Caricature? Yes!

[Peter_Plato]

Says I? No, say all the apologists who bend over backwards to create some excuse for God’s inaction. They all see a need to defend God. They all realize the contradiction between God’s alleged loving nature, and the actual state of affairs. They consider the “problem of evil” to be a very pertinent issue. It is you who stand alone, and say: “God’s actions need no defense”. And that is not a very good way to defend your faith.

Given that I have made two rather prolonged attempts to answer your “argument” and you have made not even an iota of an attempt to defend your lack of faith, it seems you are engaging in some serious black pot calling, yourself.

Be that as it may, I offer a third reply, to which I assume you will have no more of a response to offer than to my two previous attempts and further conclude that your blustery winds have run their course even if that course ends in another round of self-congratulatory applause on your part for your job well done despite that it hasn’t been done at all.

Let me start with a quote to add some prerspective.

Assume that, as some versions of the argument from evil put it, God is a “morally perfect being”. Assume also that suffering exists in the world. To make the second fact tell against the first, we need to articulate a code of divine ethics, and locate prohibitions against suffering somewhere on it.

To approach this, start with the following moral claim: it is wrong to take the life of X merely because it vexes us. Clearly, the truth of the claim depends on what X is. We could make a list of descending values (M) like this: the act would be a terrible thing to do to a child, a perverse thing to do to some highly valued animal or possession, a pretty insensitive thing to do to a dog, an unobjectionable thing to do to a mole, a perfectly understandable act to do to a moth, and to do it to a weed would almost seem to have no moral significance at all. So when we try to articulate God’s ethics with respect to, say, allowing the suffering of the innocent, what is its analogue on M?
thomism.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/taking-gods-moral-perfection-seriously/

It would seem relatively unarguable that human beings have NO moral duties towards plants and probably none with regard to invertebrates or other vegetative or sentient things which are frequently used as sources of food.

What is interesting here is, as Fulton Sheen once pointed out, that higher levels of existence serve to “lift up” those at lower levels by consumption. Thus, inorganic minerals become part of a higher life form by being taken up by, for example, the carrots and potatoes in our garden. In turn, carrots become part of a still higher life form by being eaten by, say, a rabbit. Rabbits, in turn, become a part of an ontologically higher life by being eaten by, for example, your great-aunt Mabel.

What is interesting to note here, is that, although – ontologically speaking – the rabbit, by sacrificing itself to become a part of a reality far superior to itself must abandon its old existence in order to be received into the new. A fact that the rabbit may not much want to do. (Cf. CS Lewis’ Man or Rabbit?)

The same pheneomenon occurs even within a particular species relative to its own existence. A caterpillar, mealworm or maggot must “lose itself” to become a butterfly, beetle or fly – arguably a “higher” form of life than previous.

Now, suppose the opportunity was afforded to one form of life to share in the highest form of life of all? That is, say, for a chicken to share in the divine, eternal life of God. That chicken (let’s call her Flo) would have to forsake her own chickenness – leave it behind completely – in order to share in the life of the eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, Ipsum Esse Subsistens of God.

Now do you suppose that Flo would hold against God – offering such an opportunity to her –the fact that God allowed the other chickens in the pen to kick, pluck, ridicule or otherwise abuse her, knowing all along that “chickenhood” was only a stage, a larval step towards her higher destiny? Would it be wise of Flo to decline God’s offer BECAUSE she contends that God failed to protect her from those other back-biting, insulting, rapacious chickens? Wouldn’t it be far more prudential of Flo to “keep her eye on the prize,” so to speak and not be pulled down by mealy chicken behaviour and, herself, risk losing the offer BECAUSE she was too attached to what it means to be a chicken, knowing that “losing” her chickenness was precisely what would be required of her anyways?

Further suppose that God has his standards, that he only offers this ultimate sharing of divine Life to those chickens who have lived exemplary chicken lives or at least are wiling to forsake their former “less-than chicken” existence in order to accept their new graced nature.

So, God wouldn’t be at all pleased with back-biting, callous, rapacious or, even, rapist chickens since those qualities would, indeed, PREVENT the chickens exhibiting them from receiving the offer of new fullness of living.

However, BEING abused, bit or raped would not prevent one from receiving or sharing in God’s life; in fact, being so treated might even make one more amenable to forsaking one’s old, lesser form of existence to receive the higher, much more desireable new one.

