THEODICY COFFEE

Okay, here's an Everest of a question: Called ordinarily The Problem of Evil and technically Theodicy, it matters not only to those want to argue theism vs. athiesm (Surely an omnipotent, loving God would not permit evil & suffering, yet evil & suffering exist - quite a theologicial & philosophical brain-burner) ... but sooner or later each of us must experience loss & conseqent suffering, if not our own, then, probably more painfully, that of someone we love - for life is just that way - and must reconcile that experience with our love for God.

For a personal example: I have had to come to terms with a God who created me, and others I have cared about deeply, subject to madness. That's hard enough. Worse by far, I'm challenged to love well-meaning theologians who want to devalue my suffering and the God I love by "exculpating" Him who formed me in the womb with terms like "permissive will." Worst of all, I am asked to at least forgive those brothers and sisters for whom those of us who suffer mental illness cannot be Real Christians, or we would receive "the full promises of Christ" and join them in Hunkydory Land. If I ever manage that last one, I'll let you know.

Why should we deal with this, finally impossible, question? The Problem of Evil stimulated Archibald MacLiesh to write an American masterpiece: his recasting of the story of Job, J.B. It might call forth some really great Morning Coffees, too.

***

One of the greatest pleasures of life is conversation. (Sydney Smith)

DON HOCKADAY: In response to THEODICY COFFEE: Your "Everest of a question ... Surely an omnipotent, loving God would not permit evil & suffering, yet evil & suffering exist." That looks more like Pike's Peak to me. I'll explain that in a moment.

As regards your "personal example: I have had to come to terms with a God who created me, and others I have cared about deeply, subject to madness" - He whom God wishes to destroy, he first makes mad. - (Euripides, attributed)

TOM: I prefer, naturally, Great wits are sure to madness near allied. - (John Dryden)

DON: You may further prefer to that, also Dryden: "There is a pleasure, sure, In being mad, which none but madmen know! Now, let's climb Pikes Peak. Your "Problem of Evil" is resolvable by stating that suffering is a learned a human interpretation of reality. This in my opinion has limits.

TOM: You're landing pretty close to

That airy philosopher, Beal,
who said, "Although pain is not real,
when I sit on a pin
and it punctures my skin,
I dislike what I fancy I feel."

Seriously, suffering as a learned interpretation of reality is an intriguing notion, but counter-intuitive. The ability to experience & respond to pain - physical, mental, emotional - seems to come built in, a matter of nature, rather than nurture.

When my dog got hit by a car, he howled like a klaxon, clearly in distress. I don't believe he had to be trained to feel pain or to so express it. And it was painful to hear him. It's even painful to remember. I recall my Mom expressing sympathy for "poor, dumb animals." I can also recall my Dad shooting a dog that had been run over by a car "to put him out of his misery." But, as best I can tell, my fellow-feeling for My Dog Hurt Bad came from heart & gut; bone, blood, & brain; rather than being an intellectual or analogical response resulting from what my parents said & did.

Without being clarified, expanded, & argued for, the notion that suffering is "a learned human response," seems not merely to "have limitations"; but to be dead wrong.

DON: I didn't say I agreed with it, only that the issue "is resolvable by stating..."

The sufferers wail, "Where is the Lord God of Elijah?" and the comforters:

1. Argue the relative nature of "suffering." Through her life of depravation, did Mother Teresa "suffer"?

2. Point to Job and say something like, "You are being tested for greater things."

3. Point to Jesus and say, "How can you complain?"

4. Always available: "God works in mysterious ways" and "God knows the answer, not us."

For these types of questions, there is

a) reject a premise,

b) rationalize an explanation,

c) fall back on Faith, or

d) agree/admit there is no answer.

As long as Faith is available, there is no point in dealing with the question.

Of higher elevation than the "Everest Question" of Theodicy]: theological tenets include that God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful; that all his children are provided free will and are personally responsible for deeds done; and that he has readily available to those who unrepentently violate his directives a true, horrid, and eternal suffering. How could a loving God allow such a person to be born?"

TOM: Good Point: When Adam and Eve appeared before the Almighty in banana-leaf loincloths with fruit juice dripping from their chins, why didn't the old boy just say, "Oops," zap them out of existence, & start over? Or, using your logic, create kids that wouldn't eat forbidden fruit in the first place. In that story God comes across as either a lousy parent ("Don't you dare raid the cookie jar - What, you raided the cookie jar?") or a really inept inventor - take your pick.

DON: I like the question mainly because I enjoy counting to myself to see how long the believers take to juggle "a)" and "b)" before getting to "c)." Although it appears unresolvable, there is an unstated premise that perhaps 40% or more would agree to if it were presented and pressed. For the other, the the count to "d)" is quite short anyway.

The apparent puzzle can be resolved to partial satisfaction of many by noting it was man, not God, who claimed God is perfect. God himself testifies to his weakness by "I am a jealous God." The Father, as all fathers, wishes best for his children and supports them through their mistakes. He also knows, or should, he is imperfect. If your preacher reports God is perfect, it is probably because that is what his preacher told him. It is the nature of the bowels of the beast.

That is not the only "out." Tree huggers and range managers both like, for instance, deer. Tree huggers like individual deer for their sleek form, round eyes, and long eyelashes. Range managers, hunters, and ecologists focus on the population, not the individual. Sacrificing individuals is routine for the betterment of the herd, the population, and the future of the population.

God may sacrifice souls for a greater mission. Some must be born to burn in everlasting fire or there would hardly be a point to hang a belt on the wall and tell the others, "This will whelp your butt if you get out of line."

