A History of Theodicy

Inspired by James Wood's latest litany of eloquent complaints against the God in whom he doesn't believe, here's something I'd like to see: A history of popular theodicy, tracing the influence of the "argument from the existence of evil" against belief in God (or the Christian God, at least) throughout the course of Western history. It's my impression - and it's only an impression, which is why I'd like to see someone do the necessary intellectual spadework to refute it or back it up - that this argument has gained increasing currency even as our material conditions have dramatically improved; which is to say, the less suffering a particular population experiences, the more likely the suffering it does experience will be cited as evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity. (Or put another way, you're more likely to hear New Yorker writers wax indignant about how the existence of human misery precludes their believing in God than you are to hear the same argument from people in slightly less comfortable positions.)

I can think of various reasons why this might be so. There's the correlation-causation possibility: Atheism in general has become more prevalent as material conditions have improved in the West and science has demystified large swathes of the natural world, and since the problem of evil is one of the stronger arguments for atheism, you'd expect it to be cited more often in a more atheistic age. (Wood gestures at this notion in his essay when he remarks that "nowadays, theodicy always has a wary eye on the theological exit: this makes no sense, therefore I will have to reject the idea of God. But there was no such exit before about 1700, at the very earliest.") Or it could have something to do with mass media and instantaneous communication, which expand (and emphasize, since if it bleeds it leads) the range of tragedies that educated people are exposed to on a daily basis. (Wood opens his essay, tellingly, by reading off a roll of tragic headlines from a single copy of the New York Times.) It could have something to do with the scale of inhumanity that modern technology makes possible: Thus the reasonably-convincing argument, for instance, that the experience of two world wars and the Holocaust has been a crucial factor in Europe's abandonment of God. Or it could reflect something inherent in our psychology, which makes suffering seem like more of an absolute injustice the less we actually experience it.

I don't know the answer, or even if the thesis is correct - but I'd love to see someone investigate the question.

Comments

Along with demystification, life is more fair than it was for premodern people.

If you're unfortunate enough that someone comes by and murders you or steals your stuff, or if there's a flood or something that messes up your house, or if you don't have enough to eat, there's a baseline expectation that that's unfair and unusual.

When everyone was a bad crop away from near-starvation, it seemed more important to stay on the good side of invisible, omnipotent beings, rather than to wonder aloud if they might not exist.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 5, 2008 4:48 PM

I think your first impression is close... but would add that with increasing suffering comes an increased need for salvation, and therefore a willingness to overlook the theodicy problem. If I'm living each day in misery and pain, "Why does God let this happen?" is much less important than "God, get me out of here!", especially if you see yourself as powerless and at the mercy of whatever supreme being might be around. Such a person doesn't consider atheism, because there's no upside to believing your fate to be in your own hands.

Posted by five toed sloth | June 5, 2008 4:53 PM

In addition to reason 1 cited by Ross, the issue is the contrast between the high quality of life for some and the suffering of others. In other words, when life was cheaper people had a higher tolerance for the suffering of others. Now the absurdity of that type of suffering stands out more.

Posted by Led | June 5, 2008 5:02 PM

I agree that it would make an interesting (although very challenging) topic for study. Just a couple of comments.
First, from a theological perspective, I have never understood why the problem of evil or suffering is an argument against God. I understand why it is an argument against a good God, in terms of what we understand "good" to mean. But I don't understand why it is an argument against an evil God, or a God whose purposes are beyond our comprehension to understand.
Second, I think that the problem of evil is not really all that popular an argument for atheism. From what I can tell, most atheists (including a number of your critics on this blog) appear to argue against God and religion because (1) they think religious people are awful and do awful things (maybe that is the problem of evil redescribed?) and (2) the whole idea of a supreme supernatural being is silly and unnecessary to explain anything about the world (I would put myself in this camp. The problem of evil I think is rather one that religious people struggle with, rather than one that aetheists resort to all that much. Of course, one of the good reasons to pursue the study you suggest would be to put these musings to an empirical test.
I have more thoughts, but enough rambling for now.

Posted by Will | June 5, 2008 5:03 PM

I don't know how James Wood deals with the paradox that he himself is a god among writers.

Sorry, gushing fanboy.

Posted by Francisco | June 5, 2008 5:05 PM

One function of religion is to provide some kind of control over your situation. That is why popular religion tends toward the formulaic rather than the spiritualy profound. The person living on the edge wants to solicit help from the deity, often as an economic transaction.

Once we are advantaged to the point where we feel we have a large portion of control in our own lives we are free look objectively at the lack of discernable results from appealing to god.

Posted by GPS | June 5, 2008 5:13 PM

Ross I would recommend "Evil in Modern Thought" by Susan Neiman. I don't know if this is exactly what you are looking for, but she argues that you can hardly address much of the history of Western Philosophy apart from tracing the history of theodicy. Not much to speak of before 1700 apart from isolated quotes of infidels... but so much of philosophy AND popular history in the past century reveals a number of ill fated attempts to resolve theodicy by imputing the blame for both natural and moral evils upon God as well as upon fellow people.

j

Posted by Joe Brancaleone | June 5, 2008 5:23 PM

I'm a long-time atheist and I've never used the problem of evil as an argument because it's exceedingly weak. I do like to point out how utterly retarded it is for theists to thank sky fairies for good fortune, though - as though they were being favored over other mortals on purpose.

That said I don't see how a rational, decent person can read the Bible and not be disgusted by (at least) the god of the Old Testament, who is such a complete rat-bastard that it's mind-boggling - the fucker is like Sauron on steroids.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 5:39 PM

"Or put another way, you're more likely to hear New Yorker writers wax indignant about how the existence of human misery precludes their believing in God than you are to hear the same argument from people in slightly less comfortable positions."

Ross seems to be making a tacit assumption that New Yorker writers are somehow less prone to suffering than a person with a "slightly less" comfortable (ie. lucrative) career. There is no evidence for this; if anything, there is evidence for the contrary. People with literary minds tend to suffer depression with greater frequency than the rest of the population.

Posted by Francisco | June 5, 2008 5:59 PM

Or to put a different spin on the first two comments, Job had to be blessed with wealth and comfort in the first place before he could blame his subsequent suffering on God. Otherwise he just would have thought that life is lousy and unfair. But then again, the Book of Job is a distinctly uninspiring work of theodicy.

As far as Ross's observations about modern technology and mass media... we've now reached a point where nearly all of the tragedy and (so-called) inhumanity in our world can be directly traced to the actions of humans. Earthquakes and tsunamis may be termed "acts of God" despite the available scientific explanations, but guns, bombs, plane crashes, and death camps don't prompt supernatural musing. Few contemporary theologians would have us believe that planes crash when God becomes displeased with an airline and withdraws his protection. They crash because people screw up.

So once the problem of evil is correctly diagnosed as the problem of living in a world with fault lines and chaotic weather systems and imperfect machinery and people with neurological disorders and bad attitudes, the only thing we can really blame on God is his initial decision to create a deeply flawed world full of deeply flawed creatures and pointlessly dangerous design features that any competent omnipotent engineer would have been able to avoid. Sure, a bright theologian can write a stirring apology for such a God. But it's much simpler to write him out of the story altogether.

Wood's metaphor of "turning around and around the stripped screw of theological scholastics" is quite apt.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 5, 2008 6:11 PM

Ross,

As I understand it the problem of evil was widely used against orthodox Christianity during both the early Christian and the medieval periods, by the Zoroastrians, the Manichaeans and various Christian heretics. The difference between the dissenters of the past and the dissenters of today was that those in previous centuries who raised the problem of evil typically didn't solve the problem by becoming atheists- instead they sought intellectual refuge in some type of dualistic cosmology, which for all its other problems does solve the problem of evil. Zoroastrians for example argued that evil was hard to explain in the face of an omnipotent God, but they solved the problem by positing an equal and opposite evil force that was opposed to God.

This is quite reasonable. The problem of evil isn't an argument against religion and for atheism. It is properly speaking an argument against God's omnipotence, and it can be solved either by qualifying God's omnipotence (as the Mandaeans, Zoroastrians, Cathars and others did) or by a combination of the free will and ontological arguments (as orthodox Christians did).

To resolve the problem of evil by resort into _atheism_ is not just unwarranted but logically absurd. I've always felt that the existence of evils like Hitler and that Liberian cannibal warlord actually provide a remarkable evidence of the existence of God. Hitler is impossible to explain without positing a devil, and a devil makes no sense without a God to oppose it, therefore God must necessarily exist.

Posted by Hector | June 5, 2008 6:19 PM

...the Book of Job is a distinctly uninspiring work of theodicy.

The Book of Job is an unrelenting attack on the very idea of theodicy. The "rodomontade" (Renan's word, I believe) of God's speech to Job from out of the whirlwind is not an attempt at theodicy at all.

Posted by Patrick Hadley | June 5, 2008 6:27 PM

Hector says: "Hitler is impossible to explain without positing a devil, and a devil makes no sense without a God to oppose it, therefore God must necessarily exist."

This bullshit again? What you mean is "impossible for you." And since you were raised with this handy-dandy all-purpose bogeyman to blame, you really didn't need to go very far for your explanation, did you?

"The devil made me do it." Jesus H Christ, Hector, the entirety of your god-proof is a fucking old punchline!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 7:02 PM

Hector: "To resolve the problem of evil by resort into _atheism_ is not just unwarranted but logically absurd. I've always felt that the existence of evils like Hitler and that Liberian cannibal warlord actually provide a remarkable evidence of the existence of God. Hitler is impossible to explain without positing a devil, and a devil makes no sense without a God to oppose it, therefore God must necessarily exist."

