evil God?

[tonyrey]

Darwin’s discoveries lead many intelligent people to realize that nature is incredibly cruel and hostile to life. There is no finger of God at any particular point showing a “creation” separate from this evolutionary struggle.

Can you explain how all death and suffering could be prevented?

 

[tonyrey]

The good is not really good as most think. Like you I believe that good and evil are human ideas. The good is simply existence. And as a buddhist your probably familiar with cittimatra thttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/editor/color.gifhat I subscribe to myself personally. If one exists they must’ve been non-existent.

How can you be a Catholic when you believe good and evil are **human **ideas?

 

[Daedelus76]

The good is not really good as most think. Like you I believe that good and evil are human ideas. The good is simply existance. And as a buddhist your probably familiar with cittimatra that I subscribe to myself personally. If one exists they must’ve been non-existant.

B

Please explain further, I’m familiar with Yogacara/Mind Only in a general way, but what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure Buddhism would agree that existence is inherently good; it is not necessarily a life affirming-religion like the various monotheisms that try to mandate procreation and worldly activity as an unqualified good (in Buddhism at best, life affirming activities are instrumental towards liberation, often times liberation of other beings, the bodhisattva path, etc; they aren’t inherently good. the Buddha said the world is a burning house, not a garden of eden.

 

[Daedelus76]

Can you explain how all death and suffering could be prevented?

By refraining from creation. If God is perfect and all powerful, and free, that was a choice he could have chosen. Instead he chose to create a world with suffering. However, he had no apparrent reason to do so, according to theists, so one has to wonder about his motives for choosing a world with suffering over choosing non-existence of this world.

Look up 10 dimensional string theory and it becomes quite clear why God need not exist. There simply is no personal God ,all possibilities are playing out simultaneously in a multiverse of infinite possibilities. All without purpose, without design, and without the need for religious explanations. Roman Catholic and Christian doctrines can be reduced to so much evolutionary neurobiological artifacts of a consciousness looking out into the universe and seeing a giant, invisible, hairless ape as a creator, meanwhile the only creator is chaos rolling the dice, without love without malice, without even indifference, because there is no personhood in this ultimate reality.

 

[Lisa44]

Please explain further, I’m familiar with Yogacara/Mind Only in a general way, but what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure Buddhism would agree that existence is inherently good; it is not necessarily a life affirming-religion like the various monotheisms that try to mandate procreation and worldly activity as an unqualified good (in Buddhism at best, life affirming activities are instrumental towards liberation, often times liberation of other beings, the bodhisattva path, etc; they aren’t inherently good. the Buddha said the world is a burning house, not a garden of eden.

This is an aside, but I fail to see how you can hold up Buddhism as an example of morality when it is nothing more than a cult of the self. Whether a person tries to get enlightenment for themselves or for others (bodhisattvas) either way their aim is to liberate themselves from this world.
That might work if their self was the cause of this world (and therefore the solution) but as we both know, our selves are not the cause of much of anything, and I have certainly never seen an ‘enlightened’ person although I have met many a narcissistic self absorbed Buddhist.
This is not to call Buddhists bad people, but it is to admit openly that their aim in life IS a selfish one. Because as far as a Buddhist is concerned, everything is about themselves.

Their reincarnation, their enlightenment, their satori, their meditation,…etc… That is why I call it the cult of the self.

You might not like the idea of an omnipotent God, and I am not sure I like it either, but what is the alternative to a belief in God, belief in yourself? Surely you jest.

 

[grannymh]

Remember that we do not view the world through God’s eyes.

 

[Daedelus76]

That might work if their self was the cause of this world (and therefore the solution) but as we both know, our selves are not the cause of much of anything, and I have certainly never seen an ‘enlightened’ person although I have met many a narcissistic self absorbed Buddhist.
This is not to call Buddhists bad people, but it is to admit openly that their aim in life IS a selfish one. Because as far as a Buddhist is concerned, everything is about themselves.

And Christianity is not about the self, with all the penances and so forth you must do to save yourself from Hell or Purgatory? You worship God because its good for you, you believe, right? If something is good for nobody, I’d suggest then its not good, and has no value. One shouldn’t simply have a belief simply to have a belief, it should lead us to an end of some kind where we are better off than when we started.