 

[ngill09]

Plato, I think I get your point but I think your analogy is kind of bad. I mean, you’re talking about the chicken being eaten, correct?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Not to put too fine a point on my last post, this is precisely what Christianity claims God is up to. His plan of salvation is determinably to grant human beings who are willing to enter into the “trade” agreement, an unprecedented exchange.

God will relieve us of the tattered old dysfunctional humanity that we currently wear and replace it with an entirely new order of existence – euphemistically referred to in Scripture as ‘the wedding garment.’

In a very real sense, God is not VERY interested in the state of the old humanity we have to trade since it will be discarded in any case. What he is interested in is getting us to make the trade, so to speak – before it is too late, but only when we are ready. The old, flea-bitten, moth eaten garment will be relegated to the fire along with our self, unfortunely, if we are too attached to it, since, clearly, if we love that state more than we love what God offers we justly merit the fate of the old state.

So, for example, if a rapist loves to rape more than he wills the omnibenevolence of God, then the rapist along with the will to rape equally deserve the same fate.

The state of the old garment, although it appears to have the utmost value to us, has merely residual or trade-in worth. That is, it has value IFF we are willing to trade it in. If we are attached to it or wish to hang on to it, that is to our detriment since it keeps us from seeing its real worth – that it can be traded for an infinitely more worthy one that God offers.

So, to answer the Twelve Officers, God stands back waiting, allowing our willfulness for possessing “knowledge of good and evil” to run its course – to satiate itself, so to speak. He is not “doing nothing.” He holds out an offer. An offer that cannot be forced upon us like the rapist’s “offer.”

In his hands he holds a brand new humanity – perfect and fully endowed – asking, “WIll you now trade or do you will to continue to wear the old humanity to discover more of its shortcomings and pitfalls? You must choose, I cannot make you choose. Remember I am standing here holding your wedding garment at all times and every moment to welcome you to share my eternal Life.” We must put it on because it is not a straight jacket or handcuffs, we must of our own accord learn to “wear it” appropriately.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Plato, I think I get your point but I think your analogy is kind of bad. I mean, you’re talking about the chicken being eaten, correct?

Well, it isn’t “bad” exactly, but God does turn it on its head.

What God has done, to help us out a great deal, is not to “eat” us (as we would eat the chicken to make it a part of us) but he allows himself to be eaten by us by becoming bread and wine.

Thus he subsumes us to himself by giving himself to us to be eaten. “Unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood, you will not have life within you.”

 

[ngill09]

Not to put too fine a point on my last post, this is precisely what Christianity claims God is up to. His plan of salvation is determinably to grant human beings who are willing to enter into the “trade” agreement, an unprecedented exchange.

God will relieve us of the tattered old dysfunctional humanity that we currently wear and replace it with an entirely new order of existence – euphemistically referred to in Scripture as ‘the wedding garment.’

In a very real sense, God is not VERY interested in the state of the old humanity we have to trade since it will be discarded in any case. What he is interested in is getting us to make the trade, so to speak – before it is too late, but only when we are ready. The old, flea-bitten, moth eaten garment will be relegated to the fire along with our self, unfortunely, if we are too attached to it, since, clearly, if we love that state more than we love what God offers we justly merit the fate of the old state.

So, for example, if a rapist loves to rape more than he wills the omnibenevolence of God, then the rapist along with the will to rape equally deserve the same fate.

The state of the old garment, although it appears to have the utmost value to us, has merely residual or trade-in worth. That is, it has value IFF we are willing to trade it in. If we are attached to it or wish to hang on to it, that is to our detriment since it keeps us from seeing its real worth – that it can be traded for an infinitely more worthy one that God offers.

So, to answer the Twelve Officers, God stands back waiting, allowing our will to “knowledge of good and evil” to run its course – to satiate itself, so to speak. He is not “doing nothing.” He holds out an offer. One that cannot be forced upon us like the rapist.

In his hands he holds a brand new humanity – perfect and fully endowed – asking, “WIll you now trade or do you will to continue to drive the old humanity to discover more of its shortcomings and pitfalls? You must choose, I cannot make you choose. Remember I am standing here holding your wedding garment at all times to welcome you to share my eternal Life.” We must put it on because it is not a straight jacket or handcuffs, we must of our own accord learn to “wear it” appropriately.

Ah, but is this really the state of affairs we have? Most people do not accept God’s “trade” - but not because they love sin or their human lives more, but because they either aren’t aware that God even exists or because they don’t know what trade he’s offering, or who’s trading. If God truly wanted to make such a trade to everyone, wouldn’t he make the offer clear to everyone?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Ah, but is this really the state of affairs we have? Most people do not accept God’s “trade” - but not because they love sin or their human lives more, but because they either aren’t aware that God even exists or because they don’t know what trade he’s offering, or who’s trading. If God truly wanted to make such a trade to everyone, wouldn’t he make the offer clear to everyone?