Is this argument a joke? Hilter is impossible to explain without the devil (and this coming from a Christian that believes in free will)? The existence of an evil deity presupposes an all-powerful good deity? A stunning series of unconnected assertions.

P.S. I endorse LaFollette Progressive's post above: well-said, sir.

Hadley: "The Book of Job is an unrelenting attack on the very idea of theodicy. The "rodomontade" (Renan's word, I believe) of God's speech to Job from out of the whirlwind is not an attempt at theodicy at all."

The theodicy is that God's actions are incomprehensible to mere human beings and we have no right to question him Almightyness. As LaFollette Progressive said, it's not a very good one.

Posted by Korha | June 5, 2008 7:04 PM

By the way, Douthat's original post is a good one. A history of theodicy is something I'd like to see too.

Posted by Korha | June 5, 2008 7:07 PM

Korha,

No, the (implicit) theodicy in the Book of Job is that the world must necessarily contain evil since the world must be imperfect. If the world was perfect it would be indistinguishable from God, and therefore would not exist as something separate from Him. Evil is what we call those aspects of the world where God's will is less evident. You can't draw a picture without distinguishing light and dark, nor can you have a world without distinguishing good and evil. This is not necessarily a theodicy with which I agree but it is certainly an intellectually respectable one.

Moe, I was raised an atheist, actually. Then I found that atheism was intellectually unconvincing.

I'm not sure what you found unconvincing. I just proved on the basis of pure logic that a devil, and hell, must necessarily exist.

Posted by Hector | June 5, 2008 7:12 PM

It seems to me that if you follow the proposition "the presence of evil in this world proves that there is no God" to its logical conclusion, you end up with "because this world is not perfect (heaven on earth), there is no God." In fact, Mark Twain used the household fly to argue against God. From this starting point, any annoyance, no matter how slight, can be used to disprove God. So if God had the power to make this, our home, heaven on earth, why didn't He? Why didn't God make you and me, and our world, perfect from the start? Or, did He?

Posted by Erasmus | June 5, 2008 7:19 PM

Hector replies: "I was raised an atheist, actually. Then I found that atheism was intellectually unconvincing."

Of course it is, Hector, since it's not trying to convince anyone of anything. But no matter what you were raised as you were familiar with the notion of a devil.

"I'm not sure what you found unconvincing. I just proved on the basis of pure logic that a devil, and hell, must necessarily exist."

Well, no, you just proved that you have either a shallow intellect or a world-class ability to fool yourself - perhaps both. In any event it was amusing to watch.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 7:33 PM

It's posts and comments like this one that comfort me in my times of doubt, and reassure me that there is no evidence of god existing, much less caring.

This is what amateur theologists do in the spare time? engage in mental masturbation about the problem of evil? jeepers, do something useful in your spare time, like volunteer work at the local VA.

The planet is filled with Doubting Thomases. Billions worship a non-Christian god. Thomas got his own personal visit; why can't the rest of us get the same treatment?

For this atheist, the real problem isn't evil, it's faith. Every single religion that I'm aware of demands faith from its adherents, and nobody's yet demonstrated to my satisfaction (except my wife) that they deserve to receive it.

Posted by Francis | June 5, 2008 7:39 PM

Hector: "No, the (implicit) theodicy in the Book of Job is that the world must necessarily contain evil since the world must be imperfect."

Whose interpretation is this? I mean, I could see that theodicy made by somebody, but how is this the message of the Book of Job exactly? God fucks around with Job for no justifiable reason, actively creating more evil and suffering in the world, and then in defense tells his faithful servant to sit down and shut up because His Ways are mysterious and incomprehensible to mere mortals... this has nothing to do with any "best of all possible worlds" claptrap. Your interpretation of Job is crap.

Posted by Korha | June 5, 2008 7:46 PM

I'll have a go.

I think the "argument from the existence of evil" gains more currency the more a society comes to appreciate and rely on its ability to control its own worldly outcomes. This sets up something of a paradox: the more control we gain over our environment - the more we stabilize our food and energy sources, and our standard of living - the more we appreciate that such control has carried us further and further outside the natural, "God-created" order. This order used to be thought of as the Nature in harmony with itself, but for our own prosperity we had no choice but to get out of tune with it. We come, consciously or not, to perceive that original harmonic order as evil, or at least against us and our interests. For example, no one wants to be slave to the vicissitudes of the changing weather; we invent better irrigation and such to overcome it. When Nature does reassert itself in the form of a devastating earthquake or typhoon, we're brutally reminded again of exactly what we've always been struggling to cope with and overcome. We're ultimately powerless before Nature yet still tantalized by the possibility of triumphing over it. Our sense of its unjustness increases along with our level of isolation from its harmful effects. Whereas those who indulge in fewer hopes of living outside of natural forces, because of their inability to do so, are thereby less likely to perceive this friction, and more likely to resort to whatever theodicy makes sense out of it for them.

As for all the evils caused by man, well, no one can blame God for that without rejecting the necessity of freewill to any comprehensible theodicy.

Posted by Bill | June 5, 2008 8:10 PM

One follow-up. Ross writes:

which is to say, the less suffering a particular population experiences, the more likely the suffering it does experience will be cited as evidence against the existence of a benevolent deity. (Or put another way, you're more likely to hear New Yorker writers wax indignant about how the existence of human misery precludes their believing in God than you are to hear the same argument from people in slightly less comfortable positions.)

Probably, though, the New Yorker writer would not be writing about his own misery. He and his particular population may experience less suffering, but that could be exactly what gives him the perspective to call the unfair suffering of other populations evil. Not every prosperous person will be led to this conclusion of course; just the more thoughtful & empathetic ones. Many simply replace their reliance on God with a reliance on ever more prosperity, and deny his existence that way.

Posted by Bill | June 5, 2008 8:25 PM

Timothy Keller's recent book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism is a superb book of Christian apologetics that deals squarely and respectfully with Dawkins, Dennett, Harriss, and Hitchens. Keller modestly calls the book "Mere Christianity for Dummies," though he is remarkably well read in literature, theology, and philosophy. In many ways it is a sophisticated update of Lewis.

Keller, a Presbyterian pastor, founded a church in Manhattan that serves mainly a young group of about 6,000 smart people in Manhattan. The church is orthodox Christian with no guitar strumming or Rock and Roll or any other mega-church pizazz.

Another recommendation would be John Paul II's encyclicals, Faith and Reason and The Splendor of Truth.

Any of these volumes provide plenty of theodicy to chew on.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | June 5, 2008 8:25 PM

You might try Joseph Kelly's "The Problem of Evil in the Western Tradition," or the introductory essays by Hvidt, Tilley, Southgate and Robinson, in "Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil."

Posted by sji | June 5, 2008 8:33 PM

the problem isn't that belief in God is illogical--not int he slightest. The big bang supports an idea of a god, and the presence of evil does little to disprove a god--it merely disproves that God is exactly how you'd like Him to be.

no, the problem today is atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God; there is nothing. This is inherently illogical--you can't prove the existence of nothing. Atheists assert that no higher power exists--and that is a belief. Atheism, far from being opposed to religion, actually requires the same blind faith that most religions assert--except with the extremely illogical consequence that, unlike a theist, an atheist can never be proven right.

Most modern atheists are merely thumbing their noses at religion and trying to join a club they perceive as opposed to religion--when really, they are merely conforming to a new belief system that still requires the same thought as the old, except much stupider. Much like the goth in high school who dresses like every other goth and listens to goth music and reads goth materials, they conform their noncomformity. And most illogically, because while the popular kids conform to their groups because of the benefits of it, goths conform to their group to merely spite those who rub them the wrong way.

A true intellectual who did not believe God existed would be an agnostic. Agnostics leave an open mind--like a true intellectual person who is unconvinced does. They aren't stupid enough to assert "there is nothing!"; they realize that there may be something or nothing, but no avenue need be left closed out of sheer obstinate hate of theism.

Now, little atheists, start your clusterfuck.

Posted by jack M. | June 5, 2008 9:00 PM

jack M. says: "no, the problem today is atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God; there is nothing. This is inherently illogical--you can't prove the existence of nothing. Atheists assert that no higher power exists--and that is a belief."

That's simplistic grade school bullshit that just shows you're rather stupid, jacko. I've been an atheist and I don't insist or assert that there is no god/higher power or that one is impossible. I have no belief in one, and I see no evidence for one, but I consider the argument to be moot until there's some reason to revisit it.

Of course certain human conceptions of god just don't pass the laugh test - I include the Christian god in that category.

The term "agnostic" is exceptionally useless. All agnostics are actually atheistic - meaning they lack a belief - unless of course they're the sorts of spineless idiots who waffle back and forth from day to day.

If you were familiar with the intellectual discussions of atheism you'd already be familiar with these distinctions. Since you're not, you're oh-so-plainly taling out of your ass.

And one more thing - I don't hate theism. I've always been fascinated by mythology and the peculiar things people believe.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 9:22 PM

LaFollette - I might accept Wood's "stripped screw" metaphor if he struck me as the sort of person who'd ever had to turn a screw, or hammer a nail, or do anything else but write and sneer.

The sentence works better to describe atheists' attempts to disprove God - precisely because the apologetics he detests are always teaching us that belief is reasonable, that the demystifying of the universe shows us how, not why, and does not prove to us that no "why" exists.

It's a standstill in your materialist world, and if you have an argument that isn't at least several hundred years old, and hasn't been recited by college freshmen for a century and a half, I'm willing to listen.

Posted by Ferrell | June 5, 2008 9:28 PM

Ferrell is full of shit: "It's a standstill in your materialist world, and if you have an argument that isn't at least several hundred years old, and hasn't been recited by college freshmen for a century and a half, I'm willing to listen."

Since all theistic arguments are also at least that old, why should anyone listen to you?