You might not like the idea of an omnipotent God, and I am not sure I like it either, but what is the alternative to a belief in God, belief in yourself? Surely you jest.

No, Buddhism in fact teaches a doctrine called anatman, that there is no permanent, unchanging self to cling to as you somehow imagine. It is very unfortunate the Vatican chose to dismiss Buddhism as “spiritual auto-eroticism”.

Lastly, I don’t hold up Buddhism as “morality”. I believe objective morality is a fiction beyond the simple maxim to treat other people the way you’ld want to be treated, as the Buddha said, “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not cause to others” (which is focused on our experience as a subject). Buddhism is about wisdom, not moralism. What’s skilfull or wise will always vary from person to person and situation to situation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Lastly, I don’t hold up Buddhism as “morality”. I believe objective morality is a fiction beyond the simple maxim to treat other people the way you’ld want to be treated,

Its not always true that treating people as you would like to be treated is a benefit. And since we are all going to die, i fail to see the point of survival and being “wise” about it.

 

[Lisa44]

And Christianity is not about the self, with all the penances and so forth you must do to save yourself from Hell or Purgatory? You worship God because its good for you, you believe, right? If something is good for nobody, I’d suggest then its not good, and has no value. One shouldn’t simply have a belief simply to have a belief, it should lead us to an end of some kind where we are better off than when we started.

No, Buddhism in fact teaches a doctrine called anatman, that there is no permanent, unchanging self to cling to as you somehow imagine. It is very unfortunate the Vatican chose to dismiss Buddhism as “spiritual auto-eroticism”.

Lastly, I don’t hold up Buddhism as “morality”. I believe objective morality is a fiction beyond the simple maxim to treat other people the way you’ld want to be treated, as the Buddha said, “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not cause to others” (which is focused on our experience as a subject). Buddhism is about wisdom, not moralism. What’s skilfull or wise will always vary from person to person and situation to situation.

No, Christianity is not about the self. It is about God, who is not us.
You say that Buddhism doesn’t teach a “self” but if that is true then why try and enlighten a non existing self? If there is no self then Buddhism would not exist.

As for morality, why would it matter how others treat you if the self is an illusion? Who is there to be mistreated and abused? Of course you have a self. And you don’t want to be abused. And I agree with you that Buddhism is not about morality.

 

[billcu1]

If God is not obvious or provable maybe you can forgive people like me for being skeptical of your religion’s claims.

And who let this “Father of Lies” free to do as he pleased on helpless creatures? There is no distinction for an omnipotent being between allowing something to happen and willing it to happen. If I can’t accept the Genesis story, I certainly can’t accept this idea that Jesus’ death somehow remedies that. So, theists will have to persuade me on other grounds

Evil doesn’t exist? What was the Holocaust then? And if evil is merely a privation of good ,why couldn’t God have created a universe without privation, if he is omnipotent? The problem still stands. I do not need an ultimate authority to say something is evil, saying it is evil just reflects my own personal viewpoint of things. I don’t pretend to be objective, and I don’t view this as Satanic (what I view as truely satanic is authoritarianism that says I have no right to my own viewpoint, that I must submit to somebody else’s). In the same way, a theist saying God is good doesn’t really mean God is objectively good, but that merely they think God does good things for them. Even a murderer or monster would seem good to a child that was given candy and new nothing about the rest of his or her life.

Why this God supposedly allows suffering has bugged me my whole life, and is one reason I have had issues embracing theism. I know it gives people warm fuzzy feeligs, but for me its difficult to understand. Maybe because I was born with birth defects, am disabled, and never felt that a Creator really cared about me as an individual. He seems to will happiness for a few people and misery for others. He doesn’t seem to really answer prayers, either (and I have tried, and found it to be unreliable… so now I don’t pray). At best I think I accepted something like Deism, there was a first cause but it doesn’t interact with people, and that Jesus was just a wisdom teacher. The First Cause of the universe is either amoral or evil, either way I don’t think it matters to me. I’d be willing to hear evidence to the contrary.

I guess I embrace Taoism or Buddhism moreso… the world is filled with suffering, is unsatisfactory, and happiness ultimately can only be found by being detached from it. That means I really don’t care for life-affirming religions, because they essentially do not face up to the pain in the world but ultimately declare that the pain and misery is an illusion (Hindusm, Christianity).

