|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Theodicy
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
IngoB - if you are going to persist in telling me that my problems are nonsense, and effectively, if I was as thoughtful and clever as you I wouldn't have this problem, then you might as well stop wasting your time, because that kind of condescension doesn't wash with me.
I've read, and understood (because despite your implications I'm neither stupid nor naive) your argument. It doesn't work for me. It still leaves me with a God who repulses me. I have been thinking about this stuff and trying to puzzle it out for decades; your contributions have been of zero assistance. Sorry.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
No, I say that you should do two things: 1. Look carefully whether you have actually understood what is being proposed, or whether you are simply misunderstanding that. 2. Evaluate why you consider this horrible, and whether that is reasonable. You cannot necessarily control your emotions, but you do not have to be controlled by them.
You see, I think much the reaction has to do not with God being a monster, but with God as God being alien. God really is not particularly like a human being. At all. And if you approach God with the expectations that you have of a human being, then you get a problem. One key reason for the Incarnation is in my opinion that God is trying to bridge the gap, so to speak.
See, your last sentence undermines your entire argument. Your argument is based on the assumption that God is basically unknowable in such a holistic, comprehensive way that we can get it entirely backwards-- black is white, up is down-- evil is good. But that assumption is proven false in the incarnation (as well as, to a lesser degree, biblical revelation, if one believes in such things-- which I do). God does NOT desire to be "unknown"-- he desires to be known, hence the incarnation, hence Scripture. God WANTS us to know his heart, his will, his desires. And everything about what God has shown us about Godself-- through the incarnation and thru revelation-- is completely contrary to what you are saying.
I have no problem chalking quite a few things up to "transcendent mystery". But to suggest that we have gotten virtually everything that is the underpinning of our faith and morality completely, 180 degrees off, is madness. God is certainly bigger, more just, more full of grace and love and compassion than we are, which may seem mysterious to us. But it shouldn't seem totally opposite. If God wants us to be just, moral, kind, gracious, and the purpose of the incarnation is in part to show us what those things look like-- then we should be able to recognize them, at least in part or like "through a mirror dimly".
To chalk up evil to God's "divine mystery" is the road to ruin.
[ 03. December 2014, 15:27: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I find conceptualizations like IngoB's to emotionless, factual, learned. Pain whether physical or psychological, and suffering is an emotion-ridden experience for most of us. I do believe that Jesus cried out in true pain and anguish and not pretence as he died. Would he be sitting at Satan's table if he'd baulked?
The test idea is appealing on one level, particularly for those who enjoy the idea of zero-sum games. Where in it is there comfort? Except in the abstract, of the "once you're dead variety", there's nothing.
IngoB might counter that this is just as it is.
That it is hard and it is good that it is hard. When I hear things like this, I wonder about the construction of God, and our freedom to construct God as we will, often in accord with our own preferences. I haven't heard things such as IngoB posts since the late 1960s and early 1970s, which pulled me in, in terror. A terrible judge this God, as in in provoking of dread and loss of sense of sense of self in God's shadow. ?Perhaps we're due for a thread on the constructions of God we make?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really get this 'things are not right' idea, since it seems circular to me. I mean, that it presupposes that there is something that is right, or could be right. The idea is already there, in order to come up with 'things are not right'.
So it seems odd to go from things not being right to a possible state of being right, since you have already brought that in to begin with, covertly.
Well, to begin with, it's one of the assumptions of the question. When you raise the question of theodicy you're implicitly assuming that "things are not right", otherwise there's no problem to consider.
And I think it's something we can all empirically know. Outside of some elitist ivory tower blue-sky thinking, I don't suppose there's really anyone in all of history who truly believes that "the way things are"-- genocide, children dying of cruel disease, etc.-- is "right" or "the way things should be". In fact, Wm. James suggests that that belief-- that "something is wrong with us"-- is the one core belief that unites all world religions and philosophies.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...
To chalk up evil to God's "divine mystery" is the road to ruin.
There is the nub of it
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
cliffdweller wrote:
Outside of some elitist ivory tower blue-sky thinking, I don't suppose there's really anyone in all of history who truly believes that "the way things are"-- genocide, children dying of cruel disease, etc.-- is "right" or "the way things should be". In fact, Wm. James suggests that that belief-- that "something is wrong with us"-- is the one core belief that unites all world religions and philosophies.
Well, you can argue that this is the best of all possible worlds. This does not mean that this is a very good world, I think, but that it satisfies various requirements.
As an example, if we argue that any divinely made world will be intelligible, and creative, then this seems to produce the possibility of great evil, both moral and natural. (I'm not saying that there aren't other requirements).
This seems to be one of the arguments against major divine intervention, warding off catastrophe - that the world would no longer be intelligible, but magical. (So we are really saying that God abhors a magical world).
The creative element means that nature can (and does) throw up phenomena such as predation, or if you like, a world of 'infinite variety'.
I suppose such a view would not stop people wishing for a better one, or decrying this one!
But maybe this is an ivory tower solution?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB - if you are going to persist in telling me that my problems are nonsense, and effectively, if I was as thoughtful and clever as you I wouldn't have this problem, then you might as well stop wasting your time, because that kind of condescension doesn't wash with me.
Do you even listen to yourself? You have said that I created a murderous monster in my mind, for which the labels goodness and love are meaningless, and from which I should run screaming rather than to worship it. You have speculated that it is a sign of having a conscience, a sense of justice, of knowing right from wrong to reject my conception of God.