No argument can prove the existence of your sky fairy, any more than an argument could prove the existence of leprechauns. And on the other side, of course no one can prove leprechauns, sky fairies, or the Silver Surfer do not exist.

If your arguments actually proved jackshit you wouldn't need faith at all. That you silly theists still insist on your voila! moments simply show how weak your faith is. I'm happy enough pointing such things out - I certainly feel no need, ever to "prove" there is no higher power. There's just never been any evidence for one substantive enough to bother with.

I feel the same way about ghosts and the Loch Ness Monster.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 9:42 PM

According to Keller, all doubts are alternative forms of belief.

Now, as a lawyer, I'm pretty comfortable with mangling the English language. But saying that a "doubt" is a "belief" is simply nonsense. What's worse, it seeks to blur the distinction between reason and faith.

Last I checked, planes flew and atom bombs exploded with great force due to applications of reason, not faith.

Posted by Francis | June 5, 2008 9:43 PM

MoeLarry, it would be easier to dislike you if you weren't funny. But you are in the Ann Coulter mold.

So am I. James Wood is a tool.

Posted by Ferrell | June 5, 2008 9:48 PM

This is not strictly theodicy, but I want to point out that the anti-religionists has a very hypocritical tag-team approach to Religion:

If there is some event that is bad that can be tied to religion (for example, wars where the claimed reason was religious difference), they make a humanist argument that Religion is Bad and must be stamped out.

If there is something that is good that can be tied to religion (for example, charity work, social harmony, etc..) they claim that Religion is the product of a 'social evolution' of sorts, i.e., communities which adopted religion were more successful than those that didn't. Thus, with Bayesian reasoning, they claim that these good things that stem from Religion are actually an argument against the truth of Religion.

They never say that a bad thing stemming from Religion is an argument for the existence of God, and they never say that a good thing stemming from Religion is an argument to keep it going.

Posted by Andrew Berman | June 5, 2008 9:57 PM

Andrew Berman writes: "If there is something that is good that can be tied to religion (for example, charity work, social harmony, etc..) they claim that Religion is the product of a 'social evolution' of sorts, i.e., communities which adopted religion were more successful than those that didn't. Thus, with Bayesian reasoning, they claim that these good things that stem from Religion are actually an argument against the truth of Religion."

That would be a very stupid argument indeed, but I have never seen anyone make it.

I don't really see the point of your post. I could list dozens of fucking moronic theist arguments off the top of my head, but what would that prove? Nothing at all.

(Hector's "Hitler was evil, therefore god exists" argument would be near the top of the list.)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 10:07 PM

I don't really like Ross's angle, although I still think Wood's argument is nonsense. The improvement of material conditions correlating with a rise of popular theodic arguments is just a correlation. We assume that people suffered more in the past because of lower life expectancies, less wealth and more infectious diseases, but that doesn't necessarily have an impact on happiness/morale because people in the past had higher expectations for disease and rarely contemplated the possibility of living beyond a certain age or the ability of accumulating the kind of wealth they can today. So, even if there is a correlation, it's just that: a correlation. No proven causality. Nothing really interesting about it.

Now, advances in medical science and living conditions does probably correlate with a better understanding of the natural world and an increased awareness of material disparity and the fortunate hindsight of looking back and saying, "yeah, it'd really suck getting smallpox. How could God let that happen?" Which is to say that people don't really have much respect for the past no matter what their view on this particular issue is.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | June 5, 2008 10:08 PM

A number of people have already alluded to this, but I agree again that prosperous atheists using evil as proof against the existence of God only show that they can’t even grasp the correct meaning of ‘teleology’: the existence of evil relates to questions about the character of a God who might exist, not to whether God is actually out there.
But I will give them points for consistency. If it is the existence of evil that disproves God, then it makes sense that they believe that anyone who can (or who promises to) abolish evil might be God returning - to whit, Marx, Mao, Obama, etc.

Posted by Arriviste | June 5, 2008 10:23 PM

Here's an interesting twist I've heard on the "evil lets us better appreciate good" argument:

Imagine a perfect world where no evil existed (an "Eden" if you will, a paradise of ignorance and bliss). What sort of virtues would exist in that world? Happiness, joy, peace, serenity, love, kindness, etc. All good things, natch.

But when the potentiality for evil exists, it also introduces a whole variety of other virtues that would otherwise have no reason to exist. Patience, sacrifice, courage, hope, loyalty, compassion, charity, perseverance, etc are all deeper virtues that would not exist in an evil-free world.

ὁ λαὸς ὁ καθήμενος ἐν σκότει φῶς εἶδεν μέγα

Posted by Citizen Grim | June 5, 2008 10:35 PM

Why is the existence of evil such a hurdle for ego-centric human beings attempts to acknowledge their Origins? Evil, suffering, injustice, unrequited karma, etc - are at the heart of reason our souls/spirits/consciousness decided to materialize in the first place. Without these negative aspects of existence how could we ever learn through experience? Etheric beings conceal very little and forget nothing. Materialized beings forget everything even if they retain their higher dimensional consciousness in nascent form which they, typically re-aquire, through materialized experience. Even uber-high dimensional beings such as Lord Jesus, Lord Buddha and others who incarnated to teach mankind proper conduct have to go through materialized experiences before they can enlighten us with their divinity. Forgetting all prior memories of their souls existence is essential for this process to yield meaningful increases in consciousness. This applies to all beings, wherever they lie on the consciousness continuum. The ego is our inheritance from the Animals Kingdom -- where so called evil is basically the rule. Overcoming evil advances each beings consciousness. How much have we all learned from pain and suffering? Until we realize the canonized Gospels are corrupt we're never going to have a rational cosmology. In the Gnostic Gospels and The Dead Sea Scrolls Jesus teaches the concept of re-incarnation. Things start making since when you dip into the "apocryphal" gospels. That said, I think the reason people don't accept God as their origin because they don't want to accept the commandment to love everyone and everything. God is love, period. Must of us our to cowardly to embrace this oh so simple of ideas.

Posted by Bryan Hollingshead | June 5, 2008 10:40 PM

Citizen Grim writes: "But when the potentiality for evil exists, it also introduces a whole variety of other virtues that would otherwise have no reason to exist. Patience, sacrifice, courage, hope, loyalty, compassion, charity, perseverance, etc are all deeper virtues that would not exist in an evil-free world."

I guess you didn't read the final page of the Wood article, where that point is addressed in a way. He makes the point that in the Christian Heaven the capacity for evil (and so for choice) would be drained from the residents - and therefore the 'deeper virtues' you list would never come up.

It's the most interesting part of the article as I see it.

It's always struck me how vague the Christian conception of heaven is - seems like they'll just be laying around all blissed out waiting for their number to be called when it's their turn to give Yahweh a prostate massage.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 10:43 PM

Wood's strongest point (articulated better elsewhere) is that the scale of human suffering impugns the Free Will Defense. God could have easily created a world in which we could act freely as moral agents - yet this world would lack the murderous freedoms and systemic cataclysms that allow the existence of Hitlers, Stalins, tsunamis, child-rapists.

The existence of Free Will does not require that a Holocaust be within the realm of potentiality.

Disagree, do you? But as Schopenhauer retorts to Leibniz, even if the world we currently inhabit were the best of all possible worlds, God created both the world "and also the possibility itself, accordingly he should have arranged this with a view to its admitting of a better world."

Read more here: http://www.powells.com/review/2006_12_14.html

Posted by Francisco | June 5, 2008 10:48 PM

Bryan Hollingshead writes: "Must of us our to cowardly to embrace this oh so simple of ideas."

I don't know who's watching the door, but can you do a better job of keeping out the mental patients?

First Terry Ann, now her boyfriend. Next thing you know Alan Keyes will show up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 10:51 PM

Certainly it would be an interesting history, but this post reveals more about Ross's biases than anything else.

First, as noted above, there is a long intellectual history of heretics and orthodox Christians addressing this problem.

Second, of course we read writers complaining -- who else would we read? But I have heard plenty of stories of ordinary people who cursed God when their mother died, lost their faith after a tragedy, never set foot in a church again, etc.

Third, how we would we know what the vast majority of population a thousand years ago thought of the problem? I'd guess they didn't believe in an omnipotent God and/or did believe in devils, but who knows?

Posted by John DE | June 5, 2008 10:57 PM

MoeLarry writes: "It's always struck me how vague the Christian conception of heaven is - seems like they'll just be laying around all blissed out waiting for their number to be called when it's their turn to give Yahweh a prostate massage."

I sometimes wonder if the Bible is so ambiguous in its description of heaven that Christians down through history cherrypicked from other sources to fill in the blanks... and as a result, the commonly-held conception of heaven is just that: Common. Bland. Uninspired. Implausible.

Posted by Citizen Grim | June 5, 2008 11:14 PM

In these discussions "God" is often used interchangeably with "The God of Christianity" and I wonder if that's always useful.

Although I've never been much concerned with there being evil and a good Christian God, even if I were the issue doesn't say anything about the concept of God itself.

In the generic a transcendent being that's omnipotent and omniscient could be morally ambiguous or indifferent. The High God in old Chinese folklore was generally beneficient, but I don't think he was seen as purely benevolent. Neither were many of the Hindu gods.

Likewise I'm not sure why getting rid of God makes matters much better on suffering or evil. Fine you don't have to worry about some alleged contradiction, but the actual horrible things still happen. Is solving a logic puzzle that helpful when your kids died in a school collapse or when you're powerless and alone? Does being atheist somehow make evil and bad things more bearable? Why?

Posted by Thomas R | June 5, 2008 11:35 PM

@MLaJ: Sorry, but atheism isn't simply some divine placeholder - by its very definition, it is an active, directed opposition to belief in a higher power.