Why the holocaust? Of all the bad and evil things that have happened in the past there has never been a victim. Remember in buddhist doctrine is karma (alot like sin) and reincarnation that was in early christianity in some places. The “good” and “evil” I guess we in a sense deserve it and suffering is to be used as a stepping stone to elightenment (beatific vision maybe?).

Bill

 

[billcu1]

No, Christianity is not about the self. It is about God, who is not us.
You say that Buddhism doesn’t teach a “self” but if that is true then why try and enlighten a non existing self? If there is no self then Buddhism would not exist.

As for morality, why would it matter how others treat you if the self is an illusion? Who is there to be mistreated and abused? Of course you have a self. And you don’t want to be abused. And I agree with you that Buddhism is not about morality.

The self exists because we are blinded (buddhism) “Things can’t go on foreever…” because of efficient cause (Aquinas). You might as well ask why try to obtain liberation since we already have it. Well that is true of another reality. In cittimatra are two realities ultimate and relative or that which we see.

I was just reading in summa today about “the existance of god”. Your first line is an argument between non-theists and theology. Two different doctrines. Call liberation seeing god. Happiness is what we want and Aquinas and buddhism both teaches that.

 

[billcu1]

Being as I don’t really believe in God, I’m curious to know the Catholic arguments for why God, if he exists, cannot be evil. I have heard that Thomist theology has arguments about this, but I’d like someone to explain this to me.

And for what it’s worth, I’m a non-theist, I don’t believe in the monotheistic conception of God. If such a being existed, I doubt he would be omnipotent and I would doubt he would be good.

“Goodness” in theology is defined more as “perfection”. Man strives for perfection. I hope you read Atisha. He’s one of my favorites. Kadampa I think is his school. Anyway others have said else but I think maybe Aquinas did say the existance of a supreme being could be proved. I think some in this thread are misunderstanding “self”. Atman and Annatman. Anyway Aquinas says using Aristotle’s efficient causes claim that Nothing could’ve ever been. There is a teaching that god goes to “sleep” with all of creation before him. He awakes and sees no one and thinks “Where is everyone” everything is instantly brought back into existance. I guess the theistic answer to evil god would be the same as asking “imperfect god?” Imperfection is evil. You and I know all strives for goodness.

But middle way and Kadampa and kagyu are my schools.

Bill

 

[billcu1]

How can you be a Catholic when you believe good and evil are **human **ideas?

I am a free thinker. And I hope not what you call a heretic. I don’t belive All of what the church has said. Satan is the cause of midwives and doctors of medicine and such. I have watch the church come up with all kinds of non-existantant threats to itself. That is power and domination. Think back to Constantine and Damasus 3rd. A great killer of people like Innocent VIII (so called witches). One can be and American and not like a few things about American thought.

Bill

 

[tonyrey]

Can you explain how

Then you wouldn’t be capable of creatively criticising creation!

If God is perfect and all powerful, and free, that was a choice he could have chosen.

I like your idea of choosing a choice! But then the choice of a choice presupposes a choice… ad infinitum!

Instead he chose to create a world with suffering.

Is suffering the worst evil?

However, he had no apparent reason to do so, according to theists…

Which theists I wonder…

…so one has to wonder about his motives for choosing a world with suffering over choosing non-existence of this world.

That question is constantly being asked by theists as well as atheists…

Look up 10 dimensional string theory and it becomes quite clear why God need not exist. There simply is no personal God ,all possibilities are playing out simultaneously in a multiverse of infinite possibilities. All without purpose, without design, and without the need for religious explanations. Roman Catholic and Christian doctrines can be reduced to so much evolutionary neurobiological artifacts of a consciousness looking out into the universe and seeing a giant, invisible, hairless ape as a creator, meanwhile the only creator is chaos rolling the dice, without love without malice, without even indifference, because there is no personhood in this ultimate reality. By refraining from creation.

Your 10 dimensional string theory also makes sheer mincemeat of your reasoning - which is the freak product of a gigantic, invisible, hairless, impersonal and inanimate monster, i.e chaos rolling the dice, without love without malice, without even indifference, because there is no rhyme or reason or meaning or purpose or value in this “ultimate reality”… just undiluted absurdity!