But of course it is you being insulted here, and me who is being condescending, just because in my response I say that I think that I have understood some things better about God than you have? Well, I'm afraid my woefully underdeveloped sense of justice has struck again, because I don't think that you have any rights to be complaining here.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Your argument is based on the assumption that God is basically unknowable in such a holistic, comprehensive way that we can get it entirely backwards-- black is white, up is down-- evil is good.
Nope. That has not been my argument at all.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If God wants us to be just, moral, kind, gracious, and the purpose of the incarnation is in part to show us what those things look like-- then we should be able to recognize them, at least in part or like "through a mirror dimly".
And there is no reason whatsoever in what I have actually said why we should not be able to do that.
To give an analogy. You look at a cat and say: "This cat is mean and cold. It did not say hello when it came in, and it has ignored my attempts to strike up a conversation with it." I say "What do you expect? It's a cat. It's not a human being. You need to treat it like a cat. For example, if you want to make contact with it, you can stroke it. Like this." Whereupon you say "Aha. You claim we can know nothing about cats. How can you speak about making contact with a cat if this is nothing like the enjoyable conversations I have with my friends? You are just turning black into white there, randomly assigning labels like 'contact' to completely different actions just so you can pretend that this cat isn't cold and mean!"
Well, no. Cats are cats. God is God. Neither is a human being. We can extend human concepts like "contact" or "love" to these other beings, but there simply is no reason why that should be in unequivocal terms. To make contact with a cat is analogically related to making contact with another human being. To be loved by God is analogically related to being loved by another human being. We can know something about what making contact with a cat means. We can know something about what being loved by God means. I have in fact said something about both now, and these analogical actions are not as "black and white" when compared to human actions, just because they are not identical. (Well, actually I've spoken about God being good, rather than love, for the most part. But it's a similar thing.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sorry, that first bit above was unclear. The reason that the best of all possible worlds isn't very good, is that it's impossible to have less evil, without violating one of the basic requirements. Thus, you could make the world less intelligible, to make it have less evil in it (by numerous miracles); or you could make it less creative, so that nasty things could not arise, such as predation. Both these things would change God's creative act massively.
[ 03. December 2014, 18:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
Yes - creativity naturally requires a destructive force - Uranus destroyed his children because they did not meet whatever it was he wanted to create... More possibilities for creation means that more destruction is also possible. That's the world we have been born into. That's the world we chose to come to. No point moaning about it.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, you can argue that this is the best of all possible worlds. This does not mean that this is a very good world, I think, but that it satisfies various requirements.
As an example, if we argue that any divinely made world will be intelligible, and creative, then this seems to produce the possibility of great evil, both moral and natural. (I'm not saying that there aren't other requirements)...
I suppose such a view would not stop people wishing for a better one, or decrying this one!
But maybe this is an ivory tower solution?
Not ivory tower, but not really Christian either. The hope of a new world seems to be built into the OT and NT. So just bringing the question back to the scope of theodicy.
[ 03. December 2014, 19:15: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, that first bit above was unclear. The reason that the best of all possible worlds isn't very good, is that it's impossible to have less evil, without violating one of the basic requirements. Thus, you could make the world less intelligible, to make it have less evil in it (by numerous miracles); or you could make it less creative, so that nasty things could not arise, such as predation. Both these things would change God's creative act massively.
That's actually not too far from Boyd's position that I was advocating... Boyd would say it's not possible to have a truly free world without the possibility of those nasty things. The degree to which we (and other created autonomous beings) are free to choose good is also the degree to which we are free to choose evil. So in that sense, it is the "best possible world".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Sorry, that first bit above was unclear. The reason that the best of all possible worlds isn't very good, is that it's impossible to have less evil, without violating one of the basic requirements. Thus, you could make the world less intelligible, to make it have less evil in it (by numerous miracles); or you could make it less creative, so that nasty things could not arise, such as predation. Both these things would change God's creative act massively.
That's actually not too far from Boyd's position that I was advocating... Boyd would say it's not possible to have a truly free world without the possibility of those nasty things. The degree to which we (and other created autonomous beings) are free to choose good is also the degree to which we are free to choose evil. So in that sense, it is the "best possible world".
Well, the idea of the best possible world has been misinterpreted a lot, I think, for example, Voltaire's Panglossian optimism. Well, I am pretty sure that Leibniz, for example, did not intend that view, and did not ignore the fact that earthquakes occur and kill lots of people, as in Lisbon.
But, yes, the best world must have evil in it, if the best involves freedom and intelligibility. To reduce the evil, you have to curtail those things, so you might end up with a mechanical existence, and then you have also reduced the good.
It seems quite Christian to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Damn, I keep having afterthoughts. I think the point about intelligibility is often not made, but it is crucial in the whole argument. It means that nature is intelligible, in other words, exhibits regularity and order. (Well, it also exhibits disorder, of course).
I can remember pursuing this argument against atheists, who might ask, why doesn't God cure cancer, or stop earthquakes? Well, such interventions would wreck the intelligibility of the world, and would produce a magical world. It seems to me that God abhors that. Well, you could say that it would demonstrate his power, but it would minimize his rationality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I've got a couple of questions for cliffdweller. I can understand open theism's explanation of how the world is now, but not of how it can be better one day. What is going to change to make possible a world without evil and suffering when it's not possible now ?