Using the word 'atheist,' when what you actually mean is 'agnostic,' just muddies the waters of language. To use an example, lets just say the Rapture were to happen tomorrow. If I were to attempt to predict the actions of a Christian, an agnostic, and an atheist, there would be a few problems. The Christian's actions would be easy, as his beliefs would be vindicated. The agnostic would obviously accept that his ambivalent stance would no longer be tenable, and accept the divine presence. Based on your definition, you would cease to be an atheist thereafter, and would also accept God's existence - you describe this stance as atheism. However, what term would then be used to describe someone who obstinately refused to acknowledge God even in the face of overwhelming evidence? Well, that would be a true atheist - however, your about-face throughout this event would mean that you are, in fact, an agnostic.

Deal with it, friend.

Posted by concerning the trolled | June 5, 2008 11:45 PM

The term "agnostic" is exceptionally useless. All agnostics are actually atheistic - meaning they lack a belief - unless of course they're the sorts of spineless idiots who waffle back and forth from day to day.

Or, perhaps it could mean they're still searching for a belief that fits their particular worldview.

Its really not that hard.

As for using atheism as a catch-all for skeptics, well, l2dictionary.

Posted by Shifty William | June 5, 2008 11:50 PM

The source of the growth of theodicy-talk really is the improvement of our material lives.

As we become safer, more prosperous, freer than ever from the disaster, war, poverty and human cruelty, it becomes less convincing to say that the presence of pain and suffering is the result of human evil, or distance from God. It becomes obvious that pain is our inheritance and the certainty of pain part of our nature, regardless of how well human circumstances are going.

The very experience of love comes coupled with the certainty of loss. With nothing human to blame, this leaves us facing the fact that sorrow and misery are inevitable. We are frail and mortal, and we naturally have it in us to love others who are also frail and mortal. So we love, lose and suffer, love, lose and suffer. The whole thing eventually starts to look like very unintelligent design.

The richer and safer we are, the less chance there is anyone else to blame *but* God. I think that is the experience driving the explosion of theodicy in middle-brow thinking. I have yet to discover an intellectually-satisfying response to this. So I've just come to assume that though there is a God, he obviously has no concern for our actual experience. What his purpose is, I wouldn't dare to guess. Charles Krauthammer said in an interview (rough quote): I don't believe in God, but I fear him greatly. That's where the culture is headed, I suspect. And fear is commonly expressed as hatred, hence the new batch of angry atheists.

Posted by PGP | June 6, 2008 12:51 AM

MoeLarryAndJesus,

I realize you're a hard-boiled rationalist tough guy and all, but I think your post about my post was shallow and mean-spirited -- even for one who gets off on putting others down. I'll grant my post was a bit on the sappy side, but should sentimentality axiomatically consign someone to the loony bin? I don't much like my post in hindsight, but would you not agree the notion of re-incarnation -- as taught by Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, et al -- places the supposed problem of theodicy in a different light? Moreover, does the notion that all beings (plants, animals, humans, aliens) exist to have experiences and learn from them not alter the framework of the debate? And would this experiential process not lead to a growth in consciousness? Here I think the crude but useful metaphor of consciousness being like software and bodily forms being like hardware is illustrative. So illustrative, in fact, I'd like to stretch it bit further: would the notion of God not be more comprehendable if we think of all conscious being nodes in network under-girded by a universal field of consciousness (like a database) recording all mentations that occur within the universe? I put these ideas forward because that's were the scientific tide is heading, in spite of the frantic protestations of dogmatic materialists like yourself. One day someone much more patient than I will weave together the insights from quantum mechanics, chaos theory, fractal geometry, non-linear dynamics, holographic mathematics, etc -- and we will have our long sought for science of metaphysics. I suggest not waiting for the confirmation. The real cause and effect dynamic of the universe is love -- as the masters have told us repeatedly -- whether it pays you back in this life or another. I say again with as much sappiness as I can muster: God is Love!

Posted by Bryan Hollingshead | June 6, 2008 3:38 AM

Who knew Ross was such a Marxist...??

Posted by berger | June 6, 2008 3:56 AM

I've always failed to see what's spineless about agnosticism. It's just an admission of uncertainty, big deal. It doesn't mean you waffle every other day, and besides where would be the shame in waffling about something so apparently portentous and fraught with mystery. The dictionary defines atheism as a belief that there is no capital-G God. I don't see how that isn't a positive assertion. It doesn't mean "proceeding as though God does not exist," "indifference to God," or "refusing to affirmatively believe in an admittedly possible God." It's an assertion that there is no God. But MoeLarry writes:

I've been an atheist and I don't insist or assert that there is no god/higher power or that one is impossible.

To me this just means you're irreligious, and agnostic.

I have no belief in one, and I see no evidence for one, but I consider the argument to be moot until there's some reason to revisit it.

This is, pragmatically, exactly how the typical agnostic proceeds, barring the odd period of soul-searching. But people tend to mistake agnosticism for perpetual indecision and avoidance, when in fact it usually reflects a positive arrival at and acceptance of uncertainty.

Posted by Bill | June 6, 2008 7:20 AM

Also, to say one "sees no evidence" for God assigns a quite selective meaning to the word evidence. Personally I "see no evidence" that the color red could look, in a definitive ontological sense, anywise other than how I perceive it to look, but that's likely because I'm making an a priori assumption about my evidence gathering ability. "Seeing no evidence" for God because one does not experience him as a present reality is a perfectly valid assumption; but logically speaking, so is seeing evidence for him because many others do. If we uncovered documents that described multiple eye witness accounts of some unbelievable thing, we could reject them as delusional but we couldn't properly reject them as "evidence." Much of historiography is of course based on things we could never independently verify but have evidence for. Others' experience of God is evidence, too. So, if you like, is the fact that anything exists at all, if you go the short distance to assuming that someone or thing had to create it in the first place.

All of that, needless to say, comes before one decides how to act upon the "evidence" one has self-selected for.

Posted by Bill | June 6, 2008 7:34 AM

Theodicy would be better described as theological idiocy. The short answer is straightforward: God isn't in charge, having delegated management to Man. Man, being fallen, inhabits a Fallen world subject to various forms of evil. However, this is Christian theology and therefore unsatisfactory to the non-Christian, so a non-theological answer is required.

A logical and non-theological answer is that imperfection and evil are an aspect intrinsic to the universal design. It is absurd for humans to argue that evil somehow indicates the non-existence of a designer as it is for the electronic players in John Madden NFL Football to argue that season-ending injuries indicate the non-existence of John Madden and/or the game designers at Tiburon.

Posted by VD | June 6, 2008 7:39 AM

The Greeks and Romans (as well as practically every other ancient culture I can think of, worldwide) had a litany of deities, which they had no compunction characterizing as cruel, avaricious, spiteful, and occasionally flat out evil. The Zoroastrians (not strictly Western tradition, granted) has a duelist conception of the divine: a good god and an evil god. Once you get down to monotheism, however, you've reduced yourself into a problem: with only one god, where do you assign blame for evil? Blaming it on mankind(or women in particular-- e.g. Pandora, Eve) remained a viable option as, is the old "secret godly plan" claim.

At any rate, I reject your thesis that modern people see greater tragedy and question the existence of god more due to it-- Ancient people saw a tremendous amount of tragedy as well, and have question the role and nature of god(s) as well as their very existence for thousands of years.

Posted by capital L | June 6, 2008 7:52 AM

To respond to Ross and to an impressive comment thread (despite the odd screeching atheist), the existence of evil argument is both an easily dispatched one and a deeply troubling one. From a purely logical point of view, Christianity's free will answer is unassailable: it is only because we have the capacity for evil that good is possible, and without sin there would be no Redemption. QED.

But as you point out the comparative facility of New Yorker writers to make the existence-of-evil argument, it is also grating for the equally well-off to make the free-will counter argument. I have led a pretty sheltered existence, and I've never known true evil, in my bones or in my gut. I have not known real hunger, or real pain. The oh so neat argument of free will seems so cold, so utterly irrelevant, when speaking with, say, a Holocaust survivor who has given up on God after experiencing the camps. (This is what Voltaire touches upon when Pangloss addresses the Lisbon Earthquake, which would definitely play a big part in your History of Theodicy.) Of course you can point out that it is in that horror that other Holocaust survivors have found a reason to believe in God, but such considerations seem equally useless when talking not about the general presence of evil in the world, but about the precise and unique evils that one person has sufferred.

The best Christian answer to the existence-of-evil argument seems to me to be, therefore, not the existence of free will (although, again, it is a perfectly valid response), but the much more concrete reality of Incarnation. God allowed evil to exist but He loves Man so much that He defeated it not just through the abstract (yet essential) gift of free will, but also by embracing His creature's condition and experiencing evil in the same ways.

Of course, from an atheist's perspective, this begs the question: to believe that God mitigated the presence of evil by experiencing and defeating it personally is to believe that God exists. But there is another way to put it: if it were possible to believe simultaneously in the existence of evil and in the existence of a benevolent God, then this benevolent God would have to be the kind of God who is willing to suffer evil alongside His creature and with the same intensity. This seems to me to be a very compelling answer.

Posted by PEG | June 6, 2008 9:29 AM

To Ross's post ... Regarding "Less suffering means more problem of evil means more atheism..."

If you look at the least religious places, you find (http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/):
"1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia (up to 49% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)"

There are a couple of outliers like Vietnam and Estonia, but some of the most atheist countries are some of the most suffering-free. (Those two exceptions could reasonably attributed to their communist past).

Then, from this site (http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_impo.htm). Some of the most religious countries are third-world. (Senegal, Nigeria, Ivory Coast...) India, Brazil, and Indonesia are quite a bit wealthier, but not in the league of the US. The US is the most religious, relatively suffering-free, country.

