Here's an issue hotly debated for centuries, and still goes unanswered. The issue: if God is good and all powerful, why do bad things happen? Is it because God is indeed not good, or is it because, though God is good, he is incapable of stopping bad things from happening?
Well, the problem seems divided into two categories, one of which is rather simple, the other a bit more complex. Either a bad event occurs due to a human cause, or a bad event occurs due to a non-human cause.
The first case is easily explained in a way that fits inline with the notion of a loving and all-powerful God. Or rather, potentially all powerful God. The truth is that in giving fickle humans freewill, God donated some of his power to us, limiting himself, and empowering us. You see, if we choose to disobey our moral code, God could not possibly stop us if he has truly given us free will. If God were to stop us, then we never had the chance to choose good from evil, which is to say, we never had free will to begin with. If we were not given free will, our lives would be akin to this analogy. I'm sitting in the testing center taking the GRE, and Stephen Hawking is sitting beside me. Before I click on an answer, I tell him, and if it's right, he lets me click. If I'm wrong, S.H. takes the mouse from me and clicks on the right answer. In the end I score perfectly. But who really took the test? Was I given the choice of which answer to pick? No. I was able to look at the choices, tell S.H. which I would have chosen, but S.H. took the test. I had in reality no choice. The right answer would always be chosen. Similarly, if God maintained his power, which I have no doubt he could do if he desired, we would never have choices to do right or wrong, and thus no free will. Since obviously I for one have sinned, this demonstrates that God has given up some of his power to me. Unfortunately, we often misuse this power. This is what leads to these bad occurrences due to human behavior. God will not stop us from hurting one another. Likewise, he will not stop us from helping one another. This is the beauty of God's plan, that contains both dark and light hues in our lives, that allows us to experience the contrasting stuff of hate, love, rudeness, kindness, etc.
I can imagine the counterargument- "Forget contrast, I think the world would be a better place if it was filled with Mother Teresa's." However, the flaws in this argument are abundant. First, if the world were perfect, there would be no need for M.T. to fulfill, and thus no one would experience her love and kindness. Second, even if it wasn't paradoxical to have such a need in a perfect world, would anyone really feel loved by, or feel respect for M.T. had she been working under compulsion, much like a slave?
The second category is indeed difficult to explain, if nothing more than the opposite views to everything. Without ocean storms that cause tsunamis, the earth would quickly become an arid and uninhabitable planet. Without bacteria's ability to mutate into destructive organisms, bacteria crucial to our survival would not have been able to survive through the ages. Without plate tectonics that lead to earthquakes and volcanic activity, we would not have continents, fresh soil and nutrients, and a planet with a habitable atmosphere. So while these things seem very malevolent to those directly affected, they are celebrated by the rest of humanity.
So it would seem that the following are the possible conclusions one can draw from natural disasters (which I am including biological ailments as well). 1) God does not exist. 2) God does exist, he created the world, and now he's watching it spin. 3) God created the world and will intervene when we ask for it. 4) God created the world, and everything has a purpose (in other words, those who suffer got what they deserved).
I cannot convince myself there is no God, or that there is a malevolent God. I won't discuss this option here. The other three I will discuss, in reverse order.
I counter this argument with two simple things: First, we all know good people, more than that, incredible people, who have suffered greatly due to causes not human in origin. Second, Jesus himself said (in Luke 13) that people who had recently suffered were no worse than those He was speaking to. This seems to counter any idea that bad things happen because God wanted them to happen.
The second possibility seems plausible, and may in part be accurate. However, anyone who's been struck by lightning didn't necessarily have time to ask for God's intervention. The fact that this is usually the case with disasters seems to indicate that this is not the way God works. The fact that sometimes in regard to a disaster with a longer duration (i.e. cancer) we ask for help, and yet it doesn't arrive. This also seems to indicate that this explanation is inaccurate.
