E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
- Status
S
st_felicity
Guest
/
||
“Those who have ears ought to hear.”
||
“Those who have ears ought to hear.”
D
dcrowmik
Guest
Hi again Spock. Thanks for bearing with me again in my limited attempt at discussing things in a way you may understand.
In an earlier post you mentioned it was not your choice to have children. But you did, you love them, and you have grandchildren. In your “display” of your love for them you nurture, caress, and so on. Now, I’m going to make a supposition that at times in the upbringing of your child, you also had to admonish, correct, express displeasure, etc. Why did you have to do that? To point them or guide them back to the “right” path, to keep them from straying, to “display” to them that you care about their place in life or “display” that you love them. To, perhaps, bring a greater good out of the unpleasant task, yes?
Now, let’s suppose again. Pretend that I grew up with your children and my father “displayed” his love to me differently than you did with your kids. It doesn’t matter if he was more or less nurturing, more or less punishing than you, more or less “reasonable” than you – he just was. However, he loved me nonetheless, and you loved your children.
In a strictly philosophical sense can either you or I absolutely, without uncertainty, claim to know which father “loved their child more” or which father loved their child “more perfectly” (or perfectly, for that matter)? We can’t answer that question absolutely – and we can’t answer any question in this life whatsoever with absoluteness (I use the common definition of absolute as “without imperfection, complete, perfect in nature”). When a third party now comes along who has observed my father and you over the years and argues that your “display” of love was better or my father’s “display” of love was better, it simply becomes an exercise in relativism, doesn’t it, because the third party does not really know all the actions, thoughts, interactions, feelings and underlying intimacies of each father. Thus, if they were to say you were the perfect father, their judgment would be an imperfect one based only on comparison against their own set of moral or philosophical beliefs, outlooks, understandings.
Now bear with me because this is going somewhere. Pretend, now, that the third party hears a report of yet a third father and their “display” of love to their child, investigates this father, learns completely in depth about them then decides this third father is better than mine or than you. And so on, and so on. It turns like a wheel round and round through the ages because they have believed in no absolute, have made comparisons and logical conclusions based on relative bases and, thus, have not found the absolute because they disbelieved in an absolute out of pride, out of blindness, out of fear out of…
Which brings me back to, to wrap this up, what you and I have briefly touched on earlier, and that is love. As you stated love to you is an emotion, perhaps an intuition. And because it is such, in your definition, can you absolutely, without any uncertainty whatsoever, know that your definition of love (or mine, for that matter) is correct? You can’t – but you can, (surprise!). However, the only way you can “know” the answer to love is correct is to know something you feel you don’t know – God.
Philosophically speaking, how can you or any of us truly know God? We can’t. It goes past philosophy, logic, theology and any other -ology and come down to turning deeply within yourself, seeing deeply within, hearing deeply within, listening to the silence within and asking yourself within: “what is love?” You must divorce your logic, man, and turn off all the clicking and clacking of those mental gears and simply let the silent indwelling of your very human nature dwell up from within you to answer you silently – silently as you don’t know that you are listening.
The answer to your original question of “why God this and why God that” can only be answered up to a certain point with all the fine learning and “-ologies” in the world. At a certain point you have to let go of the fear (fear being no logical way in your mind to conceive of or answer the “illogical”) and dig deep into yourself using that intuition or emotion you mentioned and let it talk to you. God is within and He oh, so much loves you, Spock. Your answer is found in love, Spock, your answer is found in the depths of love.
Finally, even if one says they do not believe in the existence of God or “a god”, I’ll bet you there would never be any harm to one’s mental state ask oneself a rhetorical question from time to time – “why God this?” If there is no God He will not answer, no? All you have wasted is a second or two of your thought processing time, correct? If there is “a god” He just might answer you, yes? Would you be open to an answer if you though you heard one? Would you be willing to share that with others if you had doubts it really was an answer?
S
Sonoran_Son
Guest
Thank you for the correction.
Thank you for the explanation, it gives me much to think about and has helped me understand St. Thomas’ argument. If I develop any further questions, I’ll be sure to contact you.