How far would one want to push the God is perfect premise? God may just lie. He can do what he wants. If he wants to lie, who am I to challenge him? "One more peep out of you and we are just going to turn this car around and not go to Disney World at all!" Maybe he has not yet burned his first soul, and never will.

How many of God's angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why discuss logic based on unsupportable premises? If you buy the ribs of a live goat, you pay for the whole goat.

In any case, these attempts to apply logic, reason, and observation to theism are futile.

TOM: Along that line, Comedian George Carlin reduces the theologian, eager to generate general premises about God, to a jerk met on a sidestreet in the Bronx:

"And Gawd can do ANYting:
He can even trow a BOAT
ovah a HEDGE."

"We gotta get rid of that guy," says Carlin. And he's got a point - pretty much the one you've made, I believe.

DON: An anthropologist (perhaps Joseph Campbell) who spent his life studying world religious beliefs was asked by a friend, a priest, whether science will ever resolve the existence of God. The anthropologist replied, "I hope not. What then would be the point of Faith."

TOM: Good story. And...?

DON: Applying logic and reason to observation is the realm of science, not religion. Science begins with observation and seeks truth; religion begins with the truth and seeks converts.

TOM: I'd say applying logic & reason to observation is a human activity, not the sole property of the boys in the science dept. And Science Department Cosmology - "In the beginning, the Great Proton burped, and Matter operating according to its own laws," &c. deserves all the ridicule that can be heaped upon it. By comparison, the creation story in the Bible (or in the Rig Veda) has at least the merit of being great poetry. What I'm saying is that incredible premises as regards the origin of the universe are hardly the sole property of theologians.

DON: It was Tom - Dot Tom! A Parker Broad-Point slung low near twitching fingers. We all knew the bladder was fully loaded with Pelican India ink, and that Tom shoots from the hip.

TOM: That's a very witty personal attack - Wow all the way back to high school, where my Dad taught science! And perhaps I deserved it - yes, I'm tarring with a broad brush - but it's still personal. If you happen to like Broca's Brain cosmology, better to defend it, and refute my attack in the process, than to attack the attacker. No matter how well done, ad-hominem just doesn't do the job.

DON: Ponder the subdivisions of philosophy and get back to me. I will do the same. Classical philosophers were not confronted with such modern syntheses as "science" and "religion. "Religion" in particular depends on the broadness of definition one is willing to accept.

In any case, I have considerable problems with "The Problem of Evil." It assumes without basis Evil is the antithesis of Good, and that Good is the domain of religion. At this point in my many years of "suffering" with these questions, a working hypothesis is religion is a vector of Evil.

TOM: The basis for assuming that "Evil is the antithesis of Good" lies in the ordinary operations of the English language. The words are antonyms, like Hot & Cold, Guilty & Innocent.

DON: It is an unfortunate limitation that our thought system is tracked by rails of the ordinary operations of the English language. I mentioned to you a few years ago how impressed I was when I heard some artic native culture has some half dozen or dozen words for various types of snow, but no generic term for "snow." Some day, I will check to see if it is supportable, so take it for what it is worth -- a possibly eroneous analogy.

TOM: What you heard is accurate, you don't have to check. If your analogy goes like this - Just as in Eskimo, so in English, language tends to form thought - there's nothing erroneous in that. It's called the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis (a weak & virtually unarguable form of it), and the Eskimo example was one Benjamin Lee Whorf originally used circa 1930.

"We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages," said Whorf. "The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds - and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds." That's the strong - and highly controversial - statement of what's been characterized as Linguistic Determinism. Add to that, Linguistic Relativism - No two languages organize that kaleidoscopic flux in (exactly) the same way (Consider your experience with English & Spanish to test that) - and you've got Sapir-Whorf in a nutshell. So now you've got a couple of terms for your search engine. Here's one more: The general issue here is Language Universals - What, if anything do all languages have in common?

DON: Now let's move to "Good and Evil are antonyms." Says you. OK, I'll play. What is the antonym for "bad."

TOM: What's the moral synonym for "bad"? The "Good/Bad" opposition is (mainly) between adjectives: "I had a good day yesterday and a bad day today." The Good/Evil opposition is between (mainly) between nouns: "The Star Wars trilogy deals with the eternal struggle between good and evil." But that's a side dish. Let me try to see how you're right, and get my own licks in:

Good results can come from Evil acts, Evil results from Good acts. It's a commonplace that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - one's own, or those of others. Well-intentioned people can do a great deal of harm. Consider, for example, the many unfortunate results of Einstein's innocent, and of course sucessful, inquiry into the nature of matter. It's not hard to make a case for science being "a vector of Evil," either - if one wishes to seek the source of evil in a particular human activity, rather than in something intrinsic to the human condition.

DON: No, no, no, no! True enough at this level, but beside the point.

"Good" and "Evil" as antonyms are western religion terms. They hardly resemble "yin" and "yang," which are probably nearest to equivalent pairs.

TOM: All right, they're the nearest eastern terms equivalent to Good & Evil, but they are opposed yet complementary forces found in nature, not moral absolutes.

DON: East or West, Language terms are no more than symbols of concepts, used by consensus. Developed for communication, they dominate the thought system itself. We can experience emotion great or small, but once we think about it, we think in terms we learned - a set of accepted concepts. Communication is enhanced by language; thought is restricted by it. There is little we can do about that but struggle with, or yield to, the chains.

Do not bother to wander alone in the jungle to search for Good and Evil. The jungle recognizes no human linguistic terms. It knows nothing of Good and Evil. What you will find there is the jungle.

***