Tag: problem of evil

So How about That Fall (not the season)?

I’ve been thinking about the Christian doctrine of “The Fall” off and on again since my post on the problem of evil. As I grew up, Jack Chick (remember those comic book style evangelistic tracts?) had a pretty big influence on my 10 year old budding theology. According to him, and many others, evil entered the world after Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden. Through that act, the universally human propensity to sin, humanity’s total depravity from birth, the corruption of creation, the relational strife between all people, etc. came into being. I’d like to hone in on the corruption of creation. Maybe another question might help clear up this corruption nuance: why is “Mother” nature such a raging bitch?

For the sake of discussion, I’m laying out how I see my former Evangelicalism portraying the corruption of creation, and then list some questions I have for it. We are told in the Genesis account that there was no death before Adam’s and Eve’s disobedience. We are told that God saw his creation as good. Humankind, the apex of God’s creation and the last entity created, was called “very good.” Supposedly (this is never explicitly stated, but a pretty safe assumption based on what’s said in Genesis), every creature was vegetarian, because there was no death.

Now, once disobedience entered the world, evil did, too. Death and decay entered in the wake of perfection. The favorite verse of misogynists states that there would be pain for women in childbearing. Man was cursed to work the ground by the sweat of his brow (some have attempted to work out a theology of work pre-fall. You can look it up. I have no desire to spell that out here, and I find it terribly unconvincing). There would be gender wars, wars between family members, clothing had to be made by butchering animals (hehe, or fig leaves if you prefer). Now the following is never stated in the Genesis or other accounts, but I have heard it promulgated in enough places to consider it an Evangelical/Christian belief: all natural evil stems from the Fall. By natural evil, I mean natural disasters, sickness/disease, survival of the fittest among animals, and other unnecessary pain that is part of nature.

Here’s a bit of a detour. What is evil? I have heard it said by Augustine that evil is the privation of good. That probably applies most easily to moral evils. Theft would be the privation of the good of ownership. Murder would be the privation of the good of life. Dishonesty would be the privation of honesty. Allegedly, that makes evil a nonentity so that God is absolved from creating evil, given that he is the creator of all that exists. But what does that definition do to the very real entity of natural evil, like boiling hot magma enveloping the city of Pompeii? Let’s say God isn’t involved in every natural disaster that happened, but just lets it happen because that’s just the way things are after the Fall; does that indicate that he deprived his earlier creation of its intrinsic goodness? Or to put it another way, did tornados/earthquakes/volcanoes/floods/hurricanes/famines exist before or after the Fall? Did the very good creation contain those natural disasters intrinsically? Did God create these phenomena afterward to teach humanity a lesson, so that there were actually two creations, one very good and the other also very good, but good at being bad?

Some, like John Hick (soul-making theodicy [defense of God’s justice in the face of evil] here), have brought up the fact that gravity most certainly existed before the Fall. And if cliffs just happened to exist, and there was hard ground 200 feet below them, a tumble might take its toll on one’s self-actualization. The potentiality of toe-stubbing also probably existed pre-Fall, too (I don’t recall if these are his exact examples, but if not, booyah). But again, such instances have to do with someone’s clumsiness or obliviousness. Let’s say Adam and Eve built a shanty on the edge of the Nile. Would it be destroyed by the yearly flood cycles, or would floods simply not have existed yet in a perfect world?

What I’m aiming at is did God create natural evil (I guess before or after doesn’t really matter), or does the notion of natural “evil” tend to speak against the existence of God as we understand him—all powerful, knowledgeable, and benevolent? To put it ambiguously clearly, should we change “God” to “god”? Or a third option, does he put it there to test people? Or does he have some unstated purpose in this, and we just have to float through life making up meaning as we go? Or is he not all that benevolent? When I had a kid, I wanted to make the world the best I can for him. That world I speak of is limited to my sphere of influence, in that I can only do so much toward it, by providing an income, sagely advice (hehe, we’ll see how sagely I am when I have to deal with his probably hellion ways), loving acceptance, direction, and just being there. Enter my broken record: where’s the all powerful, wise, and good God in this world that extends beyond the one I control? Do I need to redefine things as they pertain to God? For that matter, is God even extra-linguistic, have an existence outside language games?

I discussed the existence of tornados with one of my friends, and asked him if they came from creation or after the fall. He said they aren’t really considered evil until human beings start getting (enter my putting words in his mouth) impaled by foreign objects. I’ll grant that. Let’s say all natural disasters existed before the Fall, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, blizzards, tsunamis, what have you. Adam and Eve simply didn’t care because none of those (save maybe floods) would have touched their existence in the Ancient Near East. But what about the carnivorousness that seems intrinsic to lions, and the herbivoreness that seems intrinsic to gazelles; why were the poor latter created with nerve endings? It honestly serves no purpose than to give them horrendous feeling while they’re being eviscerated by the former. Did pain receptors only magically appear after said Fall? What about cognitive bias? What about the ability to drown? Were lions intrinsically motivated not to eat our only human parents alive at the time? In fact, if carnivorousness existed from creation, and God created all the species that exist now (which isn’t the case), how many species died per day after creation? Shouldn’t there have been a pretty quick mass extinction through food shortage? And why the hell were mosquitoes created? There’s no way they weren’t annoying everything in existence before the Fall. If God exists, at best he has a sense of humor at others’ expense. I’ll admit, it’s pretty funny to witness someone swatting at “nothing” as they walk through cobwebs and attempt to fling good Charlotte from her body, but why do such insidious beasts exist at all in a very good creation? Maybe evolution is a result of the fall, and that’s where all the annoying and terrible creatures came from!