Aren’t you assuming something about the manner in which he makes the offer? Does it need to be overtly obvious – message in the clouds and all that? Perhaps the manner in which he makes the offer is quite unique to each person and more completely made obvious to the person the more the person responds?

Thus, Gandhi’s response, while not “sacramental” may be something like tacit acceptance more fully accomplished through his life and death. All that God would require is for any individual NOT to reject the offer outright, but be drawn towards accepting it more and more. The rest is up to God’s power acting through his grace. The thing is not to reject but being open to it because the power to make it happen all belongs to God – whether sacramentally or “naturally.”

 

[ngill09]

Aren’t you assuming something about the manner in which he makes the offer? Does it need to be overtly obvious – message in the clouds and all that? Perhaps the manner in which he makes the offer is quite unique to each person and more completely made obvious to the person the more the person responds?

Thus, Gandhi’s response, while not “sacramental” may be something like tacit acceptance more fully accomplished through his life and death. All that God would require is for any individual NOT to reject the offer outright, but be drawn towards accepting it more and more. The rest is up to God’s power acting through his grace. The thing is not to reject but being open to it because the power to make it happen all belongs to God – whether sacramentally or “naturally.”

All I know is the great majority of people on earth have lived and continue to live with no apparent realization that the Christian God exists. And this would be strange of the Christian God wanted them to know Him.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All I know is the great majority of people on earth have lived and continue to live with no apparent realization that the Christian God exists. And this would be strange of the Christian God wanted them to know Him.

Yes, this is true, “as far as you know.” However, what we don’t know is how God speaks to each individual heart and holds each accountable.

I am not clear that overt behaviour is necessarily that telling. The Scribes and Pharisees, for example, were very pious and could expound all the details of the overt “requirements.” It isn’t clear that God views the situation with the same lens that we do.

Which is, again, the problem with the Twelve Officers Parable – it forces a human perspective on God as if we “know” or fully grasp the way things ought to be viewed. We do not have a lens labelled “God’s perspective.” What we have are cheap binoculars, which, admittedly – if we are honest – afford us little in the way of certainty. Seems awfully presumptuous to assume the human perspective is THE one that trumps.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Hee_zen, I’ve been reading some of your posts here and if you would, allow me to offer some constructive criticism towards your general body of work on Catholicanswers.

Constructive criticisms are always welcome!

You seem very attached to the style of argument that goes generally as follows:

“The world would be better if it were X. God is supposed to be good, so if God existed the world would be X. Therefore, because it is not X, God does not exist.”

Actually, the dilemma is a bit more complicated. The problem can be solved two fifferent ways: “Either God does not exist, OR God is not good”. Of course this is not new. It is based upon the old Euthyphro dilemma.

1. Premise: God is assumed to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good.
2. Premise: a good entity never allows the existence of gratuitous pain and suffering.
3. Fact: that are many instances of SEEMINGLY gratuitous pains and sufferings.

Problem: how can one resolve this contradiction?

There are several attempts.

1. The “greater good” defense. The assumption that all the SEEMINGLY unnecessary pains and sufferings are actually necessary for some unspecified “greater good”.
2. The “free will” defense. This attempt admits the existence of unnecessary pain and suffering, but insists that the existence of “free will” is so important that it “justifies” the existence of the suffering. Basically it says that God cannot grant “free will” and ant the same time “override” it - that would be a logical contradiction.
3. There are other attempts, like outright denying the existence of pain and suffering (especially in the case of animals) - but this is so irrational, that it does not merit consideration.

The parable deals with all these defenses.

I think this is an exceedingly poor argument, because all religions have at the basis of their theology an explanation for why the universe is imperfect. There are a number of such in Christianity, but perhaps most powerful is the belief that this creation is not the real deal. Christians believe that there is a perfect world that God has created for us, but that we must first go through this one and meet some criteria before we can enter into it.

This is called wishful thinking and rationalizing. People look at the miserable reality, and hope for something better. They look at the lack of justice, and hope that “over there” the injustices will be rectified. And this “trial” period is ridiculous, like going to school and earning a degree - but WITHOUT a “syllabus”, without textbooks, without teachers. There are no midterm tests to give you a feedback if you are on the right track. And the “award” for failing the “test” is eternal torture and suffering… who can accept this as a rational set of beliefs?