S
Spock
Guest
Ok. Your previous proof was good, because you did not specify God’s nature. Now you inserted two descriptors, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. This changes your original premise, which is, of course fine. The trouble is that we have to find a mutually acceptable definiton for these terms. Right now I cannot evaluate NEP* and SFP*, because I don’t know what omnibenevolence means for you. (I know what it means for me, but it would be presumptuous to argue based upon my definition.)
Omnipotent is easy. I offer this definition: “God’s omnipotence means that God is able to actualize (or instantiate) any possible world”. Obviously God cannot actualize a logically impossible world, and that fact does not decrease his omnipotence. Can we agree on this definition?
Omnibenevolence may not be so easy. Please tell me what does “omnibenevolence” mean?
By the way, you could have just inserted the word “omnimalevolent” instead of “omnibenevolent”. It is a fun exercise.
(NEP**) The nature of an essentially omniMALEvolent and omnipotent God contains a moral principle, which he necessarily acts on as he is omniMALEvolent, that would prohibit Him from creating a person that does something moral. (Observe, not immoral, but moral),
(SFP**) It is not the case that God’s omniMALEvolent nature contains any moral principle that would make it logically impossible for God to create a significantly free person.
If you think that NEP* and SFP* can be freely used instead of NEP and SFP, then obviously NEP** and SFP** could also be used.
S
Spock
Guest
The answer is yes. Yes, I was a believer once. But, no, God never talked to me in any shape or form I might recognize. Also, I have an open invitation to God, to come and have a friendly chat, whenever it is convenient. To use the much-abused phrase, my heart is open. (I hate this dumb phrase, but I am using it since it might be meaningful for you.)
S
Spock
Guest
Not correct. This is not my position. Since neither you nor anyone else can offer a rational explanation, there is no reason to believe that such an explanation exists. If God has such an explanation, he is more then welcome to come and give that explanation to us. The ball is in his court. We are waiting.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Obviously you are fully aware that I (and other Christians) believe that such an explanation exists, and therefore we have a reason to believe this. So what you seem to be criticizing here is the quality of our reason. After all, people can have good reasons and bad reasons for believing in something, and we all want to have good reasons. Unfortunately, good/bad, rational/irrational, and so forth can often be defined subjectively.
Going back to your above quote, I think this would be a good time to clarify the reasons to believe that such an explanation exists. The question is whether or not someone considers the reason to be satisfactory enough to warrant belief. For example:
**Christian Perspective: ** Place faith and trust in divine revelation. God reveals that he takes care of matters of sin and justice but does not reveal the details. A Christian, therefore, does not need to know the details in order to believe that God will fulfill his promise. This, of course, is a religious argument and would not be meaningful outside a religious perspective.
Philosophical Perspective: Here the question is treated theoretically and objectively. In this world we have people responsible for handling matters of justice (judges, the courts, attorneys, etc.). These are humans dealing with humans. Humans are limited in their capacity to know things and do things. If an eternal, omniscient and omnipotent being undertakes the responsibility to handle matters of justice, his omniscience allows him to know more than humans, and his omnipotence allows him to do more. Furthermore, because human knowledge, human wisdom and human actions are not divine, humans would not possess the faculties of fully comprehending things beyond our knowledge, wisdom and actions. Imagination helps us to envision things beyond our concrete experience, but this still falls short when contemplating divinity, because no one’s imagination can be said to encompass what an omniscient being would (theoretically) know, nor can any one’s imagination fully envision everything that an omnipotent being could do.
Moreover, if God has an explanation of how he does something beyond our faculties, and if he explains it to us and we judge it to be a rational explanation, then it was not beyond the faculties of our intellect to begin with. Therefore, to realistically theorize what a divine being is capable of, we have to be willing to exercise a bit of intellectual humility.
On the other hand, if God exists and he is omniscient and omnipotent then much of what he does would be mysterious to us (i.e., beyond our abilities to comprehend and judge whether or not it is rational). In light of all this, a person can have a philosophical reason to believe that, theoretically, an eternal divine being is capable of dealing in matters of justice in ways that seem mysterious to us. In this case, one does not have to withhold belief in the possibility of God having this power until God provides an explanation of how he wields this power.