Our last option is that God takes a hands-off approach to our world. As stated previously, many if not all of these disasters benefit the majority of mankind. The earth is so extraordinary, so regenerative, so stubborn to carry life, it is, for me at least, not difficult to imagine God creating matter, watching planets and galaxies form, watch as earth was formed around the sun, watch as life began to develop, and see how it led ultimately to man, saying, "It's good." Everything we know about the origins of the universe seem to tell us that God did something similar to setting up a sequence of dominoes and tipping the first one over. This gives leeway to bad things happening to the good and bad alike. Credence is also given to this notion in recognizing our own capabilities. God gave us the most powerful tool in order to deal with what could and often do become catastrophes. We have solved many of these problems, and are continuing to increase our abilities to protect ourselves. This is another way that God showed us that he loved us- by giving us these capabilities.
These conclusions, I'm sure, will be in stark contrast to many if not most others'. However, this is where I find the evidence leading. It, by the way is not necessarily what I would wish to be the truth, as I would much rather have the idea that God's angels are ready to stop my electron polarity next time there's a thunderstorm, or provide a distraction for sharks if I were to fall in the ocean. This would obviously be more preferable than the idea that God gave me a certain set of capabilities and it's my responsibility to use them and keep myself out of trouble. So if anyone would like to convince me I'm wrong about God's seemingly aloof characteristics, I'm very willing to listen.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
To Dave
So Dave has the flu. too bad. I wrote him a deeply moving song about it, but since so many others have the flu, i'll share it. get the kleenexes ready.
Hi Ho, you've got the flu.
You know what it do?
It makes you spew.
Hi Ho, you've got the flu.
You know what it do?
It makes you spew.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ode to the South
Ode to the South
To those in the south, this paean's for you,
To all of those proud of their neck's red hue.
Who cares you can't talk right, or read well for that,
Who cares that fried foods make you look a bit fat!
You think well of your okra, hominy and grits,
Though I can't agree- it gives my throat fits.
Who cares that your grandpappies lost the great war,
although by now that flag's an eyesore.
You're where the folks are friendly and kind,
Unlike the north, according to your unbiased mind.
Only one thing that bothers me, that gets me each time,
That I consider just a little less than crime:
Oh you Southern girls and boys,
Please quit saying it, "Illinois"!
-Dan Sewell
To those in the south, this paean's for you,
To all of those proud of their neck's red hue.
Who cares you can't talk right, or read well for that,
Who cares that fried foods make you look a bit fat!
You think well of your okra, hominy and grits,
Though I can't agree- it gives my throat fits.
Who cares that your grandpappies lost the great war,
although by now that flag's an eyesore.
You're where the folks are friendly and kind,
Unlike the north, according to your unbiased mind.
Only one thing that bothers me, that gets me each time,
That I consider just a little less than crime:
Oh you Southern girls and boys,
Please quit saying it, "Illinois"!
-Dan Sewell
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Basis of Morality
MORAL: of or relating to the principles of right and wrong; WRONG: unfair or unjust action; UNFAIR: unjust; UNJUST: unfair
This is where Webster's dictionary leaves us. Not far. If we can determine what is right and what is wrong, then we can define morality. What is "bad"? This initially seems obvious, but isn't quite so after a little inspection. Is death bad? Yes. But without it, there are the problems of no food, overpopulation, etc. Let's be specific and define what can be bad. Actions? Is causing violence bad? Yes, but not in self defense. Is shooting an animal bad? If it's for fun, possibly, but if it's to provide for one's family, it's good. Is lying bad? Yes, unless it is to protect someone from harm or to keep from gossiping. It would seem that for every action there is a good and a bad way to implement it. Then is it the reasoning behind actions? Is motivation what defines good and bad? The previous examples seem to indicate as much. Murder is wrong, but sometimes justice demands it to be done. Even torture, which seems so black, can also shift into the greyscale when it is done to obtain life saving information. So is it motivation behind the action, or is it just the motivation? If I am jealous, but I keep my actions in check, have I done anything wrong? Likewise, if I want to do good, but don't actually do anything about it, have I done anything good? The answers to these questions show that it is a coupling between motivation and action that seems to be the basis of morality. But keep in mind that if there is even one exception to something, it is not an absolute truth. If I work hard at my job, is that a good thing? What if the reason I do so is because there is something that I want to buy for myself? Does that make me working hard at my job wrong because I'm being selfish? I would think not. Also, there are numerous cases in history of good motivations inspiring bad actions (the crusades being the most obvious instance). To look at all the combinations and the contradictions:
good motives and bad actions -crusades=bad, violence done in self defense=good
bad motives and good actions- giving to charity for the recognition=bad, the judge who enjoys sending people to prison=good,
Of course, it would seem obvious that bad motives paired with bad actions lead are bad, and good motives paired with good actions are good. However, the key to this discussion has been left out.