The second question is, whatever that change is, why is it for then and not for now ? I can't see an answer to that other than the one Ingob has spoken of, that now is some kind of preparation for then.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've got a couple of questions for cliffdweller. I can understand open theism's explanation of how the world is now, but not of how it can be better one day. What is going to change to make possible a world without evil and suffering when it's not possible now ?
The second question is, whatever that change is, why is it for then and not for now ? I can't see an answer to that other than the one Ingob has spoken of, that now is some kind of preparation for then.
That is a good question, probably a better one for Boyd than for me.
Speaking only for myself, my speculation would be that the point of this life is for us to learn experientially that doing things God's way really is the best possible life for us. So it is a "test", but rather than God testing us, it is us who are testing God. Can we really trust him, trust that what he asks of us or call us to be or do is the best possible life for us? So we try other ways, other options, and others around us try other ways, other options-- and we can observe empirically what that looks like. So that in the future Kingdom-of-God-on-earth God will truly reign-- his will perfectly done-- not because we have become automatons, but because we have freely chosen it, having seen the alternative.
Or something like that. ymmv
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, I keep having afterthoughts. I think the point about intelligibility is often not made, but it is crucial in the whole argument. It means that nature is intelligible, in other words, exhibits regularity and order. (Well, it also exhibits disorder, of course).
I can remember pursuing this argument against atheists, who might ask, why doesn't God cure cancer, or stop earthquakes? Well, such interventions would wreck the intelligibility of the world, and would produce a magical world. It seems to me that God abhors that. Well, you could say that it would demonstrate his power, but it would minimize his rationality.
I think God can and will produce a world w/o cancer and w/o earthquakes. And it won't be "magical" it will be "natural"-- the way things are. That's based on Boyd's controversial thesis that the natural world as it is now is not the way God intended it to be but was corrupted by other free (demonic) creatures from the very beginning.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I've got a couple of questions for cliffdweller. I can understand open theism's explanation of how the world is now, but not of how it can be better one day. What is going to change to make possible a world without evil and suffering when it's not possible now ?
The second question is, whatever that change is, why is it for then and not for now ? I can't see an answer to that other than the one Ingob has spoken of, that now is some kind of preparation for then.
It just IS changing, because that is divine will. And as the change moves towards a more ordered world, there is simultaneously more kickback from evil, trying to maintain its hold. So if you ONLY look at the problems in the world (i.e. what is reported in most media) then it looks no better or even worse. Courage, Courage. Stop problem solving the worlds humanly insoluble problems and look to what you can do in your immediate self and family and workplace. That is enough.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Are you presenting this [Epicurean paradox] as a summary you agree with? It is concise and makes for a good starting point for a discussion, but it's far too simplistic to be a complete summary of the possibilities, or even a good one.
It kickstarts discussion if nothing else. More form than anything. No theodicy convo's complete without it!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's your choice to make, of course. You do not however get to choose the consequences of that choice.
One thing is clear though, the world as it is and the theodicy argument in fact kill the "huggy bear" God of most Christian imagination (well, modern Western Christian imagination) stone cold dead. Just as the cosmological argument remains the best theists have to prove to atheists that there is a God, theodicy remains the best argument atheists have to prove to theists that such a God must be a total asshole. Neither argument can be evaded as easily as the other side thinks.
However, there is no sign of the "huggy bear" God in scripture. Not in the OT, for sure, but also not in the NT. There is little sign of Him in tradition, prior to modernity. So while dealing with Theodicy is not easy, it is not as hopeless as one might think. But people prefer to be "mystified" by the evil they see with their own eyes, rather than adjust their picture of God to something that, well, fits the evidence. It's a particular brand of very blind faith that is untouchable because it is so nice.
Damn good post, and I mean that. Yep, theodicy's a crucible, that burns away comforting assumptions. It's harsh, but necessary.
I'm not sure it's even a gamble. If God's a capricious alien, then who knows what'd please it. (This "god" is very much "it," other, I am that I am.)
My faith goes this far: In the words of that crusty old aristo Captain Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No sign in Jesus?
Of including, embracing, HUGGING children, women, foreigners regardless of race and creed, the disabled, the poor, criminals, whores, the unclean, the insane.
I must be deluded. That's the only God I can see.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
IngoB - if you are going to persist in telling me that my problems are nonsense, and effectively, if I was as thoughtful and clever as you I wouldn't have this problem, then you might as well stop wasting your time, because that kind of condescension doesn't wash with me.
Do you even listen to yourself? You have said that I created a murderous monster in my mind, for which the labels goodness and love are meaningless, and from which I should run screaming rather than to worship it. You have speculated that it is a sign of having a conscience, a sense of justice, of knowing right from wrong to reject my conception of God.
Quite right. And I stand by it. I cannot understand how you are not repulsed by the eternally torturing genocidal God you claim is real. What I also don't get, and that's where the condescension comes in, is the air of superiority you seem to have that you have no problem with this God whilst stupid naive unsophisticated children like me do.
We really, I think, don't have much to say to each other.
[ 04. December 2014, 11:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
My faith goes this far: In the words of that crusty old aristo Captain Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed.
Don't be watching Star Trek V where "God" lives at the centre of the galaxy and is every bit as nice as IngoB suggests. (I personally prefer Q who has a sense of humour, whatever row row rows your boat.)