Posted by Tel | June 6, 2008 9:48 AM

Bryan Hollingshead replies: "I'll grant my post was a bit on the sappy side, but should sentimentality axiomatically consign someone to the loony bin?"

Sentimentality alone, no.

"I don't much like my post in hindsight, but would you not agree the notion of re-incarnation -- as taught by Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, et al -- places the supposed problem of theodicy in a different light? Moreover, does the notion that all beings (plants, animals, humans, aliens) exist to have experiences and learn from them not alter the framework of the debate?"

But then you add slop like this to the mix, and if you're sitting next to me on the bus I'm not enjoying the ride.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 10:04 AM

Simply put, you just can't, logically speaking, jump to the conclusion that there is no God, from the fact that there is evil in the world. That does not mean, however, that an explanation is not needed. This might be an argument, althought a rhetorical one, but it is not a proof. Stop insulting each other and try to reason together. As for the complaint that there's no evidence for the existence of God in the first place, I refer you to the extensive literature on the subject, and by serious thinkers, not stupid and sentimental Christians. Anyone who does not accept that is simply being dishonest or downright ignorant of the history of philosophy. This does not mean, of course, that you have to accept Aquinas' Five Ways or St. Anselm's Ontological Argument. But these are great contributions to the world of ideas and serious intellectuals must ponder about their implications. For a great book on the "problem of evil" please read David B. Hart's The Doors of the Sea.

Posted by alex | June 6, 2008 10:09 AM

"this argument has gained increasing currency even as our material conditions have dramatically improved"

This may come as a newsflash to you, but Christianity went into a steep decline in Europe after World War 2. You might recall that WW2 was one of the most destructive wars in human history. So I would suggest that your thesis is lacking the historical perspective that puts the rise in theodicy in perspective. WW2 broke Europe's faith in a God of love.

Posted by freddiemac | June 6, 2008 10:09 AM

"Sorry, but atheism isn't simply some divine placeholder - by its very definition, it is an active, directed opposition to belief in a higher power.

Using the word 'atheist,' when what you actually mean is 'agnostic,' just muddies the waters of language."

So let them be muddied. Look, I'm sorry if some of you are upset because you learned these words when you were 10 and you don't want your conceptions of them to change, but my use of "atheist" is entirely consistent with the literature on the subject. Isaac Asimov described himself as an agnostic for decades but finally decided that "atheist" was more appropriate for the same reasons I have given. Sometimes the distinction is made between "hard" atheism where one insists definitively that there is no god, and "soft" atheism, where one lacks belief and says that there is no evidence for one. "Soft" atheism goes beyond the wishy-washy maybe/maybe not of agnosticism. As Asimov saw it, he was unable - as a scientist - to assert that he could totally disprove a negative, but he saw the likelihood of there being such a being as so overwhelmingly small that it was no longer worth avoiding the more accurate description of "atheist" to describe his position.

Deal with it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 10:14 AM

This is to tag onto what Hector had argued, and to object to the claim that believing in supernatural evil presupposes that a Hitler or the practice of clitorectomy is to assert that "the devil made me do it." The whole idea of real human freedom is that when people do evil they are willingly embracing spiritual promptings that are more often than not internal but also, at times external. The devil did not "make" Hitler and his henchmen do what they did, but some evil is so horrific as to suggest/invite faith in a malevolent superhuman agency (indeed, there seems very little faith involved in saying that some manifestations of human evil, particularly in the last century, seem super-charged with the kind of creative malevolence that is hard to fathom otherwise - esp. when it is the product from the otherwise impoverished souls of a Hitler, Stalin or Mao), just as much of our world (including our own innate capacities) is so good and beautiful as to invite wonder and faith in that much of the world's architecture suggests an underlying omnipotence and benevolence.

For me, the more interesting part of Woods' essay was at the end where he suggested the problem of heaven as being what would humanity be like without tears or pain, and what possibly could be God's purposes for creating a world with so much suffering? The audacity of Christian hope is that there are purposes at work for all people even in situations that have every human appearance of being irredeemably tragic, and that once humanity is freed of its pain and graced with real freedom (which is the capacity to bind ourselves to love and life eternally) then we will see the fullness of our destiny. It could be pie in the sky, but it hinges upon the idea that humanity's future is greater than we can imagine, and the evils that appear to thwart the first stages of this destiny in the here and now are to be opposed as intrinsically wrong even if they are "natural" and especially when they appear to be supernatural.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 10:34 AM

Freddiemac,

Religious belief had greatly declined in Europe well in advance of the Second World War. Surveys around 1900 showed that only 25% of French citizens attended church regularly.

Thomas R.,

Yes, whatever the issues the problem of evil might pose for orthodox Christianity, there is no grounds for rejecting religion _in general_ based on the problem of evil. The Zoroastrians solved the issue fairly neatly by positing a good God and an evil power that opposed God. I think that accpeting the existence of the devil is critical to any attempt to solve the problem of evil. I don't know why too many atheists are so loath to accept the existence of the devil. It seems to me that the evidence of the existence of the devil is even more evident in the world than the existence of God. i don't necessarily mean the orthodox Christian conception of the devil, but I do mean some spiritual being of great power and evil nature, opposed to God.

Citizen Grim,

No, even the first list of virtues you cite could not really exist in an evil-free world. Love could not really reach its true fulfillment if evil did not exist. We live out our love for another person by enduring suffering for their sake, in a world without suffering there could not be true love. The corrollary of John 15:13 is that a world without death would be a world without sacrifice, and therefore a world without love.

Posted by Hector | June 6, 2008 10:37 AM

As to the definition of "atheist," I agree with ML&J. The "celestial teapot" example helps explain why:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

An atheist is a person who has concluded that he doesn't believe that there is a God, like the non-teapot believer. You are free to disagree, but it is unfair to cast that conclusion as illegitimate.

Simply put, you just can't, logically speaking, jump to the conclusion that there is no God, from the fact that there is evil in the world.

Fair-minded people can draw a conclusion either way.

As to David's point at 10:34 AM, I saw a terrific quote from Desmond Tutu along those lines. He said that during apartheid, he stressed that God was there in the fiery furnace with them. He added, with a laugh, that he sometimes wished that God had made that fact more apparent. That belief helped create audacious hope, action, and unthinkable change for the better. (Of course, Pres. Bush thinks that the Iraq occupation is just a comma, so even in modern times, belief can give rise to bloody millenarianism).

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 6, 2008 10:46 AM

Freddimaniac,

Actually, it is not correct to claim that Christianity went into steep decline right after WWII. There was a great revival of religiosity in all of Europe during and after the war - it was only in the mid to late 50s that parts of Western Europe started to revert to the prewar patterns of decline - and even then, this was not entirely consistent. In much of Eastern Europe, especially Poland, religious practice increased significantly (which is all the more striking given that in Eastern Europe the war was waged with a satanic ferocity). It might also be worth it to reflect on the party affiliation of the current German Chancellor - for a faith in steep decline in a very secular country isn't it extraordinary that the CDU has dominated German politics for over half a century?

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 10:52 AM

A few comments on Tel's (very relevant) post on least religious places:
1) I don't think you can turn religion on or off like a light switch. Even more importantly, you can't just turn on or off the long term historical effects of religion on a country. So Sweden may not be very religious now, but it certainly has been for most of its existance.
2) On the other hand, Vietnam and Estonia *are* countries where religion and its historical legacy was turned off like a light switch, quite forcefully in both cases.
3) I'm not sure how to define satisfaction or suffering or happiness. Certainly you can define some indicators, but the choices must have utility above ease of measurement. Someone in a coma doesn't suffer much, after all. An argument has been made that a key measurement of cultural satisfaction is eagerness to not die a demographic death. I don't want to get all Mark Steyn or Spengler on everyone, but I don't think you can just discount it.

PS: I deliberately avoided any significant response to MoeLarryAndJesus's rude response to my first post. But I suppose I should point out that some well known anti-religionists talk about religions in an anthropological sense when arguing against them. Richard Dawkins takes it to an extreme, combining anthropology and evolution in a weird unscientific mishmash of 'memes' and 'selfish genes'.

Posted by Andrew Berman | June 6, 2008 10:56 AM

Andrew Berman writes: "I deliberately avoided any significant response to MoeLarryAndJesus's rude response to my first post. But I suppose I should point out that some well known anti-religionists talk about religions in an anthropological sense when arguing against them. Richard Dawkins takes it to an extreme, combining anthropology and evolution in a weird unscientific mishmash of 'memes' and 'selfish genes'."

Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" is about evolutionary biology and is hardly unscientific. It is also not about religion. You're deeply confused and you have still not provided a significant response to my comment, but then I see no reason to think you're up to the task.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 11:26 AM

As for the complaint that there's no evidence for the existence of God in the first place, I refer you to the extensive literature on the subject, and by serious thinkers, not stupid and sentimental Christians. Anyone who does not accept that is simply being dishonest or downright ignorant of the history of philosophy.

oooh, serious thinkers! Now I'm impressed.

or, alternatively,

Arguments from apparent authority cut no ice with me. Provide a summary and let's argue the issues on our own terms. If you can't provide a capsule summary, you've just demonstrated that you're just relying on faith that those "serious thinkers" actually wrote anything worth reading.

Posted by Francis | June 6, 2008 11:29 AM

Ross,

I once wrote an essay which largely dealt with the subject of theodicy as a common argument against the existence of God. (It was the only 100% I ever earned on a paper! a fact which I won't ever get over apparently) In it I also wondered about your very question in the face of the often astonishing faith of the people in this world who suffer the most. I tried to put myself in the place of someone who would seem to have nothing or to have lost everything from our standpoint. And that is just it. From our standpoint some people would have seem to have no reason to live or believe or to think the world good. And yet there is ample evidence that such people have the opposite attitude if we would just listen to them as opposed to imposing our own views upon them.