Non-theoretical Perspective: This is the examination of specific proposals, which are then judged to be rational or irrational. If a specific proposal is concluded to be rational, then likewise the belief in it is rational. If someone puts forth a certain broad-sweeping notion (i.e., “God ultimately satisfies all concerns of justice”) but does not give a specific explanation as to how this notion takes place, then a non-theoretical examination cannot take place. Belief in the notion, therefore, is withheld until a non-theoretical examination is possible.
There may be more than these three perspectives (I’m doing this off the top of my head). But these three seem to represent what is being done in this thread.
(Continued in my next post)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
Being a Christian, my beliefs concerning God and how he handles justice are in the first category.
Nevertheless, because this is a philosophy forum, I have been trying to ground my statements within the second category, using what we commonly experience among humans to make theoretical propositions concerning God.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be coming from the third perspective. It explains that you are not irrational in what you personally believe, because your beliefs fit the 3rd Perspective’s definition for rational belief. Nevertheless, this is not the only means by which belief is accomplished, as I have demonstrated above.
In the past you have expressed desire for the conversation to be along common ground. Because of that (and because this is a philosophy forum) I have tried to be more philosophical rather than religious, to the extent that I can. Therefore, my focus has been to discuss this according to the 2nd Perspective, which would the common ground between our views.
Nevertheless, when you make statements like this…
“Since neither you nor anyone else can offer a rational explanation, there is no reason to believe that such an explanation exists. If God has such an explanation, he is more then welcome to come and give that explanation to us. The ball is in his court. We are waiting”
…it seems you want the entire discussion to be in accordance with the 3rd Perspective. And that is fine (it’s your thread). I personally don’t have much to offer in this category, although others might. But whereas the 3rd Perspective is very useful in discerning the truth of things (generally speaking), I think it is problematic in dealing with the topic at hand, because it presumes that humans are capable of not only understanding divine knowledge, wisdom and actions, but also being qualified to judge whether or not they are rational. (As a matter-of-fact, I don’t even know what the standard for such a judgment would be).
Being a Christian, my beliefs concerning God and how he handles justice are in the first category.
Nevertheless, because this is a philosophy forum, I have been trying to ground my statements within the second category, using what we commonly experience among humans to make theoretical propositions concerning God.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be coming from the third perspective. It explains that you are not irrational in what you personally believe, because your beliefs fit the 3rd Perspective’s definition for rational belief. Nevertheless, this is not the only means by which belief is accomplished, as I have demonstrated above.
In the past you have expressed desire for the conversation to be along common ground. Because of that (and because this is a philosophy forum) I have tried to be more philosophical rather than religious, to the extent that I can. Therefore, my focus has been to discuss this according to the 2nd Perspective, which would the common ground between our views.
Nevertheless, when you make statements like this…
“Since neither you nor anyone else can offer a rational explanation, there is no reason to believe that such an explanation exists. If God has such an explanation, he is more then welcome to come and give that explanation to us. The ball is in his court. We are waiting”
…it seems you want the entire discussion to be in accordance with the 3rd Perspective. And that is fine (it’s your thread). I personally don’t have much to offer in this category, although others might. But whereas the 3rd Perspective is very useful in discerning the truth of things (generally speaking), I think it is problematic in dealing with the topic at hand, because it presumes that humans are capable of not only understanding divine knowledge, wisdom and actions, but also being qualified to judge whether or not they are rational. (As a matter-of-fact, I don’t even know what the standard for such a judgment would be).
D
dcrowmik
Guest
Hello again Mr. Spock. I came across the article below written by Peter Kreeft. I’m wondering, does this shed any more light onto the answer you seek?
“Finally, what about the philosophical problem? It is not logically contradictory to say an all-powerful and all-loving God tolerates so much evil when he could eradicate it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The question makes three questionable assumptions…”
Read the whole thing here.
By the way, did Fides et Ratio do anything for you?
“Finally, what about the philosophical problem? It is not logically contradictory to say an all-powerful and all-loving God tolerates so much evil when he could eradicate it? Why do bad things happen to good people? The question makes three questionable assumptions…”
Read the whole thing here.
By the way, did Fides et Ratio do anything for you?
D
dcrowmik
Guest
One more essay from Kreeft. In it he quotes atheist Ivan Karamazov:
I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood that they’ve shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.
The rest is here.
Finally, here is some more of Kreeft’s writing. From my limited ability of reading I believe he speaks in the philosophical sense, as you like, on some basic questions you are asking in your head.