Time for some Earl Grey, hot.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
IngoB made an interesting point about Job prefiguring the Incarnation, somewhere back there.
Jung certainly supports the view partially expressed by Ingo, that there is no Huggy Bear God - or wasn't in the OT. In his controversial analysis of the book, Jung suggests that the OT God is incomplete, having no self-awareness, because self-awareness is something he created in humans, but can not exist in a perfect (that is, perfectly powerful, all-knowing, perfectly impassive) God.
Putting it crudely (which Jung didn't), a perfectly perfect god is bugger all use in an imperfect world - the one he created. The Incarnation became necessary to give meaning to a a formerly meaningless divinity. Self awareness came through becoming human - and thus enabling him to offer a way out for suffering humanity.
The bullying tirade with which God addresses Job towards the end of the book is accepted by Job because, frankly, he ain't stupid. Job recognises the uncomfortable fact that God just doesn't "get it" and accepts the inevitable.
I'm sure that's an atrociously gross over-simplification of Jung's thesis (it's some time since I read it and I understood it imperfectly then), but I recommend it to anyone who wants to get away from some of the stereotypical arguments.
[ 04. December 2014, 15:59: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
My faith goes this far: In the words of that crusty old aristo Captain Picard, I refuse to believe the universe is so badly designed.
Don't be watching Star Trek V where "God" lives at the centre of the galaxy and is every bit as nice as IngoB suggests. (I personally prefer Q who has a sense of humour, whatever row row rows your boat.)
Time for some Earl Grey, hot.
Didn't they toss V out the canon. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) (Due to godawfulness, not heresy, tho some of it comes close ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have argued elsewhere that God is not a moral agent, and that His interactions with us have to be measured by their eternal consistency, not simply by human moral standards. In other words, you cannot look at God as at another human being. Well, actually just look at what God says to Job, and stop seeing that as simply a dictator telling his subject to obey. Consider it instead as a straightforward description of reality. God is not part of what is judged by human moral standards. In fact, only humans are judged by human moral standards. You will laugh at stories of medieval courts condemning a pig to death over its misdeeds, because of course human morals do not apply to a pig. Well, just as they do not apply to what is lesser, so they do not apply to what is greater. God's goodness as far as you are concerned primarily consists in giving you your goodness in his creative act. Both in giving you existence, and in determining what it means for you to be a "good" human being. God is good as the source of human goodness, indeed of all goodness, but He is not good as a human being is morally good. Morals are basically goodness specs of free creatures. God is free, but He is not created. He does not have goodness specs because nobody created Him with such specs.
The problem with saying that God is only "good" in the sense of being the source of moral rules for everything else, is that there's too much in the Bible and Christian tradition which looks a lot like praise of God's character. Yes, God is in an entirely different category to everything else, and yes, goodness must mean something very different when applied to God than to anything else, but God is also a person who we are meant to admire, adore, learn from, declare to be worthy, and in some sense imitate, because his character is closer to what we generally mean by 'good' than it is to what we mean by 'evil'. God's 'morality' doesn't come from external constraints, of course, but from his own perfect nature, but that doesn't mean we toss out human morality when thinking about God. Morality is one of the better clues we have to what God is like.
The problem with your exegesis of Job is that, if you're right, chapters 3 to 37 are basically padding. Job's friends are wrong about God. Job is wrong about God. There's little of positive value in their mutual trading of errors. I don't think the writer went on for that long just to present a lot of mistakes of varying plausibility.
My answer to the problem for Job's retraction of his words, and God's endorsement, would be this: the challenge behind Job's sufferings is this - will Job curse God? Satan takes away all of Job's consolation, brings him to despair, but not quite to that. Job knows that he is being punished unjustly, he complains that God has abandoned him, but he doesn't lose faith in God's essential goodness - he still trusts that if he could win a hearing with God he would be vindicated. His (justified) confidence in the rightness of his cause and his power to express and argue that eloquently are all that remain to him.
God then intervenes to take that away. He drives home the extent of Job's ignorance, silences him completely, and takes away his confidence. I don't see him as intervening to save Job from failing Satan's test, but as piling the last stone on to an already crushing burden. And when Job still does not curse God, or deny him, or lose faith in God's goodness, but reaffirms it even when he can't be sure of anything else at all, that's when God vindicates him, and declares that he has spoken truth. That doesn't preclude us from saying that Job has, earlier in the debate, spoken from partial understanding, or even error, but that his enduring faith in God's goodness, and his refusal to compromise that (as his friends do) by calling evil "good" when it is ascribed to God, is approved. Job might not understand exactly what it means for God to be good, and mistaken about how God's goodness is expressed, but he's right to think that God's goodness is a real thing.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Worth the read.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
IngoB made an interesting point about Job prefiguring the Incarnation, somewhere back there.
Jung certainly supports the view partially expressed by Ingo, that there is no Huggy Bear God - or wasn't in the OT. In his controversial analysis of the book, Jung suggests that the OT God is incomplete, having no self-awareness, because self-awareness is something he created in humans, but can not exist in a perfect (that is, perfectly powerful, all-knowing, perfectly impassive) God.
Putting it crudely (which Jung didn't), a perfectly perfect god is bugger all use in an imperfect world - the one he created. The Incarnation became necessary to give meaning to a a formerly meaningless divinity. Self awareness came through becoming human - and thus enabling him to offer a way out for suffering humanity.