There is always in these people some reason that they continue to see the world and life as more positive than negative. Whether that is someone who has lost their family, or has suffered some disease or injury, or been the victim of a terrible crime. There are of course exceptions. There always are. But I would say that most people continue to value something about their lives in this world to the extent that their suffering takes a back seat compared to it.

I guess I got onto this thought for several reasons. One, I learned the hard way to really listen to people of faith instead stereotyping them or imposing my own ideas onto them. Two, I read a quote by Chesterton where he posited that the "problem of pleasure" was just as big a problem for atheists as the problem of pain or evil is to the theist. Third, was an episode of a T.V. show of which I can no longer remember the title. But I have never been able to forget the one episode that I watched. In it, a man is senselessly pushed into the path of an oncoming train but he is not killed instantly. Instead he is trapped between the train and the platform. He is is injured in such a way that to remove him will kill him. Ultimately it gets to the point where he is about to be released and the last thing he can think of to say is something about a nature program that he had seen that morning. He had been struck with the wonder and beauty of what he had seen and wanted to share it with someone as his last act. It was more important to him to do this than it was to go out fuming about the unfairness of his death.

Another example that comes to mind is that of Victor Frankl, who actually witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust up close and personal. He lived it and yet eventually developed a positive, life affirming philosophy. I wonder how many people who have rejected God because of the Holocaust has actually spoken to any survivors and how many?

This not to say that suffering is somehow justified. I think that is the major mistake of many of the arguments attempting to explain evil. I personally don't think evil can be justified or explained by any thinking person. But I don't think that it can be left as "its just a mystery" either. Nor should it be. In the end, I don't think its a question that can be resolved by reason, by intellect alone. But I think it can be answered to some degree of satisfaction by another route which brings in more than just the intellect (as opposed to merely by-passing it) It requires above all, an adjustment of perspective or a correction if you will, which can only come through human contact and communication, relationships and living. It ultimately means the process of assigning the correct values to both the amount of goodness in the world and the amount of bad or evil in the world. I think that when you really stop to add it all up, the evidence is strong that goodness is both more potent and more prevalent than evil. The correct ratio which most accurately reflects reality is that Creation is far more good than bad. One shouldn't to turn a blind eye to evil but neither should the opposite mistake be made of assigning to evil so much significance that the goodness of the world seems insignificant by comparison. We don't have to fall into either of these extremes.

Finally, the thing that strikes me the most about people who lose their faith over the problem of evil is that they tend to be those who have focused too much and too long (too much time on our hands?) on instances of suffering. There is a balance to be lost when one stares into the face of evil too long. Eventually, evil takes on proportions in the mind that do not actually exist in reality. Then the type of pessimism which comes as a natural result of that loss of perspective is transfered onto the victims of suffering regardless what they happen to actually think and feel.

I wonder if talking to these people that we feel so sorry for wouldn't cure some of the fixation on evil that afflicts so many in our society.

Posted by Anglican Peggy | June 6, 2008 11:30 AM

Simply put, you just can't, logically speaking, jump to the conclusion that there is no God, from the fact that there is evil in the world.

Alex, you are being careless. Honest atheists do not jump to the conclusion that there is no God. They arrive at the conclusion that God is highly improbable. Moreover, it isn't the fact of suffering and evil that shake the idea of a loving God; it is the magnitude of suffering and evil.

I can only repeat Wood's argument, unanswered by any commenter, that Free Will could have existed without Hitlers, Stalins, Liston earthquakes and Indonesian tsunamis being within the realm of potentiality. God could have easily created the world in such a way that our ability to suffer existed along a narrower spectrum of possibility.

I agree with Wood that we have much more freedom than we need, and this excess of freedom vandalizes the face of God.

Posted by Francisco | June 6, 2008 11:34 AM

I think that Ross still misses the point. Even if it could be shown that we see evil in a relative way, that evil seems to be more ugly in the face of a modern life that makes us more confortable and secure, the problem of evil is not only measure in terms of quantity of evil. The problem of evil also has to do with the existence of gratitous evil. No matter how advanced is a society, there is no explanation for things like a tsunamy or an earthquake tearing appart entire villages and killing and ruinning the life of millions of persons. Natural evil is random, blind....the contrary of what one will expect from a God that not only is omnibenevolent, omnicient and omnipotent, but also of one who will want to have created a world ordered in a rationall way (including a moral order).

Posted by Sergio Méndez | June 6, 2008 11:39 AM

Francisco,

"We have much more freedom than we need." In all honesty, wow - it reminds me of Chesterton's observation on what in his day was called "free thought" -

"We say, not lightly but very literally, that the truth has made us free. They say that it makes us so free that it cannot be the truth. To them it is like believing in fairyland to believe in such freedom as we enjoy. It is like believing in men with wings to entertain the fancy of men with wills. It is like accepting a fable about a squirrel in conversation with a mountain to believe in a man who is free to ask or a God who is free to answer. This is a manly and a rational negation, for which I for one shall always show respect. But I decline to show any respect for those who first of all clip the bird and cage the squirrel, rivet the chains and refuse the freedom, close all the doors of the cosmic prison on us with a clang of eternal iron, tell us that our emancipation is a dream and our dungeon a necessity; and then calmly turn round and tell us they have a freer thought and a more liberal theology (or philosophy? D.).

I guess the best way to answer the charge of humanity's "gratuitous freedom" from a Christian perspective is that we assume that our destiny is actually to participate in God's infinite life, starting now. For that we need at least as much freedom as we have now, in fact, the point of Christianity is to provide us the resources to have a superhuman level of freedom since that is our future. The magnitude of evil and suffering is undeniably great, but to say it can "vandalize the face of God" is already assuming that this-worldly realities have real metaphysical significance (that you can disprove a metaphysical proposition by historical/physical reality), or metaphysical/spiritual/supernatural propositions can be assessed only with this worldly measures. But if this is so, how do we quantify the generosity of existence, the world as gift - i.e. that there is any life in the first place? Evil is real, fair enough, but then why does it not dominate all? Why is it both so destructive but has again and again proven so pointless and something that, when we understand ourselves to be healthy and free, we reject and struggle against in ourselves and in others?

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 11:54 AM

"I just proved on the basis of pure logic that a devil, and hell, must necessarily exist."

Hector, you keep using this word "logic." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Ferrell -- "I might accept Wood's "stripped screw" metaphor if he struck me as the sort of person who'd ever had to turn a screw, or hammer a nail, or do anything else but write and sneer."

Wait a minute... I hear this mysterious voice whispering in my ear... It sounds like a pot is criticizing a couple of kettles for tossing out moldy old cliches and sneering at people who disagree with him.

First of all, I'm not an atheist by either the definition supplied by Moe or Bill. Disproving the existence of God is just as pointless and futile an enterprise as "proving" his existence. I am, however, intensely skeptical of apologetics for the Christian God, and it doesn't require any brilliant, novel theological wordsmanship to cast doubt on the truth claims of Christianity on materialist or purely rational grounds. Such arguments have been around for a very long time because they are easy to grasp and impossible to either verify or refute. It's a stalemate that will never be broken. One either embraces faith or uncertainty.

"The apologetics he detests are always teaching us that belief is reasonable, that the demystifying of the universe shows us how, not why, and does not prove to us that no "why" exists."

True, the demystifying of the universe absolutely does not prove that no "why" exists. But it demonstrates that there does not necessarily need to be a "why", and shows that the fault for most evil things that happen to us lies not in the stars, but in ourselves.

Once the "how" of traditional belief systems is called into question, it takes a special type of willful credulity not to question the "why." And a certain amount of hubris to assume that the forces responsible for creating an incomprehensibly vast universe owe us an explanation or care what we think.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 6, 2008 11:55 AM

My own take on theodicy ... without evil, there's no story. When I write a story, my characters suffer. Sometimes from the actions of other characters; sometimes from the nature of the world around them. That doesn't mean I don't love the characters. I do; I love them all. I even love the villain, and what he does, because without that I wouldn't have a story. I want all of the characters to be their true selves, no matter how honorable or dishonorable that makes them.

So, with respects to my characters, that would mean I'm not omnibenevolent - wouldn't it? But, with regards to the characters (I make no claims on the my feelings to the rest of existence), I am all-loving. So the two might not be the same thing.

Posted by Tel | June 6, 2008 11:59 AM

PS. I think that many people would be surprised by the thought that many supposedly ignorant and uneducated people of the world are capable of. I think that some people are too quick to dismiss the thoughts of someone who doesn't have a Western education to their name.

Posted by Anglican Peggy | June 6, 2008 12:02 PM

Re: So Sweden may not be very religious now, but it certainly has been for most of its existance.

Scandinavia was never "very religious", at least not in the way that, say, Spain or Russia were. The Reformation which stirred up religious violence almost everwyhere else in Western Europe, barely made a ripple north of the Baltic.

Posted by JonF | June 6, 2008 12:03 PM

Dear LaFollette,

I agree - there is the whole issue of embracing doubt or faith. Many Christians attend to the issue of apologetics not out of some desire to engage in "mental masturbation" (not your term to your credit) but because there are people drawn toward faith for whom this is an issue. For me, theodicy really isn't an issue at all, since my faith in God doesn't depend upon eliminating all mystery.

At the same time, why I wanted to support Hector in his point, is that it seems to me that it requires even less than a mustard seed's worth of faith to see that there has been monstrous evil in this world, and because we first name it "evil" and recognize how disproportinate this evil is to any human good which those who committed it claimed to have sought, that this invites further metaphysical/spiritual reflection.