I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world’s finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, of all the blood that they’ve shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.
The rest is here.
Finally, here is some more of Kreeft’s writing. From my limited ability of reading I believe he speaks in the philosophical sense, as you like, on some basic questions you are asking in your head.
G
Gregory_I
Guest
By what standard do you define rationality? Since all things come from God, then how can you possibly stand in judgement on GOd?
I resubmit:
What at the end of the day is your criterion for Good versus evil, and why?
Is goodness apparent?
Is evil apparent?
If you say that Good is apparent but there is no GOd, you could mean Good is what benefits you, and you alone.
For you to consider others is irrational, because why waste your energy on perceived ingrates and societal leeches?
If you say evil is apparent, but there is no God; well, on what basis? Other people are simply trying to do what is best for THEM. No one acts on evil impulses without some perceived self-benefit.
Therefore their actions are good, because they meet the same criteria for goodness as you establish for yourself: Self-Benefit. THerefore there is no evil.
Therefore, if God himself were as terrible as you make him appear, he is still Good, because he is doing what is best for him; and if you will not allow others to question the validity of your own actions, on what basis do you question God’s? if he exists.
It would be incomprehensible, but you could not consider it evil.
If however you believe that good is what benefits not only yourself, but the majority: Well, on what basis? What if the majority of people in a given society are cannibals? And what if they all decide that YOU are on the menu? Is their decision to gut you and roast you good or evil?
If it is good, then how do you explain other peoples reaction to this act as evil? On what basis should others accept this act as good? Where is the determinating factor?
If this action of theirs is evil, how can that be since they are merely seeking what benefits themselves and their society?
Perhaps you will say that good is following your conscience:
But a conscience presupposes adherence to a formed set of ideas. What makes these ideas good?
Perhaps you say evil is that which opposes you- BUt if someone opposes you in search of self-benefit, then how could that be evil, when they are doing good?
Can one action be both intrinsically good and intrinsically evil at the same time?
Perhaps you would say “THey are doing what is good for THEM and not for me.”
And what keeps them from saying the same about you? TO identify good as something that exists outside yourself (and you do simply by implying a good that others can benefit from that you do NOT benefit from) is to give it an objective existence. THis means that it must have an origin of greater or equal value. THerefore, good must come from goodness. And where does goodness come from?
What is your determinig factor, if not God?
There is no rational answer aside from God.
I resubmit:
What at the end of the day is your criterion for Good versus evil, and why?
Is goodness apparent?
Is evil apparent?
If you say that Good is apparent but there is no GOd, you could mean Good is what benefits you, and you alone.
For you to consider others is irrational, because why waste your energy on perceived ingrates and societal leeches?
If you say evil is apparent, but there is no God; well, on what basis? Other people are simply trying to do what is best for THEM. No one acts on evil impulses without some perceived self-benefit.
Therefore their actions are good, because they meet the same criteria for goodness as you establish for yourself: Self-Benefit. THerefore there is no evil.
Therefore, if God himself were as terrible as you make him appear, he is still Good, because he is doing what is best for him; and if you will not allow others to question the validity of your own actions, on what basis do you question God’s? if he exists.
It would be incomprehensible, but you could not consider it evil.
If however you believe that good is what benefits not only yourself, but the majority: Well, on what basis? What if the majority of people in a given society are cannibals? And what if they all decide that YOU are on the menu? Is their decision to gut you and roast you good or evil?
If it is good, then how do you explain other peoples reaction to this act as evil? On what basis should others accept this act as good? Where is the determinating factor?
If this action of theirs is evil, how can that be since they are merely seeking what benefits themselves and their society?
Perhaps you will say that good is following your conscience:
But a conscience presupposes adherence to a formed set of ideas. What makes these ideas good?
Perhaps you say evil is that which opposes you- BUt if someone opposes you in search of self-benefit, then how could that be evil, when they are doing good?
Can one action be both intrinsically good and intrinsically evil at the same time?
Perhaps you would say “THey are doing what is good for THEM and not for me.”
And what keeps them from saying the same about you? TO identify good as something that exists outside yourself (and you do simply by implying a good that others can benefit from that you do NOT benefit from) is to give it an objective existence. THis means that it must have an origin of greater or equal value. THerefore, good must come from goodness. And where does goodness come from?