 

[grannymh]

Its not always true that treating people as you would like to be treated is a benefit. And since we are all going to die, i fail to see the point of survival and being “wise” about it.

 

[steph_86]

If God is not obvious or provable maybe you can forgive people like me for being skeptical of your religion’s claims.

And who let this “Father of Lies” free to do as he pleased on helpless creatures? There is no distinction for an omnipotent being between allowing something to happen and willing it to happen. If I can’t accept the Genesis story, I certainly can’t accept this idea that Jesus’ death somehow remedies that. So, theists will have to persuade me on other grounds

Evil doesn’t exist? What was the Holocaust then? And if evil is merely a privation of good ,why couldn’t God have created a universe without privation, if he is omnipotent? The problem still stands. I do not need an ultimate authority to say something is evil, saying it is evil just reflects my own personal viewpoint of things. I don’t pretend to be objective, and I don’t view this as Satanic (what I view as truely satanic is authoritarianism that says I have no right to my own viewpoint, that I must submit to somebody else’s). In the same way, a theist saying God is good doesn’t really mean God is objectively good, but that merely they think God does good things for them. Even a murderer or monster would seem good to a child that was given candy and new nothing about the rest of his or her life.

Why this God supposedly allows suffering has bugged me my whole life, and is one reason I have had issues embracing theism. I know it gives people warm fuzzy feeligs, but for me its difficult to understand. Maybe because I was born with birth defects, am disabled, and never felt that a Creator really cared about me as an individual. He seems to will happiness for a few people and misery for others. He doesn’t seem to really answer prayers, either (and I have tried, and found it to be unreliable… so now I don’t pray). At best I think I accepted something like Deism, there was a first cause but it doesn’t interact with people, and that Jesus was just a wisdom teacher. The First Cause of the universe is either amoral or evil, either way I don’t think it matters to me. I’d be willing to hear evidence to the contrary.

I guess I embrace Taoism or Buddhism moreso… the world is filled with suffering, is unsatisfactory, and happiness ultimately can only be found by being detached from it. That means I really don’t care for life-affirming religions, because they essentially do not face up to the pain in the world but ultimately declare that the pain and misery is an illusion (Hindusm, Christianity).

I think he means that evil does not exist in the sense that it is a privation of good, it is a lack of a perfection, it is in a sense, disorder.

The problem lies in reality at the root of the problem of free will. God created rational creatures, both human and angelic, as free beings. But the reason why creatures had the possibility of sinning was because they were finite, limited in contrast to God who is unlimited, eternal, perfect. Of course, in their original state, they were perfect and good. But their freedom needed to be perfected in the firm and resolute orientation towards the Good. Only in God, is it found the existence of Pure Act, the equivocation between Essence and Goodness. God is Love, that is, God is Good. However, creatures are not good by nature, otherwise, they would be God. This does not involve a contradiction of God’s Omnipotence, rather it is a logical necessity which again results from the limitedness and contingency of every created reality.

In order to go towards enjoying the blessedness of the Beatific Vision, which is the glorious contemplation of God’s Essence, creatures had to merit this event. Had they been given this grace from the beginning, however, they could not have sinned. Although divine grace was given freely, it presupposed merit. This is because God is the eternal Good and the perfection and end of all rational creatures. As Scripture shows, a third of the angelic hosts failed and revolted, and humans in turn were led to revolt by Satan, the chief of the fallen angels. Now, it must be stated that moral evil, sin, is at the origin of the natural and physical evils that are found within creation. But one central question must be asked: Why does God allow evil?

It might be stated that it is because He respects angelic and human free will to which He does not do violence. And this in fact, is true. But the real answer, is that God allows evil in order to bring a greater good out of it. If God could not bring a greater good out of it, He would have destroyed it. The greatest evil realized at the hands of man, was the deicide, the execution and death of the Incarnate Word, the Son of God, Christ. But from this evil emerged the greatest possible good for man which was the redemption of man, the reopening of Heaven, the reconciliation between God and man, and the latter’s regeneration by grace and by faith.