The bullying tirade with which God addresses Job towards the end of the book is accepted by Job because, frankly, he ain't stupid. Job recognises the uncomfortable fact that God just doesn't "get it" and accepts the inevitable.
I'm sure that's an atrociously gross over-simplification of Jung's thesis (it's some time since I read it and I understood it imperfectly then), but I recommend it to anyone who wants to get away from some of the stereotypical arguments.
Jung is also famous for advocating a quaternity, which would involve God absorbing evil, or the dark side. Of course, this provoked immediate disagreement from Christians, including those who were favourable to him. But as well as the darkness, he saw the fourth element as embracing the feminine, which seems to look forward to contemporary views of God as female.
But this is also looked at psychologically, as showing the signposts of the individual's life, who has to realize their own darkness, femininity (if male), and so on, in order to become fully mature.
One of the consequences of this view is that Satan is seen not just as the adversary, but also as the necessary refinement, or the principle of individuation - maybe this is found to an extent in Milton also.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Here (I hope!) is the link to Answer to Job by C.G.JUNG
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Putting it crudely (which Jung didn't), a perfectly perfect god is bugger all use in an imperfect world - the one he created. The Incarnation became necessary to give meaning to a a formerly meaningless divinity. Self awareness came through becoming human - and thus enabling him to offer a way out for suffering humanity.
I appreciate some Jungian stuff but this is simply wrong. It assumes God is not omniscient and therefore does not know the nature of humanity. That's not a tenable biblical position.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
As for IngoB's idea that God is not morally good as God would have us be then one wonders why we are entreated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As for IngoB's idea that God is not morally good as God would have us be then one wonders why we are entreated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.
'Perfect' is not a moral attribute - in the Greek it is about being 'whole'.
Perfect actually means "complete" or "finished". On the Cross, Jesus cried out "It is perfect[ed]" - it is finished, completed, done. Rather than "Ha, this is bloody perfect" as most people would have.
I am not sure I would accept the Jungian perspective as pimple has outlined, with the idea of a God who "doesn't get it". I think God does get it, but that is not necessarily any help. I think a God who doesn't get it draws from the idea of an impassive God, who doesn't and can't change - again, because if God is "perfect" how can he change.
That is, I think, a misunderstanding of perfection - it is not a simple single ideal. God is always perfect - complete, finished - but still changes to different states of perfection. It is not a static state. In the same way, we can be working always towards being perfect, finished, while still always changing. It is not about aiming for a specific model, it is about being ourselves more and more.
Which brings me back to, how can I become more perfect, more me if I am suffering so much that I can't think? How is my perfection being achieved by my suicide? How is the perfection of others who care for me assisted by my death (which devastates them)? Some suffering can be helpful, but not all. How does suffering I cannot cope with "perfect" me or anyone else?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which brings me back to, how can I become more perfect, more me if I am suffering so much that I can't think? How is my perfection being achieved by my suicide? How is the perfection of others who care for me assisted by my death (which devastates them)? Some suffering can be helpful, but not all. How does suffering I cannot cope with "perfect" me or anyone else?
I absolutely believe that suffering does not perfect us, but neither does a lack of suffering - as you point out, some suffering can be helpful. But since we cannot perfect ourselves and we are certainly not perfected by our environment, the question is really what kind of environment is ideal for allowing God to perfect us? Which means that a key part is understanding how God actually goes about doing that. And, if our free choices are an essential part of that, understanding how our environment interacts with our choices to allow God to do his part.
Personally, I cannot believe that how well we actually cope with things is the important part of the process, but rather that it's how fully we commit ourselves to our intent to live well that is key. And unfortunately for us, I think adversity can serve to strengthen our commitment, even as we fail to cope with it well.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As for IngoB's idea that God is not morally good as God would have us be then one wonders why we are entreated to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect.
'Perfect' is not a moral attribute - in the Greek it is about being 'whole'.
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which brings me back to, how can I become more perfect, more me if I am suffering so much that I can't think? How is my perfection being achieved by my suicide? How is the perfection of others who care for me assisted by my death (which devastates them)? Some suffering can be helpful, but not all. How does suffering I cannot cope with "perfect" me or anyone else?
It doesn't. The Grand Christian Plan is the alleviation of suffering in the new heaven and the new earth where suffering will no longer exist.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.
Yes. Specifically the context is "love your enemies" and the injunction is that the scope of our compassion and mercy should be as wide, as all-encompassing, as whole and complete, as is God's.
It could be argued that there are some virtues, those that are not directly expressed in personal benevolence, that are included in the command "be perfect" (if at all) only by implication or by analogy, but the idea that "be perfect" is a non-moral command, or that it does not have as its reference a 'moral' attribute of God, is a complete non-starter.
And probably, nonsense. What would it even mean to be "whole" or "complete" like God is, except in terms of his character or concerns? How would we even begin to imagine the commandment could be obeyed if it refers to anything else, such as God's perfectly complete ontological being? It's either moral, or it's meaningless.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I would put a slightly modern spin on that. Being "whole" means being fully embodied. In this fully embodied state, there is no numbness, and sp we both feel our own feelings fully and we are aware of other people with a high degree of empathy. As this degree of embodiedness (wholeness, being fully present) increases it becomes increasingly impossible to act immorally, because the consequences can be felt as soon as the thought enters the mind. And if there is also a spiritual frame of mind, this self-embodiedness then progresses to a sense of wholeness with the surrounding world, insofar is it is bearable to do that. We have also the facility to close our heads to protect them from whatever we do not have the strength to fully embrace. The penalty for not doing so is - decreased embodiment, more numbness.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Schroedinger's Cat wrote:
Which brings me back to, how can I become more perfect, more me if I am suffering so much that I can't think? How is my perfection being achieved by my suicide? How is the perfection of others who care for me assisted by my death (which devastates them)? Some suffering can be helpful, but not all. How does suffering I cannot cope with "perfect" me or anyone else?