We have been able to hold this discussion because we all know what is right and what is wrong. Of course there will be scenarios that are riding the fence where one person may judge one way, and another will disagree, but for the majority of the time, we are in accordance. Why is this? It could be argued that our sense of morals is based on what we have all been taught. However, given the vast number of civilizations born in this world, all the differing ideology, theology, and culture, I cannot be convinced that we have all been taught the same thing by chance. Another point to this end is that there are infinitely many situations in which moral judgment must be passed, and it is simply not possible that we are all taught how to respond to each of them by our elders.
I find that our sense of morals is exactly that: a sense. Just as all our olfactory senses agree on pleasing and displeasing aromas, just as our aural sense tell us that scraping a chalkboard is not as pleasing as Bach, so our moral sense tells us when something reeks or is satisfying. This explains why there is no set rule without exceptions upon which to base morality. Morality is not based on a system of rules to follow, it is based on innate feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
This is where Webster's dictionary leaves us. Not far. If we can determine what is right and what is wrong, then we can define morality. What is "bad"? This initially seems obvious, but isn't quite so after a little inspection. Is death bad? Yes. But without it, there are the problems of no food, overpopulation, etc. Let's be specific and define what can be bad. Actions? Is causing violence bad? Yes, but not in self defense. Is shooting an animal bad? If it's for fun, possibly, but if it's to provide for one's family, it's good. Is lying bad? Yes, unless it is to protect someone from harm or to keep from gossiping. It would seem that for every action there is a good and a bad way to implement it. Then is it the reasoning behind actions? Is motivation what defines good and bad? The previous examples seem to indicate as much. Murder is wrong, but sometimes justice demands it to be done. Even torture, which seems so black, can also shift into the greyscale when it is done to obtain life saving information. So is it motivation behind the action, or is it just the motivation? If I am jealous, but I keep my actions in check, have I done anything wrong? Likewise, if I want to do good, but don't actually do anything about it, have I done anything good? The answers to these questions show that it is a coupling between motivation and action that seems to be the basis of morality. But keep in mind that if there is even one exception to something, it is not an absolute truth. If I work hard at my job, is that a good thing? What if the reason I do so is because there is something that I want to buy for myself? Does that make me working hard at my job wrong because I'm being selfish? I would think not. Also, there are numerous cases in history of good motivations inspiring bad actions (the crusades being the most obvious instance). To look at all the combinations and the contradictions:
good motives and bad actions -crusades=bad, violence done in self defense=good
bad motives and good actions- giving to charity for the recognition=bad, the judge who enjoys sending people to prison=good,
Of course, it would seem obvious that bad motives paired with bad actions lead are bad, and good motives paired with good actions are good. However, the key to this discussion has been left out.
We have been able to hold this discussion because we all know what is right and what is wrong. Of course there will be scenarios that are riding the fence where one person may judge one way, and another will disagree, but for the majority of the time, we are in accordance. Why is this? It could be argued that our sense of morals is based on what we have all been taught. However, given the vast number of civilizations born in this world, all the differing ideology, theology, and culture, I cannot be convinced that we have all been taught the same thing by chance. Another point to this end is that there are infinitely many situations in which moral judgment must be passed, and it is simply not possible that we are all taught how to respond to each of them by our elders.
