chose to act apart from and in opposition to God.
What do you know about God, and how do you arrive at that knowledge?
Ultimately, I accept the apostolic testimony that was once-and-for-all entrusted to and has been faithfully guarded the Church and pursue the spiritual transformation that the saints have found in following the Way.
I do believe that God is three parts one whole.
This is wrong because it makes each Person 1/3 divinity, but I'll ignore it and simply note that my question was unanswered.
I might write a post on this later, but I don't have the energy to keep this up. I'm spread too thin across com-boxes and discussion boards.
@Evowookiee - You're very kind indeed.
RE Mr. Jargon, I think C. S. Lewis said it best (once again): "Shakespeare need not create Falstaff, but if he does Falstaff must be fat." A skinny Falstaff would be a categorical impossibility. It may or may not be necessary for God to create morally responsible beings, but if he does they must have freedom to choose right, which means they must also have freedom to choose wrong.
Alvin Plantinga has done a lot of very good (and very technical) philosophical work both on the Ontological Argument and the Problem of Evil, if you can keep up with him (which I admit to having trouble doing).