That's very powerful. I don't think that religion in itself can deal with suffering of that intensity. That's one of the reasons that I became a psychotherapist, as I could see a concrete way in which suffering could be alleviated. And also, people can be helped to deal with their own suffering in the future. We can say that God is at work here, just as much as in a church.
One of the payoffs from working on one's suffering in a psychological way, is that many people become more compassionate, and actually able to help others. But I don't think that is the 'purpose' of the suffering. But it does break down the ego barriers between oneself and others, and in fact, life itself. But it's a very hard road. As you get older, it gets harder, as the distractions become more and more pointless, so you may be thrust into the heart of darkness, which is easier to avoid when we are young.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.
Only if you think Matthew 5 is a complete sermon rather than various utterances strung together.
Also, that Matthew didn't write his gospel by pulling letters out of a scrabble bag.
Seriously - the "be perfect" command fits, er, perfectly, into Jesus' elaboration of the "love your enemies" command. You can speculate, if you like that Matthew rather than Jesus is the mind responsible for fitting those ideas together, but someone did, and they did it in a way that makes obvious sense. Like it or not, there is a context to the words "be perfect" and if you don't want to look at that context to help explain what that command might mean, you might as well use the 'scrabble bag' hypothesis.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Matthew didn't write his gospel by pulling letters out of a scrabble bag.
Quotes file.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
While the Greek word can be used for other contexts than moral, in the context of Matthew 5 and in other places, it most certainly has moral overtones.
Only if you think Matthew 5 is a complete sermon rather than various utterances strung together.
Also, that Matthew didn't write his gospel by pulling letters out of a scrabble bag.
Seriously - the "be perfect" command fits, er, perfectly, into Jesus' elaboration of the "love your enemies" command. You can speculate, if you like that Matthew rather than Jesus is the mind responsible for fitting those ideas together, but someone did, and they did it in a way that makes obvious sense. Like it or not, there is a context to the words "be perfect" and if you don't want to look at that context to help explain what that command might mean, you might as well use the 'scrabble bag' hypothesis.
Not 'letters' but 'logia' - sayings. If you compare Luke, you'll see that their redaction is different, so both evangelists were drawing on a collection of sayings which they arranged differently - so the so-called Sermon on the Mount/Plain isn't a single piece of oratory.
That Matthew has arranged it this is because in his redaction it echoes Moses and Torah.
As to 'perfect' - did Jesus speak Aramaic? Likely - so his words will be close to Hebrew.
Dennis Bratcher says that that the Hebrew word (tam or tamim) does not carry the meaning of "without flaw".
As for the Greek Teleios, it has the notion of being complete cf. teleology.
LXX uses of Noah Gen 6:9 who was far from flawless
Plato used it of people with knowledge
In Heb. 5:14 it means full age"
Strongs defines it
as ‘full grown’
Its cognates can mean someone who has completed a spiritual journey or something consummated
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That Matthew has arranged it this is because in his redaction it echoes Moses and Torah.
As long as you agree that it has been arranged, we're getting somewhere.
The command "be perfect" follows, as part of the same block of sayings, the command "love your enemies". There could be two reasons for this - either the second command is some sort of commentary, explanation, support, extension or complement to the first command, or they got strung together more or less at random (Matthew's scrabble bag).
Since they obviously do fit together in a complementary way, the more likely explanation is that they are to be understood together. "Love your enemies. Why? Because God's love is universal. Be like him. Whatever fully-developed ('perfect') faculty in God which is expressed in universal love, that is what you should also express."
That's what it means. It's plainly a moral injunction. Also, it ascribes to God attitudes and values which, when we demand them of human beings, we call moral. The moral element doesn't come from the word translated as "perfect" being an inherently moralistic description, it comes from the context in which that word is used. You could re-frame the argument (as I've done above) using a non-moral English word in place of "perfect" and it would still make sense.
You haven't even attempted to provide an alternative account of what the argument of the text is. If it's not in the sphere of moral action that we are exhorted to be 'wholly', 'completely', 'consummately' or 'fully' X, because God is X to that degree, then what are we actually being commanded to do here? How do we obey the command, except morally?
[ 09. December 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The problem with saying that God is only "good" in the sense of being the source of moral rules for everything else, is that there's too much in the Bible and Christian tradition which looks a lot like praise of God's character.
If God is said to be "strong" in the bible, do you think that He is doing a lot of weightlifting? No, you don't. Why then would you think that other scriptural characterisations have more meaning when understood in a literal fashion? That said, I anyhow question your assertion as it stands - and it doesn't stand on any actual examples, so far. I think scripture is actually rather circumspect about what explicitly gets attributed to God. As are the Church Fathers, the RC magisterium, etc. That may not be true for every preacher's homily, of course, but I couldn't care less about that.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Yes, God is in an entirely different category to everything else, and yes, goodness must mean something very different when applied to God than to anything else, but God is also a person who we are meant to admire, adore, learn from, declare to be worthy, and in some sense imitate, because his character is closer to what we generally mean by 'good' than it is to what we mean by 'evil'. God's 'morality' doesn't come from external constraints, of course, but from his own perfect nature, but that doesn't mean we toss out human morality when thinking about God. Morality is one of the better clues we have to what God is like.