What is your determinig factor, if not God?
There is no rational answer aside from God.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Spock:
These stips will never be reconciled between an atheist and a theist. You well know this. To theists, we are simply the lowest rung of spiritual beings, from ground level up. I said, once before, that what happens to us is, to some extent, trivial to God. And it is. We’re here for approximately 27,000 earth-days. Not a long time, in the scheme of things celestial. The good that obtains, for the victim of harm, is the “good” that readers perceive for the innocents of T.S. Elliot’s, “Sweeney Among the Nightingales,” and “Sweeney Erect” poems. Theirs is the “good” of “innocence.” The good of potentially seeing God’s “face.”
I couch my last sentence with the word, “potentially,” because I am not perfectly sure that all of the victims will see God’s face. But, I think a great many will. I think that enduring an event of evility, places one in a place of endearment with the Almighty. You want the good to happen here and now, where and while we can see it. But, this life is metaphysical, so we won’t see it. Only the Apostolic succession will vaguely know of it, but, are assured of it because of Christ’s promise.
God bless,
jd
S
Spock
Guest
I keep wondering why they cannot be reconciled? Is there something illogical or unreasonable about them?
Look at the first one. No Catholic would say that it is morally permissible to “harvest” the organs of a dying person, just so that other people can benefit from it. Even if that person is in coma, without the hope of recovering. Even if many lives would be saved in the process. I see no problem of agreeing on this principle between a Catholic and an atheist. Am I wrong here? If I am wrong, what is my error?
Consider the second one. If someone is offered a life-saving procedure, and the person refuses it, is the doctor allowed to ahead anyway? Can the doctor override the person’s free will? Do Catholics advocate that the person should be cured, even he does not want to be cured? If someone has cancer, and does not want to go under chemotherapy, should the doctor force-feed him the medications? Would not that procedure undermine the person’s dignity? Where am I wrong in the stipulation?
How about the third one? Suppose a father wishes to teach a child that certain activities are wrong. To achieve that, he administers a few slaps on the buttocks of the child. After a few slaps (or a few repetition of slaps) the child will learn that such behavior is wrong, it will carry deserved punishment, and he will behave better. If the father stops at this point, then everything is fine. If, however that father keeps on beating, there is no “added” benefit, the administering of the additional pain is not necessary any more. Where is the error in the stipulation?
And finally the last one. Consider the previous scenario, where the child is not that young any more, and there is no need for corporeal punishment. It is enough if the parent tells the child not to do something. If the parent still takes the cane and beats up the child, how can that be justified?
You see, I am open to criticisms. Come and tell me what do you, a Catholic, find unreasonable in my ideas.
Sorry, my friend, but I don’t see the relevance of this. Moreover, I find it abhorrent. With this reasoning you can justify anything, the Holocaust, waterboarding, rape, torture, murders, genocides, whatever. After all they don’t “really” matter in the “greater scheme of things”! Why did God issue the 10 commandments, if this life would not “really” matter?
S
Spock
Guest
I read Kreeft’s writings. I find them unreasonable. I could go and answer his arguments line-by-line, but it would take far too much time. If you want to take the most important parts of his argument, and post a synopsys, I will be happy to give an analysis. No, the fides and ratio does not do anything for me.
C
cmgc
Guest
The original question if I comprehend it - why did God create the beings he knew would go corrupt? - is a great one. If God could have foreseen that half of his created beings would go astray, he might have produced an overall more perfect universe by choosing not to create them. Right?
If I can respond to the topic in general, I have five initial thoughts:
First, I think one has to be careful not to think that God created Satan FOR evil-doing. This goes along with the fallacious idea that doing corrupt things is good for anyone, much less the universe in general.
Second, evil is a corruption of good and not a force in its own right. It is tempting to think that Satan is acting out of some motive other than a pursuit of what he thinks is good for himself. Evil is crafty, but ultimately selfish and therefore clueless with regard to the real motives of goodness. If devils are hell-bent on destroying good, they do not understand what they are destroying. It’s not because Satan is an intellectual slouch - if he truly understood I think he would become good in an instant. I can’t speculate on why a super-being will not be set right.