There are a few possible answers to all of these questions. One of the possibilities would be adjusting our definitions of the Western concept of God from being all good, powerful, and wise, to not being all or some of those to the nth degree. Process theism has done this to some degree. Another option is that he exists, but chooses to hide very convincingly. Another option is that our senses and everything derived from them (i.e., science) are misleading. Another possibility could be admitting ignorance/agnosticism, and not engage in conjecture about things which are unseen from those that are. Perhaps God will, as Robert M. Price has stated it (I forgot if it was here or here), put on a seminar on the other side about how and why things really are, particularly for those curious jokerpantses like me.

As always, if you got something to say drop a line in the comments section or my email at ilostmyprayerhanky AT mail to the g DOT com. I like conversing. I don’t gots all the answers. You probably don’t either. If you do, I’ll save you some time: you’re a moron and there is no point in us shouting each other down, or each of us bending over to have a pooping contest to see who gets stained first. However, in dialogue, we get more than we had before. It’s like steak and beans, but better.

A Wrinkle in Time, and Non-Intervention

I just finished reading A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle, the first in a series of five books. It finally grabbed my attention when they arrived on the planet Camazotz (about half way through the book, particularly chs 7- The Man with Red Eyes and 8- The Transparent Column). On this planet, everyone has given up their individuality, difference, or freedom, for all conflict and calamity is said to arise from these elements. When the children play, they all bounce balls and skip rope in cadence. Mothers open their doors and call their children in at the same time. Paper boys deliver papers while others are inside their houses. Any deviance from this is grounds for pain. Oh yah, this planet is devoid of pain, suffering, war, etc. because they have all sacrificed their individuality, difference, and freedom.

What would I trade to mitigate or eliminate evil? Would I give up my individuality, difference, and freedom? Color me selfish, but probably not. I REALLY like those things. Of course, on Camazotz, the people live in fear, because expressed individuality (e.g., bouncing a ball out of sync with others) means being turned over to the authorities for “processing.” All the people are asked to do is submit to “IT,” that ominous entity which hovers in the background (IT is power “incarnated” in a disembodied brain). Conform, and all your problems will evaporate. Don’t ask questions, because that edges one closer to individuality, difference, and freedom. I forgot to mention, that there are earthling children who visit this planet in order to find the father of two of them, but also fight evil which is pictured as a darkness that can be felt. It exists throughout the universe, enveloping some planets, and having a real fight put to it on others. Also, these children have been left on their own by the trinity of ethereal beings, Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which.

This got me thinking back to my post on the problem of evil. Let’s say I was god, and didn’t have to trade anything to eliminate unnecessary pain, suffering, and evil. Why would I relent? Might I have a purpose in allowing it to exist? Perhaps it gives people room to grow. Without room for theft, there is no opportunity to demonstrate honesty. Without the chance for revenge and murder, there is no opportunity for mercy and forgiveness. Without despair being a possibility, there is no understanding of unrelenting joy. But I have left people to develop their moral goodness on their own. Their good response in the opportunity of potential evil is their own, not mine. What do they need me for, then? Isn’t this free will defense, this soul-building theodicy, actually atheistic at its core? Or are there things behind the scenes of which humans are oblivious? The trinity leaves the children in fear for their mission and safety. This almost seems to be open theism before it existed 30 years later (i.e., of course, if these ghosts are taken to be the Judeo-Christian god)!

SPOILER ALERT: everything works out. Well, one of the children gets possessed by IT, the other two children and the father are transported to another planet, the trinity of ethereal beings decides to help send Meg back to Camazotz, unassisted but for a riddle to help her, and then she’s back to saving herself. Are we left on earth to save ourselves, work out our own moral goodness, and die well without god’s help? At least the children and father had direct relationship with the trinity of ethereal beings for a little. What does actual humanity have? I look forward to all comments, if you gots them.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvillllllllllll.

(I will be using male and female personal pronouns for god in this post, because it’s far less cumbersome than using “god” over and over or other weird contrivances like “godself.” Also since god’s probably not a dude or a fine lady, she will remain androgynous throughout the post, for we are not 100% of his existence. Also “god” instead of “God” is used because one is a concept, and one is a personal name that seems to give away the answer before the homework has been done. And the homework’s been going on for awhile.)

Epicurus stated the problem of evil in terms similar to this: “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” (Hume, 63).