What you are doing there is technically to move from a unity in Person as made present in the Incarnation to a mixture of natures, which is explicitly denied by the Christian creeds. It is not God as God who is exemplary for human behaviour. It is God as human whom we should imitate. This is particularly and concretely the case in Jesus Christ, of course. But even before that where God explicitly intervened in human affairs He somehow in the act "assumed" human nature, if in a more abstract sense. So for example, the Ten Commandments are a kind of "abstract incarnation" of God as human, because they are a separate entity coming from God directly but given and received in a human mode.
Maybe the Orthodox distinction between Divine energies and essence would be helpful here, but I am not familiar enough with it to (ab)use it here. Anyway, my point is something along those conceptual lines. What you are pointing to is God "expressed in humanity". It is Divine, but not in fact God Himself. And reading this simply against the direction of expression is the same "logical" mistake as assuming that "A->B" means "B->A". Rather, what one can conclude is something like "because A->B, the A-state, while unknown, must contain something sufficiently B-similar to allow the causation of B". A God who provides the Ten Commandments in some sense has to be "lawfully good", since otherwise He could not give good laws. But that's really all you can conclude.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The problem with your exegesis of Job is that, if you're right, chapters 3 to 37 are basically padding. Job's friends are wrong about God. Job is wrong about God. There's little of positive value in their mutual trading of errors. I don't think the writer went on for that long just to present a lot of mistakes of varying plausibility.
They are not "padding". They simply do not provide an accurate characterisation of God, that's not their purpose. Rather, they provide an accurate characterisation of human attempts to come to terms with the world and God's role in it - in the face of suffering. That is also their lasting appeal, that we find ourselves in those lines, both as Job complaining and as his friends rationalising. The correct perspective of God, provided by God, can be understood by humans and held by humans. After all it was written by a human author and is read by us. But it is very difficult to stick to it. It is a human rendering of something non-human. The value of the book of Job is precisely that you nod along with both Job and his friends (with various enthusiasms, according to your disposition) and then at the end you get all that slammed by God. I would agree that it is open to question just what lesson we should draw from that (and again that is part of the lasting appeal of the book). But I see no other interpretation as possible as far as the text itself is concerned. It couldn't be more explicit, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Job knows that he is being punished unjustly, he complains that God has abandoned him, but he doesn't lose faith in God's essential goodness - he still trusts that if he could win a hearing with God he would be vindicated.
<Playing the devil's advocate in the following, towards a conclusion below. I know that I'm misreading you, but in the light of Job in my opinion this is a justified misreading - basically I think you are playing fast and loose with the text, and I'm tightening the noose...>
So, remembering that initial setup of all this, we conclude that in your view god is unjust, not to say sadistic, but Job can entertain reasonable hope to stop god's infliction of pain (through the agency of Satan) if he only pleads loudly enough with his divine torturer?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
He drives home the extent of Job's ignorance, silences him completely, and takes away his confidence. I don't see him as intervening to save Job from failing Satan's test, but as piling the last stone on to an already crushing burden.
So your unjust and now surely sadistic god is not satisfied until he crushes his human victim not only as far a material goods and physical health are concerned. No, it is only when he destroys the last psychological stronghold, when he totally breaks the spirit of Job, that he is satisfied. Satan failed his job because he could not break Job's mind, so god has to step in to destroy all Job has left.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And when Job still does not curse God, or deny him, or lose faith in God's goodness, but reaffirms it even when he can't be sure of anything else at all, that's when God vindicates him, and declares that he has spoken truth.
Thus upon your reading, what this god really wants is total slavery. God elevates those who have been literally stomped into pulp in every aspect of human life, if the last flicker of resistance is driven out of them by that process. Basically, good religion is the Stockholm syndrome written large in this view.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Job might not understand exactly what it means for God to be good, and mistaken about how God's goodness is expressed, but he's right to think that God's goodness is a real thing.
Job gives you a choice. Defend God along the lines of human goodness, and one way or the other you will make God a horrible monster. You just did that, too, though presumably you didn't intend to. You cannot actually take serious the story of Job and give God a human face, and avoid that. Your can of course now reject the setup of the bet with Satan as just a literary device etc. But there is nothing "just" about that literary device. As much as the rest of the text, it is precisely designed to trap you in a Jobian mode. It's a kind of meta-Job game played against you. Very clever. But all with a simple "take home" message: Stop thinking like that. It doesn't work. It cannot work.
Not that you really can do that. Like Job and his friends, you will end up complaining and rationalising. Your mind cannot hold onto the non-human perspective, even if you can theoretically grasp it for a while. But, if life does fuck you hard, as it did Job, then just maybe you can remember at that point that God is not like a human being. Because God quite likely will not act in this world towards you as an omnipotent, omniscient, loving human father would. So experience tells us. If you build your faith on false premises, you might lose it when you get called upon them...