Third, I think it is wrong to think of the universe’s souls and overall degree of perfection in aggregate terms. How can we know what makes a universe better or worse? This is our utilitarian tendency to ask what is helpful combined with our scientific tendency to look for what is simple and sweeping, when God is thinking in terms of loving individual souls.
Fourth, to follow on the first: evil is not the salt of the earth. How could more good come out of corruption than comes out of obedience to pure love? Is love really better after lies and cheating? God could choose to make it so, I suppose – but would He subvert this order for us if he does not do it for himself? How can the perfect embodiment of goodness be improved by making part of himself corrupt? Though we will be brought to ultimate goodness in the end, much goodness was forgone in the meantime that could have been enjoyed at every moment – and by its own light, not by some light reflected dimly off our sin.
Fifth, not all knowledge is built on prior proofs. Some is implicitly understood by the human mind after it is allowed the possibility of being true. One could logically argue that there is no such thing as a painting, but we recognize the image and its meaning just as we recognize the humanity in others. I’m afraid God is this way - you have to welcome him freely because he will not force himself on you. (You’re not much of a lover if you only love those who are proven helpful to you; neither are you if you must force yourself on others.) To a purely logical creature, indelible proof would be brute force overriding and therefore negating the will. It would be an abuse. On the other hand, nothing is stopping you from asking God for proof. You just have to be willing to follow all truth no matter where it leads.
The simple answer to the question is that God created you out of love, you specifically, so that you could one day become a creature so enormously resplendent and perfect that we would be tempted to worship it as a God were we to see it today. Its chief attribute would be the ability to love. What does perfect love require? Obviously free will, because anything else is not love. Now imagine God has not yet created us, but in his mind he has conceived us in each and every detail of our whole being, knowing how we would turn out – and let’s suppose once he did that, he decided not to create us after all. Logically we would ask how can you do wrong to a creature that does not exist - how can not instantiating an idea possibly be to do ill to it?
For the one thing, is it not clear that an artist who refuses to create a masterpiece that shall be taken wrongly is less loving of his art than if he were to ignore the corruption and produce it anyway? And another: if we suffer, God suffers too, so it’s not like he’s dishing out something he’s not feeling in an infinitely more severe way than we are (if we don’t quite grasp how far from perfection our corruption takes us, he sees it clearly because he knows our potential).
[sorry, there seems to be a character limit - I will post the remainder subsequently]
If I can respond to the topic in general, I have five initial thoughts:
First, I think one has to be careful not to think that God created Satan FOR evil-doing. This goes along with the fallacious idea that doing corrupt things is good for anyone, much less the universe in general.
Second, evil is a corruption of good and not a force in its own right. It is tempting to think that Satan is acting out of some motive other than a pursuit of what he thinks is good for himself. Evil is crafty, but ultimately selfish and therefore clueless with regard to the real motives of goodness. If devils are hell-bent on destroying good, they do not understand what they are destroying. It’s not because Satan is an intellectual slouch - if he truly understood I think he would become good in an instant. I can’t speculate on why a super-being will not be set right.
Third, I think it is wrong to think of the universe’s souls and overall degree of perfection in aggregate terms. How can we know what makes a universe better or worse? This is our utilitarian tendency to ask what is helpful combined with our scientific tendency to look for what is simple and sweeping, when God is thinking in terms of loving individual souls.
Fourth, to follow on the first: evil is not the salt of the earth. How could more good come out of corruption than comes out of obedience to pure love? Is love really better after lies and cheating? God could choose to make it so, I suppose – but would He subvert this order for us if he does not do it for himself? How can the perfect embodiment of goodness be improved by making part of himself corrupt? Though we will be brought to ultimate goodness in the end, much goodness was forgone in the meantime that could have been enjoyed at every moment – and by its own light, not by some light reflected dimly off our sin.
Fifth, not all knowledge is built on prior proofs. Some is implicitly understood by the human mind after it is allowed the possibility of being true. One could logically argue that there is no such thing as a painting, but we recognize the image and its meaning just as we recognize the humanity in others. I’m afraid God is this way - you have to welcome him freely because he will not force himself on you. (You’re not much of a lover if you only love those who are proven helpful to you; neither are you if you must force yourself on others.) To a purely logical creature, indelible proof would be brute force overriding and therefore negating the will. It would be an abuse. On the other hand, nothing is stopping you from asking God for proof. You just have to be willing to follow all truth no matter where it leads.