For Christianity, the Cross is the central truth. It is the means by which man can be regenerated as an adoptive son of God. In this, Christianity essentially differs from Buddhism. Whereas Buddhism sees evil and suffering with pessimism and seeks above all to escape it, Christianity sees suffering, and the acceptance of the miseries of life as means to salvation. Through the acceptance of suffering, man comes to the realization of himself as being a nothingness, in need of salvation, he sees also the recognition of God as the All and of the necessity to divest himself of humanity in order to clothe himself with the divineness of supernatural grace. Thus, I want to assure you that although you may not experience the Presence of God, He does love you and wishes for you to be saved. It is my hope that you will rise above your present sufferings, to the knowledge and love of the True God, and of His happy possession through faith, hope and love.

 

[steph_86]

Last of all, you must not be animated with a spirit of defiance. The Church exists not only in order to teach us but also to remind us of our origins and of our final end, which is the blessedness of Heaven. At least have respect for which you cannot understand or accept. Faith is trust, faith is simplicity, and above all, faith is love. But it demands obedience. Obedience is not demeaning, rather, it is humbling. Even Christ, who was the Word and the Son of the Father, did not regard obedience as below His stature, rather He humbled himself, and in obedience to the Father, He found Joy and Love. For obedience is Love, obedience is Charity. We were created by Charity, for Charity, with Charity and in the end, we will be saved by Charity. Now, I leave you with the words of Paul, in his epistle to the Philippians:

Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philipians 2: 5-11)

 

[Daedelus76]

No, Christianity is not about the self. It is about God, who is not us.
You say that Buddhism doesn’t teach a “self” but if that is true then why try and enlighten a non existing self? If there is no self then Buddhism would not exist. …As for morality, why would it matter how others treat you if the self is an illusion? Who is there to be mistreated and abused?

That’s a good question and if one contemplated that enough one would glimpse their own original nature and enlightenment. In the Tiantai school in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc., enlightenment is not truely something one strives for, it is rather what our true nature already is. So rather than a “doing” enlighthenment is a non-doing. Ultimately Buddhism is not a religion where one accomplishes anything, it’s just the intention to approach life with a spiritual viewpoint- getting in touch with the sacred or ultimate dimension.

The problem lies in reality at the root of the problem of free will. God created rational creatures, both human and angelic, as free beings. But the reason why creatures had the possibility of sinning was because they were finite, limited in contrast to God who is unlimited, eternal, perfect. Of course, in their original state, they were perfect and good. But their freedom needed to be perfected in the firm and resolute orientation towards the Good. Only in God, is it found the existence of Pure Act, the equivocation between Essence and Goodness. God is Love, that is, God is Good.

An observation: God doesn’t seem to be a person in this theology, more like an inexorable force. The way I see it, genuine love only exists between persons, so I don’t see how “God loves me” is true with this theology.

It might be stated that it is because He respects angelic and human free will to which He does not do violence.

Christian Scriptures imply that God will one day “do violence” to human and angelic free will with a burning lake of fire. If God will one day punish injustice despite free will presently existing, why doesn’t he do this sooner?

And this in fact, is true. But the real answer, is that God allows evil in order to bring a greater good out of it. If God could not bring a greater good out of it, He would have destroyed it.

What greater good comes from a little child in African dying from starvation or disease?

Through the acceptance of suffering, man comes to the realization of himself as being a nothingness, in need of salvation, he sees also the recognition of God as the All and of the necessity to divest himself of humanity in order to clothe himself with the divineness of supernatural grace…

So God expects me to engage in alot of efforts to deal with a problem he caused? None of us choose to be born, in Christian theology, so I don’t see how God’s solution is at all fair or just- its all about undue personal responsibility in place of a vision of corporate responsibility.

Last of all, you must not be animated with a spirit of defiance. The Church exists not only in order to teach us but also to remind us of our origins and of our final end, which is the blessedness of Heaven. At least have respect for which you cannot understand or accept. Faith is trust, faith is simplicity, and above all, faith is love. But it demands obedience.

This works both ways, maybe you should give respect, trust, and obedience to the Dalai Lama or the Shin Monshu of Japan? I looked into the history of Catholicism and I believe the Vatican takes one line from Matthew and a plays fast and loose with a few others elsewhere and runs with it (not that I think the Bible is the Word of God anyways, and I fully accept much of the Gospels are polemical, not historical- more Jesus Seminar, less Moody Bible Institute). This doesn’t even take into account things like the Donation of Constantine- the modern Papacy’s mythos is the result of centuries of political struggle. It takes a supreme effort of faith (or gullibility) to see the proof in the otherwise ambiguous evidence.