What you can count on is that God will come through for you in the end, if you are among the righteous. The one and only weakness of the book of Job is of course that the author didn't know how to place that hope correctly, yet. So Job gets a "replacement life" in this world, which - as we all know - is just bullshit. A new child may help you cover the wounds of having lost a child, but it cannot heal them. Theodicy simply cannot be answered in this world. It is only the hope for an afterlife, for a qualitative change in what living even means, that can possibly dry all human tears. Whatever "solves" this world must be mighty strange. I very, very much hope that it is "alien", non-human, beyond what I can see, the God that speaks to Job from the whirlwind. Because if it is a human god (and no, I am not denying the Incarnation), then we need to kill it, or die trying.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the point about intelligibility is often not made, but it is crucial in the whole argument. It means that nature is intelligible, in other words, exhibits regularity and order...
I can remember pursuing this argument against atheists, who might ask, why doesn't God cure cancer, or stop earthquakes? Well, such interventions would wreck the intelligibility of the world, and would produce a magical world.
I think that those who feel most painfully and bitterly that this is not the best of all possible worlds are not in general desiring an unintelligible magical world where simply desiring something is sufficient to cause it to happen. Rather the better world that they envisage works just like this one except for the one disease or coincidence that pains them most.
The argument you're trying to make seems to require that the world would be logically impossible without every single one of the diseases that worsen our lives.
Taking just one example, either
- a world in which Ebola happened not to evolve is logically inconceivable, or
- such a world would not be a better place, or
- this is not the best of all conceivable worlds.
So that maintaining that this is the best of all possible worlds requires a lot of weaselling about "possible" or about "good", twisting or emptying the meaning of one or other.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Russ wrote:
So that maintaining that this is the best of all possible worlds requires a lot of weaselling about "possible" or about "good", twisting or emptying the meaning of one or other.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'weaselling'; I suppose that some kind of semantic cheat is being perpetrated?
I think the problem with 'the best of all possible worlds' is that it is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean the best world that you can imagine; in other words, it's not some kind of super-optimistic position. In fact, some writers make the joke that the best of all possible worlds isn't a very good one!
One approach to it is to ask how evil could be reduced (thus making the world better, presumably).
One way would be to curtail freedom, not just of humans, but in nature also. Thus evolution could be curtailed, so as not to produce pain. However, this would have untold consequences in terms of animals living in their environment.
Another way would be to curtail the intelligibility of the world, by having a lot of miracles. Thus, every time somebody fell, you could interpose an angel's wing to cushion their fall. However, physics might become rather difficult!
Well, I think people like Leibniz are arguing that God has good reasons not to curtail in this way.
In fact, L somewhere makes the point that out of all possible worlds, God chooses this one since it has 'the greatest variety with the greatest order'.
I think this is rather sublime, and I don't really see it as 'weaselling', but no doubt there are cogent arguments against it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye, there are. Or rather there is. One. There is no choice. God has no choice. Beyond create or not. The Books imply that for eternity He did not. Mysterious isn't it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the problem with 'the best of all possible worlds' is that it is often misunderstood. It doesn't mean the best world that you can imagine; in other words, it's not some kind of super-optimistic position. In fact, some writers make the joke that the best of all possible worlds isn't a very good one!
One approach to it is to ask how evil could be reduced (thus making the world better, presumably).
Does reducing pointless suffering from diseases count as reducing evil ?
If you believe that this is the best of all possible worlds then you need an argument as to why every single one of the modest improvements that the residents from time to time propose is either not possible or not an improvement.
Arguing that any particular parameter (or combination of parameters) is optimal does not establish the proposition. It's like telling your wife that you live in the best of all possible houses because the windows let in the optimum amount of light. That may be true, but perhaps she's more concerned about the damp on the walls...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scruff
Apprentice
# 18310
|
Posted
'Silence' by Shusaku Endo is one of the 20th century's great novels and it centres around this question. Well worth reading, and (without giving too much away) as inconclusive as the discussion here. Martin Scorsese is said to be making a film of it, which may generate more debate. Does anyone know how the film is coming on?
Posts: 1 | From: Liverpool | Registered: Dec 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Hi Scruff and welcome aboard!
Please take a moment to check out our Ten Commandments and posting guidelines. And if you're quick, there's still time to say hello on our 2014 'Welcome Aboard' thread in All Saints!
Eutychus
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Russ wrote:
Does reducing pointless suffering from diseases count as reducing evil ?
If you believe that this is the best of all possible worlds then you need an argument as to why every single one of the modest improvements that the residents from time to time propose is either not possible or not an improvement.
Well, you are now discussing the human ability to increase or decrease evil, which looks a fairly knotty problem!
But this thread is concerned with theodicy, that is, the reconciliation of God with extant evil.
But I suppose the two can be linked; for example, the horrors of Auschwitz were sometimes said to be a killing blow to theism - there were many essays with titles such as 'Theodicy after Auschwitz'. I think that there are many different views in Judaism on this topic.
It's also interesting to make the link with other issues - if, for example, one were to argue that agriculture was an 'improvement' (for humans, anyway), could this be linked with a God who wants evil to diminish?
I suppose a Leibniz-type argument might be that something like agriculture shows the expression of both variety and order in nature.
But as Scruff pointed out, this is all inconclusive, or if you like, guesswork. It's worth noting that agriculture could be said to be a disaster for many other animals.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Which? Cossetted chickens, sheep, pigs and cattle?
And aye Russ. That's the difference we can make.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