All that being said, the more I see these kinds of arguments played out, the more I come to agree with Cardinal Newman that there are very powerful limits to the efficacy of rational argument and logic. This is not because you all in the party of unbelief are particularly unconvincing or those who engage in Christian apologetics just haven't found the right argument, but because our starting points and assumptions are so different.

And I do admire your ability to go forward without a "why" - and frankly, sometimes Christians have the same feeling and dread that there might be no "why" - in this sense (to take a page from Charles Taylor) the rise of modern unbelief has been a kind of service to us. We no longer simply assume that there is obviously a why, we wrestle more with hopelessness and the problem of the "vast empty spaces" raised with urgency by those who don't have faith, we attend more carefully to questions rather than shut them down too quickly. And the hope that is a why is just that, a hope, even if it has some rational and experiential foundations. A very powerful one, that often helps us, and gives us courage to help others (and, of course, can be misused to force others along).

Be well.

David

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 12:12 PM

the point of Christianity is to provide us the resources to have a superhuman level of freedom since that is our future.

David,

If freedom really existed in heaven, our souls would merely replicate their lives on earth and, hence, heaven would not be Heaven.

One might retort that we wouldn't replicate our earthly lives (because we would be something more than human), but then you have utterly destroyed the significance of our training-via-suffering here on earth. I don't see how training a human to excercise freedom has any bearing on a superhuman excercise of freedom. For one thing, in heaven there is no risk that an abuse of freedom will lead to suffering, for, again, that would not resemble the Christian heaven.

Posted by Francisco | June 6, 2008 12:24 PM

Haven’t read Wood yet. But I like what Sergio said above. To me a particularly important quandary for theodicy is the question of natural evil.

I would also add that I think it is correct to regard evil as an absolute injustice regardless of whether one has so far experienced a great deal of it or none at all. The degree of wealth and comfort of the perceiver is an interesting question, but a different one from the objective truth as to the meaning of evil.

Nor does the fact that struggling against evil can produce meaning and other good things change the status of evil as evil. I’m sure these aren’t original points. But to me they seem fairly important.

Posted by jason | June 6, 2008 12:25 PM

Francisco,

I think the distinction between freedom in eternity versus freedom in time is that we can forever fix our wills on the good, so in that sense we will be free but not subject to a second fall, a'la Dostoevsky's nightmare, and the point of this life is that we learn to love the good even when it comes to us, as Mother Theresa had observed, in distressing disquises.

I don't think it utterly destroys the significance of human experience in this life to assert that humanity is gaining something infinitely precious in its struggle to do the good in a very imperfect world, but then I'm dealing with a fact of experience - there is an evil - and of faith - that God suffers this evil and has even endured it to the point of death on a cross, and calls us to take up our cross to participate with Him in the redemption of the world (and there is the hope that there is something like a continuity of personality and experience - shorn of sorrow to be sure, but still recognizably us). If the incarnation and our lives in the world are significant it means that life is not a dress rehersal, that something transcendentally important is happening in the here and now, perhaps especially when we confront evil, or manage to love and believe in spite of it.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 12:44 PM

I think the distinction between freedom in eternity versus freedom in time is that we can forever fix our wills on the good, so in that sense we will be free but not subject to a second fall, a'la Dostoevsky's nightmare

David,

This is a lack of freedom in all but name. To be immune from a "Fall" (that is, suffering) is the very definition of unfreedom.

This is another instance of religion trying to convince everyone that green is red through rhetorical hijinks. In Catholicism, for example, Mary is a goddess in all but name, and the Trinity is polytheism in all but name.

Regardless, David, I appreciate your contributions.

Posted by Francisco | June 6, 2008 12:55 PM

Francisco, the 'superhumanness' of the Christian concept of the future is only superhuman as it relates to fallen man, not to man as originally created. In some sense man will be akin to what he was before the fall.

As a result of the 'training' on Earth, humans are granted in the eschaton a free choice among multiple goods. They will have already made their choice vis-a-vis good vs. evil, hence no further training in this regard will be needed. "The term is over, the holiday has begun."

Posted by Rob G | June 6, 2008 12:58 PM

1. Sweden (up to 85% non-believer, atheist, agnostic)
2. Vietnam
3. Denmark
4. Norway
5. Japan
6. Czech Republic
7. Finland
8. France
9. South Korea
10. Estonia

I think its important to recognize here that there are very different conceptions of religion in different parts of the world, as well as different ways of conceiving what counts as "religious". As someone who's lived in both Japan and South Korea, I can attest that while in both societies everyday life is dominated by secular worldviews, religious practice is still alive and well, certainly moreso than in Europe in my observation. A vast majority of Japanese, for example, still go to temples to pray and make offerings on religious holidays and have altars in their homes, and Shinto shrines and Buddhist temples are at least as common in Japan as churches are in America. This despite the fact that more than 50% of the population claim to be religious skeptics. Partially this is due to the fact that some forms of Buddhism are non-theistic, but from what I've gathered from conversations with Japanese friends people here don't view praying at a temple as necessarily an expression of any particular supernatural belief so much as a cultural, social, and spiritual activity. The question of whether God (or any of the Shinto spirits, or the Buddhist pantheon, or whatever) actually exists isn't the most important - what matter are ritual and practice, and the salutary spiritual effect they are deemed to have.

Natural evil is random, blind....the contrary of what one will expect from a God that not only is omnibenevolent, omnicient and omnipotent, but also of one who will want to have created a world ordered in a rationall way

I don't see why this natural evil need present a particular problem. One could argue that a benevolent deity would want to create a universe that was more than a mere puppet theater, and that for free will to exist reality would have to admit the possibility of chance occurrence, because without chance there would be no variation and without variation there could be no choice. Tsunamis and the like might just be those occasions on which the cosmic dice come up snake eyes.

As for Ross' point, I suspect his first suspicion - that prosperity gives people the luxury of time to ponder abstract questions like the existence of God - is largely correct. People engaged in existential struggles don't have time for theosophical navel-gazing.

Posted by Xeynon | June 6, 2008 12:59 PM

Francisco,

And finally, there is something of a "historical" point in the Christian account of humanity's spiritual development (or fall and rise) - that what we are experiencing in this life is the result of our misuse of freedom, and that the recovery of that freedom in its fullness requires redemption in this life. We are a kind of spiritual amphibian, destined for eternity but born in time, and part of the training is that the "training" we are receiving now in forming our wills to love is being done in "wartime" conditions - a war which humanity brought about and whose continuation we individually and collectively support through every act of willful evil, from the ordinary acts of lovelessness and contempt of every day through the acts of extraordinary wickedness that make us question God, but rarely make us question ourselves or our vaunted "progress".

The point for many Christians of persevering in love here and now is to actively undo human wickedness in cooperation with grace and with faith in the face of doubt that this will make an eternal difference, in the "peacetime" of heaven, since the goal of Christians' struggle with sin really is a "war to end all war". The forming of our wills and hearts now is only the beginning, not the end of human destiny.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 1:00 PM

"In Catholicism, for example, Mary is a goddess in all but name, and the Trinity is polytheism in all but name."

Francisco, I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. (And I say this as an ex-Catholic who strongly disagrees with many Catholic positions). If you can point me to a single biblical source, encyclical, pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, or major theologian that has, within the last thousand years, suggested that Mary is omnipotent, omniscient, or played a part in the creation of the world - without subsequently being excommunicated or forced to recant - I'll concede the point.

Posted by Tel | June 6, 2008 1:11 PM

Francisco,

I hadn't read your last post before the above- but is it really a lack of freedom to be immune to falling into sin? If psychology could invent a regimen that would allow me to, with one treatment, make me unable to harm (willfully cause pain out of anger or malice, not do things that might cause pain out of a rational and loving calculation of what was needed to achieve a real good) those I love, or for that matter, anyone, and I took the treatment, would I really be less free? Now the obvious problem is that any human calculation on how to achieve the above would necessarily be flawed and incomplete, but if there is a divine offer that will allow us to set our wills forever on love, then that might be less free in the sense that we have freedom now to hate, but would be infinitely more free in terms of real human flourishing.

And all I can say is that i don't regard the above simply as rhetorical hijinks. I'm not really saying freedom = no freedom, anymore than loving and rendering honor to the Mother of God = polytheism. But I want and hope for a freedom that is greater than the capacity to feel (and especially inflict) pain, just as I want to realize that human sanctity can be worshipful even without desiring to commit idolotry.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 1:12 PM

First, from a theological perspective, I have never understood why the problem of evil or suffering is an argument against God. I understand why it is an argument against a good God, in terms of what we understand "good" to mean. But I don't understand why it is an argument against an evil God, or a God whose purposes are beyond our comprehension to understand.

As to the first half of the question, the argument isn't intended to be a general argument against all possible gods. Such an argument, of any form, is impossible simply because the number of potential gods is inifinte and no matter what argument you can construct, one can hypothesize a god for whom any given argument won't apply.

The problem of evil is an argument against a tripple-O god (meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent). Those of us who make the argument are perfectly aware that the argument can be nullified by dropping any one of the O's (if God isn't omnibenevolent, he has no reason to erradicate evil and may even encourage it; if God isn't omnipotent, he may be incapable of erradicating evil; if god isn't omniscient, he may not know how to prevent it's existence or, indeed, even be aware that some evil does exist). In other words, you can salvage God by proposing that God is a limited or flawed being.

Since the tripple-O model of godhood is the dominant theology in this world, it isn't surprising that most theological challenges are addressed to that particular model of godhood (especially in the Western world where it's dominance reaches the level of ubiquity). Likewise, it isn't surprising that few appologists are eager to suggest that God is a limited or flawed being.