 

[Lisa44]

That’s a good question and if one contemplated that enough one would glimpse their own original nature and enlightenment. In the Tiantai school in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, etc., enlightenment is not truely something one strives for, it is rather what our true nature already is. So rather than a “doing” enlighthenment is a non-doing. Ultimately Buddhism is not a religion where one accomplishes anything, it’s just the intention to approach life with a spiritual viewpoint- getting in touch with the sacred or ultimate dimension.
…

This is true, but one can’t build castles in the air. And morality is the foundation of the castle. You can’t climb to the top story while you are stepping on people’s heads below you.

 

[steph_86]

An observation: God doesn’t seem to be a person in this theology, more like an inexorable force. The way I see it, genuine love only exists between persons, so I don’t see how “God loves me” is true with this theology.

God is a Person, or rather, a communion of Three Persons distinct in their relations, but one in substance. Each perfect, holy, eternal, infinite and unlimited. This cannot be proven philosophically, but it is a theological truth. Of course, you are free to accept or not accept this.

Christian Scriptures imply that God will one day “do violence” to human and angelic free will with a burning lake of fire. If God will one day punish injustice despite free will presently existing, why doesn’t he do this sooner?

Yes, that is true, although not in the sense that you imply it. Freedom implies choice but it also involves responsibility. God respects the freedom and autonomy of rational creatures. Every rational creature is free to believe or not to believe, this in fact is at the origin of Evil. God created rational creatures free so that they could enjoy His perfect freedom and be happy with Him. After their Fall, the fallen angels were cast out of Heaven and bound in Hell, which is the state of eternal separation with God although it also comprises darkness and the subjection of the angelic spiritual essences to a physical fire, that torments them.

In this, is seen the fact that although God is Love, and Goodness, He is also Just. He does not leave Evil unpunished, or else it would involve a contradiction of His Goodness and of His Providential rule over creation. Now you ask why God does not sooner punish injustice. By this, I surmise that you mean, why doesn’t God end all injustice all at once? I am not certain on this. One reason is that, as stated earlier, God respects human freedom, human autonomy, and its consistent inclination towards rebellion to God and His Law. The root cause of sin and injustice, is the lack of consideration of God, as the ultimate end of man’s rational existence. Man is essentially a fallen creature. God cannot put an end to moral evil because it would involve doing “violence” to man’s freedom. In order for God to put an end to evil, man has to want God, worship Him and recognize the necessity of His existence. Keep in mind that according to Christian theology, human evil cannot be separated from the struggle between the forces of God, and the forces of Satan. The reason why God has not put an end to evil, it is because mankind has not yet reached “the fullness of the stature of Christ”. Now, we cannot expect all of mankind to convert to Christianity as a whole. In fact, if Scripture is correct, the historical cohabitation between good and evil will end in a virulent and methodical persecution of the Christian people. Still, this persecution of cosmic ramifications, will help regenerate humanity, that is, redeemed Christians, to achieve the maturity of Christian spirituality. It is only by this realization that mankind will have reached the perfect adoration needed to put an end to the existence of both moral and natural evil. Now, the reasons I have stated are essentially theological.

What greater good comes from a little child in African dying from starvation or disease?

I do not know. In fact, there isn’t. This is why all Christians should do their best to improve humanity’s material condition and assist in the alleviation of suffering. The Church has done a great deal of good in this matter. And within the history of Christianity, and of Christendom, many of the hospitals were originally founded by religious orders in order to assist in the care of the sick and the destitute.

Still, your insistence on the existence of suffering as an absolute aberration and an insult to human dignity stems in my belief from your incapacity to accept the simple truth that all evil results from the sin of man, of his imperfection, and the fact that in most instances God cannot directly intervene in order to right human injustice. Rather, He tends to make use of human intermediaries to carry the works of goodness. This is called divine Providence. But, once again, it must be stated, God respects the autonomy of human earthly life. In fact, all creation contains its own autonomy, its own laws, a network of physical causes built one upon the other. This principle of causality is even admitted in Buddhism. But in the end, all this chain of different causes are put into motion by the First Cause, who is the Origin of the universe and who maintains all reality into being. As such, the orderliness of the universe is itself the reflection and the expression of God’s creative activity.