Moreover, God is under no obligation to give us a perfect life in this world. Nowhere does He promise that our lives will be perfect.

As it was pointed out before, obligation is not the question. “Love” and “caring” are the issues. Even if there is no obligation, it is basic decency to provide a good environment if possible. Also to help those who are in need.

Aside from these two easy responses the Christian has to your arguments, it also is fairly weak stylistically as it seems to just be complaining that your life isn’t perfect.

Those responses are irrational for the reasons pointed out above. What you call “complaining” is simply a rational way to point out the contradiction.

 

[Gorgias]

Now maybe you will say that I am moral relativist, who believes in situational ethics, and you would be right.

Fair enough. (Some day, we’ll have to have a talk about how this admission squares with your notion of the ethic of reciprocity, but for now, we can defer…)

But I maintain that your parable is incorrect, because the difference between scraping one’s knee and being raped, tortured and killed is simply too large to try to make a case for some “equivalence”.

My thought experiment has nothing to do with the ‘rape’ example, which I thought I made clear. It’s a simple question…

But I will bite. If you had the power to give perfect sense of balance to your child, then the intervention to prevent the falling is an inferior method. (You know the old adage: don’t give a hungry person a fish… teach him to fish and he will never be hungry again. In other words, don’t choose the quick and dirty intervention, work for the long haul.)

Is there nothing learned by falling? Is it a good thing to never fail? That doesn’t seem a reasonable place to base your answer…

But your little parable is just a rehashing of the second officer’s excuse: “If I were to intervene all the time like I was just about to, then no one would ever be able to exercise such a virtue. In fact, everyone would probably become very spoiled and self-centered if I were to prevent every act of rape and murder.”

Again: I’m not addressing one of the officers’ arguments. Stick with my thought experiment, please…

Nevertheless, my answer is simple: If the best I could do is interfere and prevent SOME events, then I would jump and prevent FATAL events, and allowed the minor, insignificant ones to happen.

Ahh! There we go! Thank you for being honest!

Earlier, in discussing God’s so-called ‘obligation’ to intervene, you wrote:

Hee_Zen:

It is plain, common decency to interfere when one can do it without endangering himself. … And if it is incorrect for them to let the events unfold, then it is incorrect for God, too. Of course there is one final excuse for God - the lack of caring, the lack of “love”. If God does not care, then there is no obligation to interfere.

In other words, you asserted that God has an absolute obligation to intervene, as long as it doesn’t blow back at Him; a lack of action, you asserted, can only mean either that God is unjust or unloving.

And yet, that’s not at all what you’ve admitted that you really believe. You admit that inaction is acceptable – but, the only standard is the personal judgment call of what is ‘fatal’ and what is ‘minor and insignificant’. In other words, you agree that there is the morally acceptable opportunity to decide whether to intervene or not, and the only question is one’s personal prudential judgment as to when to intervene.

There’s an old anecdote, often attributed to Churchill, that goes something like this:

Churchill: “Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?”

Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course… "

Churchill: “Would you sleep with me for five pounds?”

Socialite: “Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!”

Churchill: "Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

So, Hee, we’ve already established what kind of man you are: you agree that it’s reasonable to decide when and when not to intervene. Now, we’re just haggling about where that line is to be drawn. Please excuse me if I prefer to allow an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being make that call, and decline to allow you to make it.

Partially. The continuation is: “I mean, you admit you are nowhere near as knowledgeable as I am, so what right do you have to judge?” - which means that you consider God to be beyond reproach or criticism.

I’m not going to debate the 12 officers’ claims, but let me ask: are you making the claim that you’re omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? Just curious…

 

[Hee_Zen]

My thought experiment has nothing to do with the ‘rape’ example, which I thought I made clear. It’s a simple question…

In that case it does not belong to this thread. I am willing to answer your current propositions, but I will not answer any more until this thread has been concluded.

Is there nothing learned by falling? Is it a good thing to never fail? That doesn’t seem a reasonable place to base your answer…

The one and only reason for failure to be acceptable is that one should learn how to eliminate the failures. Failure in and of itself is not good for anything.

Ahh! There we go! Thank you for being honest!

You are welcome. But you seemed to misunderstand my point. The willingness to allow any pain and suffering is only allowable if one is unable to make a state of affairs without pain and suffering. It is only the “second best solution”. But with an omnimax God all the sufferings could be eliminated.

I’m not going to debate the 12 officers’ claims, but let me ask: are you making the claim that you’re omniscient? Omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? Just curious…

If you are not interested in the topic then what are you doing here? Move your questions to another thread.