The simple answer to the question is that God created you out of love, you specifically, so that you could one day become a creature so enormously resplendent and perfect that we would be tempted to worship it as a God were we to see it today. Its chief attribute would be the ability to love. What does perfect love require? Obviously free will, because anything else is not love. Now imagine God has not yet created us, but in his mind he has conceived us in each and every detail of our whole being, knowing how we would turn out – and let’s suppose once he did that, he decided not to create us after all. Logically we would ask how can you do wrong to a creature that does not exist - how can not instantiating an idea possibly be to do ill to it?
For the one thing, is it not clear that an artist who refuses to create a masterpiece that shall be taken wrongly is less loving of his art than if he were to ignore the corruption and produce it anyway? And another: if we suffer, God suffers too, so it’s not like he’s dishing out something he’s not feeling in an infinitely more severe way than we are (if we don’t quite grasp how far from perfection our corruption takes us, he sees it clearly because he knows our potential).
[sorry, there seems to be a character limit - I will post the remainder subsequently]
C
cmgc
Guest
God is allowing corruption because to allow it is necessary to make perfect love possible. It is tempting to say this means “evil is necessary to allow perfect love,” but as Spock argues – and I wholeheartedly agree - evil is not necessary for good (and it makes no sense for God to practice the principle that a better good comes out of going wrong in the first place.) The right way to say it is “perfect love necessitates the option to say no.” Would you not agree that choosing not to ever instantiate those who would end up saying no is somehow either an abuse to the fundamental idea of these creatures, or more importantly an abuse to the very idea of love? Isn’t it the definition of spite? Wouldn’t it be rather mean to cut those who said “no” to you out of your life forever? Wouldn’t it be terrible to wish they never existed in the first place? I note that a wish no less a tangible evil to the target than is the decision not to create the creature in the first place. The offenses are against something else.
At every moment, God is giving you the keys to the universe. If you had been sitting in Eden and it were you against the snake to persuade Eve on whether to eat the apple, God would have given you the choice to debate or simply walk away. Would you respect a God who did anything less? People say all the time that every individual is unique, but it’s really true in the greatest sense (I’m confident we don’t see the true variation because corruption is just so typical, which is why the idea has long been around that souls who go into hell become in a sense identical to, indistinguishable from, and interchangeable with Satan). Would you respect a God who conceived of a brilliant, unique masterpiece, and when he saw it declined to love Him, he changed his mind and forgot that he had ever conceived it? It’s not as if the creature with its set of attributes is deterministically bound to some final result – it’s not like a random number generator that will always give the same numbers depending on what seed you feed the algorithm. It’s more like a quantum waveform collapse whose result you might know merely by psychic premonition. So when you nullify the idea of a being – specific, unique, and more desired by God in its potential than perhaps anything else that could be conceived – and cut off its existence simply based on prior knowledge that it will say “no” to you, that seems like an abuse against the idea of creation, doesn’t it? You’re not wiping out a bad idea – you’re wiping out a good idea that chooses what you didn’t want it to. Isn’t it somehow the actions of a lesser creator – a lesser lover – to do such a thing?
This doesn’t answer why God doesn’t isolate us from evil, nor whether there could be children of a better Eve somewhere out in the universe. What’s clear is it didn’t have to happen this way, but Eve chose as she did and so it has. That’s the same free choice we have at every moment, and God will respect it every time.
At every moment, God is giving you the keys to the universe. If you had been sitting in Eden and it were you against the snake to persuade Eve on whether to eat the apple, God would have given you the choice to debate or simply walk away. Would you respect a God who did anything less? People say all the time that every individual is unique, but it’s really true in the greatest sense (I’m confident we don’t see the true variation because corruption is just so typical, which is why the idea has long been around that souls who go into hell become in a sense identical to, indistinguishable from, and interchangeable with Satan). Would you respect a God who conceived of a brilliant, unique masterpiece, and when he saw it declined to love Him, he changed his mind and forgot that he had ever conceived it? It’s not as if the creature with its set of attributes is deterministically bound to some final result – it’s not like a random number generator that will always give the same numbers depending on what seed you feed the algorithm. It’s more like a quantum waveform collapse whose result you might know merely by psychic premonition. So when you nullify the idea of a being – specific, unique, and more desired by God in its potential than perhaps anything else that could be conceived – and cut off its existence simply based on prior knowledge that it will say “no” to you, that seems like an abuse against the idea of creation, doesn’t it? You’re not wiping out a bad idea – you’re wiping out a good idea that chooses what you didn’t want it to. Isn’t it somehow the actions of a lesser creator – a lesser lover – to do such a thing?