I find that our sense of morals is exactly that: a sense. Just as all our olfactory senses agree on pleasing and displeasing aromas, just as our aural sense tell us that scraping a chalkboard is not as pleasing as Bach, so our moral sense tells us when something reeks or is satisfying. This explains why there is no set rule without exceptions upon which to base morality. Morality is not based on a system of rules to follow, it is based on innate feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Jesus' humanity part 2
One thing is certain: Jesus, while on earth was not omniscient. Our brains, although incredibly powerful tools, are still finite in capacity. From the world's creation, there is infinite amount of knowledge to be had, however irrelevant most of it seems (from knowing how many stars are in the universe to what each subatomic particle in that universe has done since the beginning of time.) Keeping this in mind, we mesh this idea with one other: Jesus knew he was the Son of God, and had inside information about God. I attribute this to gradual recall of being God-gradual recall since it is hardly likely that Jesus as a baby could have spoken out about how he was the Son of God nor could a baby have the language to even have these thoughts, and the fact that when his brain did develop speech, he did speak out. If this gradual recall is accurate, then God must have put memories (or knowledge) inside of the physical brain with the intention of serving Jesus while limited in the physical realm. Here's the question of the day: Which memories did God choose, and why did he choose them? I see two options. God selected the memories that God guessed would come in handy, OR God knew what information Jesus would need throughout his human experience and put that inside his head. If the answer is the first option, no new revelations are exposed, for we all expect God to make rather wise guesses, and get them right. But what is unspoken in the first option is that God did not know what was to happen, and just made an educated guess. The second option is more direct in this issue. It states that God knew exactly what circumstances would arise, and what questions would be asked, and thus the appropriate knowledge to answer these scenarios.
What all this leads to is that God may very well have foreknowledge of what is to happen. If this is the case, God knows each and every time I'm going to sin, and he did not take precautions to prevent this. This implies that God remains passive as I decide to live for him or without him. The fact that God knows the future and sees us sinning is demonstrated in the prediction of Peter's denials (which makes you wonder about the eventual recall- is it strictly of God's memories of the past, or God's memories of the future as well? Think about Jesus' statements on the end times as you dwell on this idea). So here is the paradox: We believe our God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent. In other words, our God knows we are about to sin, can change those circumstances easily, and loves us enough to do this. And yet we sin. Here's the solution. As I've heard it said in the South, "I ain't your momma," so God, a bit more eloquently I'm sure, says to us that we are responsible for ourselves, for there is no free choice without the actual possibility of you choosing. Jesus clears this point up in the Lord's Prayer by modeling, "lead me not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." God knows what's coming, and loves us enough to do something about it, if we only ask.
What all this leads to is that God may very well have foreknowledge of what is to happen. If this is the case, God knows each and every time I'm going to sin, and he did not take precautions to prevent this. This implies that God remains passive as I decide to live for him or without him. The fact that God knows the future and sees us sinning is demonstrated in the prediction of Peter's denials (which makes you wonder about the eventual recall- is it strictly of God's memories of the past, or God's memories of the future as well? Think about Jesus' statements on the end times as you dwell on this idea). So here is the paradox: We believe our God to be omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly benevolent. In other words, our God knows we are about to sin, can change those circumstances easily, and loves us enough to do this. And yet we sin. Here's the solution. As I've heard it said in the South, "I ain't your momma," so God, a bit more eloquently I'm sure, says to us that we are responsible for ourselves, for there is no free choice without the actual possibility of you choosing. Jesus clears this point up in the Lord's Prayer by modeling, "lead me not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." God knows what's coming, and loves us enough to do something about it, if we only ask.
Jesus' humanity part 1
I wanted to explore the idea of Jesus' state of humanity/divinity. To begin, understand that discovery is an essential part of the human experience. Discovery of the world around you, and, as we all remember through the ever dreaded teenage years, discovery of self. If discovery is an essential part of being human, and Jesus was human, then Jesus had to discover the world around him. Which is significant because one could argue that Jesus, while on earth at least, was not omniscient. Which means he had to make judgment calls on people and his environment. So even though Jesus was there when God created the world, and saw how it was made, Jesus, at some point in his childhood, had to learn that fire was hot, that gravity always works, etc. Did Jesus struggle with his own identity? When did Jesus discover that he was the son of God? Did God speak to him and fill him in on the details, or was this a gradual self-discovery? Was a specific date and time predestined for this knowledge to set in, or was it a gradual process? What was the manner in which it came to pass? An intriguing thought is this: since all we know of our own existence is based on memories (think on that awhile), did memories of being "up there" with God gradually or suddenly come to him? Did Jesus suddenly recall vividly creating the world? (According to our Bible he was: Gen. 1:26 and others.) This instills a sense of irony: man remembering creating man! There will be another part to this discussion, but I save it for a different post due to a different direction taken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