Evil is a fact we have a hard time evading. It saturates the news and berates everyone’s lives. If it’s not pestilence, famine, tornadoes, animals experiencing pain in the wild, hurricanes, or AIDS, it’s rape, war, fraud, theft, murder, torture, unemployment, extortion, or betrayal. I’ll define evil as meaningless, purposeless, and unnecessary pain. Applied to some of the items above, it is never justifiable to rape someone and it is necessary. I guess unemployment could have a reason—a boss legitimately doesn’t have the resources to pay the staff she once did, and has to make cuts somewhere, but this definitely doesn’t speak for all kinds of unemployment. My definition of evil would also allow for momentary pain to avoid a grander evil. Let’s say someone pushed an old woman out of the way of a bus, breaking her hip and a few ribs. While we’d feel sorry for her pain, most would not call the person who saved her life evil.

Hume states that the deity is assumed to be somewhat similar to humans, but at an infinitely higher degree. “[God’s] justice, benevolence, mercy, and rectitude…is infinite; whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal is happy; therefore, he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite; He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end; But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore, it is not established for that purpose…In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?” (Hume, 63) Put more plainly, if even we humans can see the inconsistency here—i.e., that if the ability and will exist to enact something, then certain outcomes should follow—would not the deity, if she existed, note this inconsistency and want to clear it up? Is there something keeping god’s omnipotence or omnibenevolence at bay?

While some have posited a god with less than godly attributes (a powerful being, but no all-powerful; a moral being like us who isn’t perfect, or is indeed capricious like some of the ancient gods), theists have generally not taken this route. One theistic response to the problem of evil is the free will defense. God allows human beings free will to attain the highest moral good, given that morality has no meaning without the existence of evil. What would an honest person even mean, if there was no possibility of theft, cheating, and lying? What would charity mean if there was no possibility for indifference, name calling, senseless beating, or injustice?

The problem I have with the free will defense is that it neuters god’s free will. I think theists and atheists alike can agree that if god exists, god would have free will that he would exercise it sometimes. So we have free will. Where’s god’s? Does human free will automatically determine that god doesn’t intervene in ANY human action? If that is so, that might throw the problem of god’s omnipotence back at her. In fact, it makes the her look quite impotent. Why would such a being deserve worship if that being has a free will but NEVER uses it? Another related reason for god’s non-intervention is that he has a legitimate reason for doing so that cannot be disclosed, similar to presidents keeping certain intelligence from the public for national security or to the prime directive in the Star Trek universe. Even if this is allowed, what then would people want to do with a god who didn’t help them in their time of need? Friends lend a hand in time of need. Even if god only intervened 2% of the time in human affairs (I’m assuming benevolently here; most theistic faiths leave god wide room for wrath), that would be great.

Another thing that’s hard for me is that the whole problem of evil seems merely a logical/rational exercise. There is hard evidence for evil (which even that is open to interpretation) and that is what humans have to deal with, but then we are arguing about something/someone unseen from what is seen. It almost seems pointless to talk about since this unseen tends not to (dramatic understatement of the millennium) interact with the visible. There’d be no discussion if he showed up. However, even if god did show up, court cases are always pitted against one another using the same evidence, so I guess the problem of evil still would exist. So for now we’re left with conjecture. And conjecture is none too comforting in life’s difficulties.

And the free will argument also only applies to human made evils. What of the evils of nature? Even if we don’t attribute the word “evil” to natural disasters, they’re pretty dang uncool to all living things. And nature’s built that way. If she did design it, why did god design things to go like this, where there are regular seasons for certain disasters (e.g., tornadoes, hurricanes)? Would life have been too boring without these? One could posit that even here, natural disasters provide an opportunity for humans to be altruistic. Let’s say that’s the case. In so doing, what has that made god into? If she created the course of nature to have disasters in seasons or throughout the year, he has also provided opportunity for many people’s free will to be savagely impugned (dying because of a natural disaster that did not necessarily have to be introduced into the created system). In my definition of evil (meaningless, purposeless, unnecessary pain), god’s creation fits the bill. Unless she decides someday to reveal his meaning, purpose, and necessity for inflicting (sorry, allowing to be inflicted) such pain.

I am open to the possibility of being profoundly wrong. When I was gathering sources, I found there was enough to write a pretty lengthy paper on, so I went with going over only a few general sources. There’s probably some stuff I missed. Maybe I even misrepresented something on accident (In the future, if I do subject blogs like this, I will spend more time with the subject to give it a fair treatment. For now, I’ll stick with individual books and reflect on them.) If you want the sources I was going to look at on the problem of evil, email me at ilostmyprayerhanky at gmail dot com. If you have positive or negative comments, leave them below. If you have a book or article I should read, just tell me about it in the comments. I already have enough to read as it is. Unless it’s too dang profound for me to ignore. Just be honest with me. You don’t have to be respectful in your comments if you wish, but expect respect from my end. I’ve tried to put my trolling ways behind me.

—————————
Works Consulted
Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998. pp. 58-66

Quinn, Philip L. “Philosophy of Religion.” In Robert Audi (ed.) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 696-700

Yandell, Keith E. Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 1999. pp. 123-165