 

[tonyrey]

…But with an omnimax God all the sufferings could be eliminated.

“all” implies omniscience!

 

[tonyrey]

1. The “free will” defense. This attempt admits the existence of unnecessary pain and suffering, but insists that the existence of “free will” is so important that it “justifies” the existence of the suffering. Basically it says that God cannot grant “free will” and ant the same time “override” it - that would be a logical contradiction.

There would be no point in granting free will and then overriding it.Either it’s worth having or it isn’t. Those who complain about the consequences are contradicting themselves because they are using their free will to complain!

 

[tonyrey]

All I know is the great majority of people on earth have lived and continue to live with no apparent realization that the Christian God exists. And this would be strange of the Christian God wanted them to know Him.

It is absurd to suppose that throughout history the great majority of people on earth could have been aware of the Christian God.

How could that knowledge have been acquired? Only by a miracle that would defeat the purpose of giving us the power to choose what to believe, how to live and who to love…

 

[Aloysium]

It is absurd to suppose that throughout history the great majority of people on earth could have been aware of the Christian God. . .

I would assert that all people are or will be aware of God.
They may not know the Bible nor what is written about Jesus.
However, summarizing the Catechism, Jesus descend into hell, spreading the Good News to those imprisonned there, all people of all times and all places, bringing the just to salvation.
Everyone knows Him in their heart.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Constructive criticisms are always welcome!

Actually, the dilemma is a bit more complicated. The problem can be solved two fifferent ways: “Either God does not exist, OR God is not good”. Of course this is not new. It is based upon the old Euthyphro dilemma.

1. Premise: God is assumed to be all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good.
2. Premise: a good entity never allows the existence of gratuitous pain and suffering.
3. Fact: that are many instances of SEEMINGLY gratuitous pains and sufferings.

Problem: how can one resolve this contradiction?

There are several attempts.

1. The “greater good” defense. The assumption that all the SEEMINGLY unnecessary pains and sufferings are actually necessary for some unspecified “greater good”.
2. The “free will” defense. This attempt admits the existence of unnecessary pain and suffering, but insists that the existence of “free will” is so important that it “justifies” the existence of the suffering. Basically it says that God cannot grant “free will” and ant the same time “override” it - that would be a logical contradiction.
3. There are other attempts, like outright denying the existence of pain and suffering (especially in the case of animals) - but this is so irrational, that it does not merit consideration.

A succinct presentation of both angles to the problem of evil is found here:

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1701569/gfe.pdf

The author ends up arguing that the problem of evil actually proves the existence of God from the atheist’s own premises.

 

[Bradski]

A succinct presentation of both angles to the problem of evil is found here:

dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1701569/gfe.pdf

The author ends up arguing that the problem of evil actually proves the existence of God from the atheist’s own premises.

I wish I hadn’t read that. The stupid hurts and I was in such a good mood. Now you’ve gone and made me depressed.

 

[tonyrey]

I would assert that all people are or will be aware of God.
They may not know the Bible nor what is written about Jesus.
However, summarizing the Catechism, Jesus descend into hell, spreading the Good News to those imprisoned there, all people of all times and all places, bringing the just to salvation.
Everyone knows Him in their heart.

Indeed. Awareness of evil implies that life is not an accident. In a Godless universe dominated by chance it wouldn’t matter how people behave. They would suffer because no one would have free will. Cruelty and injustice would be inevitable - and evil would be a foolish illusion. That is the caricature of reality!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wish I hadn’t read that. The stupid hurts and I was in such a good mood. Now you’ve gone and made me depressed.

There is a fine line in your mind, it seems, between “I don’t agree” and “Stupid.”

It appears that in your view merely calling a piece or its author “stupid” is the equivalent of a robust and well-argued refutation.

Wouldn’t THAT be the very definition of st…

…oh, never mind.

Yes, of course.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I wish I hadn’t read that. The stupid hurts and I was in such a good mood. Now you’ve gone and made me depressed.

I agree Bradski, I got as far as " sawing off the leg " and decided not to read the rest.

Of course the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. You are aware of Catholic teaching on the existence of evil. And I agree that doesn’t make it much easier. One has to trust in God’s mercy, wisdom, and justice, that he will make things right in the end. And that is part of the test he has given us, he wants to know we trust him. Besides, where else can we go? Is life any better if we reject God, if we say he doesn’t exist? I don’t see how that makes anything any better. It certainly doesn’t eliminate evil.

Linus2nd.