This doesn’t answer why God doesn’t isolate us from evil, nor whether there could be children of a better Eve somewhere out in the universe. What’s clear is it didn’t have to happen this way, but Eve chose as she did and so it has. That’s the same free choice we have at every moment, and God will respect it every time.
D
dcrowmik
Guest
Thanks for considering all my responses, however uneducated they are. Below are two links. The first is part one of two posts related to your original question discussing it in a philosophical manner. The second is a book by Alvin Plantinga called God, Freedom and Evil which goes in depth philosophically on your very question.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/do-tummy-aches-disprove-god
God, Freedom and Evil
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the book, but where does the post have a weakness in its discussion?
Finally, even as this thread begins to fade into memory, will you stay subscribed to it so that if I come across other things from time to time I can post them here to get them to you?
Peace, brother.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/do-tummy-aches-disprove-god
God, Freedom and Evil
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the book, but where does the post have a weakness in its discussion?
Finally, even as this thread begins to fade into memory, will you stay subscribed to it so that if I come across other things from time to time I can post them here to get them to you?
Peace, brother.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Hopefully! No one can really say that “No Catholic would ever permit . . .” Unfortunately some would. This is a hard question: Do we consider the life we shall kill, or the life that is naturally dying? As Catholics, we cannot kill: commit murder. You know, it’s the means do not justify the ends thing. No matter how short the life span of the donor might be, extant life is of primary importance. If nature takes the life, that is fine, but, we cannot. Where this becomes difficult is when the life of a promising young person could be saved by a simple operation and the donation of living tissue. This can be somewhat resolved by monitoring the dying person, and as soon as death occurs, then harvesting the organ(s).
A Catholic doctor should attempt to determine why a person feels like he does, and attempt to disabuse him of the idea. The doctor might need to call in help with this. But, here again, suicide is a mortal sin. The Catholic doctor cannot morally participate in the commission of such an act. Again, the Church and most Catholics believe that life is more important than anyone’s exquisite whim. The Catholic doctor is obliged to try to save the person.
No. Despite reading that greater pain and suffering is a good, it, in most situations, is not. The Catholic is advised to reprimand without force, if possible. From time to time, a Catholic will not spare the rod, so to speak. If the parent feels that he must do that, he is to be reminded that physical punishment must be kept minimal, and non-injurious, whether physically or mentally. The Catholic parent is asked to not be a “beano parent.” If the parent has a problem with these things, he is asked to get help.
It can’t. (So, don’t do it!
)Spock, try to understand, speaking from what I think would be God’s point of view, gathered from Revelation and the actions taken against the enemies of the Chosen, as well as other indications, and a consideration of where we stand in the hierarchy of beings in the three levels of existence (both spiritual and corporeal), it stands to reason that God might just prefer our higher spiritual natures rather than our lower mundane natures. We’re all headed in that direction anyway: the direction of death. We are admonished to love one another. That is the crux of what gets us into Heaven or not as all of the 10 Commandments derive from it. So, no there is no room for justifying any of the aberrations you mention.
God bless,
jd
\ //
S
Spock
Guest
Hold it. I said it is against the teaching of the Catholic Church, not that some Catholic would disagree. So do we agree on the first principle?
I did not mention suicide. I only said that the person in question refuses the help, and wants nature to take its course. In light of this, do you agree with the second principle?
You said exactly the same what I said. Do not overdo the punishment. Stop as soon as the desired effect is achieved. So why do you disagree with the third principle?
Seems like we agree on the fourth principle.It can’t. (So, don’t do it!
I am confused. If those aberrations cannot be justified (and I agree), then this life and what happens in this life is not irrelevant.
- Status