As to the second half of your question: if we presume that god is simply incomprehensible, then assigning attributes to it (such as benevolence) is problematic. If you can assign those attributes, you can argue the case that the proposition that god has those attributes is contrary to the evidence. If you can't, then the question become moot because God is an alien entity no more comprehensible than Lovecraft's Great Old Ones (and, to my mind, an entity that's pointless to worship since you can't know whether the entity in question desires or appreciates the worship).

Of course, at the end of the day, what people believe has far less to do with theodicy than with their guts. Either the idea of a god makes sense to you or it doesn't and most of the argumentation that surrounds the subject really boils down to ellaborate rationalization and intellectualization on both sides of the fence. Personally, I love theodical debate because it's a fun sort of sport, but I also know not to take them too very seriously. To make a very geeky analogy, the Problem of Evil is the theological equivilent of the Fermi Paradox. It's an interesting and tantalyzing question but the odds of someone making a definitive argument, one way or the other, is essentially nil.

Posted by Andrew Lias | June 6, 2008 1:16 PM

If you can point me to a single biblical source, encyclical, pope, cardinal, archbishop, bishop, or major theologian that has, within the last thousand years, suggested that Mary is omnipotent, omniscient, or played a part in the creation of the world - without subsequently being excommunicated or forced to recant - I'll concede the point.

Tel,

Godhood doesn't require omnipotence or omniscience. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the world history of gods and goddesses, many of whom were far from all-powerful.

Mary is a being separate from the Father who hears prayers, makes visitations, dispenses advice, and bestows graces. Surely that qualifies as a goddess.

Posted by Francisco | June 6, 2008 1:18 PM

I am quite familiar with the world history of gods and goddesses. Mary is not a Hera, a Demeter, or a Freya. She might just barely be an Oshun. The "visitation" and grace-giving function is performed chiefly by angels within Christian (as well as Islamic) tradition, not god. Angels are not gods. In other traditions, servants, messengers, and beings otherwise assigned to tasks (such as valkyries in Scandinavian traditions, devas in Buddhism ...) are not considered deities.

Within Catholicism, people can pray to God through the saints (of which Mary is one). I suspect this practice came about due to the nature of society back then - you didn't go to your king directly with a complaint, you went through the local lord, who might carry the message on up. The saints - even Mary - do not grant miracles. According to Catholic teaching, only God does.

Posted by Tel | June 6, 2008 1:44 PM

Within Catholicism, people can pray to God through the saints (of which Mary is one). I suspect this practice came about due to the nature of society back then - you didn't go to your king directly with a complaint, you went through the local lord, who might carry the message on up.

No, more likely it came about because conquered pagan villages had their own special gods, and replacing these gods with patron saints was one way the people coped with the transition from paganism to Christianity.

Just a theory of mine, at any rate.

I still maintain that Mary is a goddess in all but name. To the list above, you could add that she is worshipped by many Catholics, though no doubt you would unsheathe your rhetorical hair-splitter and call this "veneration."

I have first-hand experience with the cult of Mary. There is a statue of her in my parents' backyard.

Posted by Francisco | June 6, 2008 2:08 PM

I'm not going to go through the rest of the comments, so this may well have already been said, but "the problem of evil" is a strong logical argument against god, and is therefore very pursuasive to rationalists, who tend to be secular for the most part. From an anti-rational perspective it's troubling, but no biggy. Mysticism makes such problems further fodder for contemplation and faith. The people for whom it's a real problem are religious folk who are encountering serious rationalism for the first time (thinking of the great Ivan Karamazov). The more rational (read educated, read wealthy) a society is as a whole, the more prevelant this argument will be. This really goes for all God "proofs" both for and against... strangely, pro-God proofs are similarly prevelant in wealthy, educated, materialistic societies, and exactly as irrelevant in more religious societies.

Posted by James Garren | June 6, 2008 2:14 PM

"No, more likely it came about because conquered pagan villages had their own special gods, and replacing these gods with patron saints was one way the people coped with the transition from paganism to Christianity"

That's a pretty good point. There are some saints who (it's now pretty clear) were stolen from native pantheons almost whole-cloth. St. Bridgit is the most obvious, and St. Christopher is widely acknowledged as a fictitious person (not sure if they've officially removed him from the list yet). In either interpretation, though, the main thrust is that the saints are a sort of middle-level between God and the people - a way to make an abstract God make sense to people dealing with concrete reality. (Also a way to encourage the faithful - do enough good, and someday you too may be an official saint!).

The cult of Mary is definitely a real phenomenon, but is regarded with extreme suspicion within the Church hierarchy. They've been theologically tiptoeing around it for decades now, mainly because it's so widespread within the Hispanic churches. Many of those churches are still smarting from the official shoot-down of liberation theology by John Paul II. I suspect Church officials don't want to fan any resentment in millions of believers by issuing an official ruling against it. In any case, I consider that movement a regional and minority movement within the church, and not representative of mainstream Catholicism.

Posted by Tel | June 6, 2008 2:36 PM

Tel writes: "St. Christopher is widely acknowledged as a fictitious person (not sure if they've officially removed him from the list yet)."

They did, but half of my relatives still have those damn magnets in their cars.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 2:41 PM

Thank you for your thoughtful response, David.

"At the same time, why I wanted to support Hector in his point, is that it seems to me that it requires even less than a mustard seed's worth of faith to see that there has been monstrous evil in this world, and because we first name it "evil" and recognize how disproportinate this evil is to any human good which those who committed it claimed to have sought, that this invites further metaphysical/spiritual reflection."

I mostly agree with this, but in my case the reflection inclines me toward the idea that our attempts to identify an external source of evil amount to excuses for our own culpability. We are all, genetically speaking, distant cousins of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. We call it "inhumanity", yet what frightens us is that it's all-too-human.

And this is both why I rejected my protestant upbringing, yet also why I continue to reject the label of atheist. I think it doesn't matter one damn bit what we believe in regard to why we're here, or how the universe was created, or whether the creator became flesh to die for our sins in some distant, dusty corner of a dead empire. What matters, I think, is that we have the humility to accept what we don't know, the wisdom to preserve valuable traditions and discard the rest, and the will to choose human decency over the human capacity for evil.

Certain faiths, in certain eras, have done an admirable job on the latter two points. It's their unwillingness to accept the first point, and their tendency to write tedious apologies for beliefs I consider prima facie absurd, that keeps me outside their tent. Because I really, genuinely, honestly have no idea whether there is a god or gods and whether he or she or they bear any resemblance to published accounts. And it really shouldn't matter either way to how we choose to live our lives.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 6, 2008 2:42 PM

LFP says: "I mostly agree with this, but in my case the reflection inclines me toward the idea that our attempts to identify an external source of evil amount to excuses for our own culpability. We are all, genetically speaking, distant cousins of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Jeffrey Dahmer, etc. We call it "inhumanity", yet what frightens us is that it's all-too-human."

Especially when you consider that the first three names on that list had no shortage of accomplices in their activities. Jones didn't dole out all of the Kool-Aid himself, either. Pretending you were gulled by a minion of Satan and not sucked in by a fellow species member may be soothing for some but it seems like the easy way out.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 2:59 PM

Dear MLandJ,

Which is why I don't think that a sense of supernatural evil agency means that there is no human choice involved. A Hitler or a Dahlmer might be enabled and supported in their evil in demonic ways, but they embrace and pursue it to the best of their abilities, and will the results. I find the idea of supernatural evil cogent and convincing precisely because it is hard to look at the dull ciphers and mediocraties who have created such proportionally greater losses than their own poor talents would have suggested possible and not conclude that they are empowered. I don't believe this absolves such people or their followers one bit, or makes it uneccessary to understand the all too human cultural and political pathologies that supported them in inhumanity, but my simple wonder at the range and perverse creativity of evil suggests to me more is going on. And when we use "evil" to describe such things, I think we are moving beyond what a materialist accounting of the human person alone can suggest.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 3:13 PM

"One could argue that a benevolent deity would want to create a universe that was more than a mere puppet theater, and that for free will to exist reality would have to admit the possibility of chance occurrence, because without chance there would be no variation and without variation there could be no choice."

Xeynon:

The problem is that it is not required that the universe is a place without "chance occurrance" (althought, as a matter of question, I think it is hard to conceive the idea of a universe were anything is random and at the same time were god is sovereign and omnipotent, as christian theology claims he is). The point is that God could have created a world were chance of random ocurrance didn´t imply disasters in which millions of lifes were lost without any meanning. Saying it is a scenario in which "God plays dices" is very dishumanizing: it implies God is just a player and our lifes are at stake, for who knows what reason or purpose.

I don´t think anything of this defeats the theistic hypotesis. It may be there are occult reasons for such natural evils, or as christians are used to say, God´s mysterious ways. But it makes theism, at leas most branches of theism that assume God is omnibenevolent, omnicient, omnipotent, as less rational conclusions or alternatives. Of course other forms of theism make more sense if one accept the validity of argument of evil (say, forms of theism were God is an evil God. Maybe the gnostics got it right after all...)

Concerning Ross claim, and yours, that more prosperous societies give us the luxury of thinking about evil, I am not so sure that is the case. Religions to start were a way to deal with the evils of the world, an intent to give them an explanation. Same with a religious philosophy like buddhism, obsesed with the idea of suffering. And lets not talk about ancient philosophy: stoics and hedonists were really concerned with suffering and pain and try out to figure a way out of it.

Posted by Segio Méndez | June 6, 2008 3:27 PM

I have to once again commend LaFollette Progressive for his insightful contributions to this thread.

"What matters, I think, is that we have the humility to accept what we don't know, the wisdom to preserve valuable traditions and discard the rest, and the will to choose human decency over the human capacity for evil.

Certain faiths, in certain eras, have done an admirable job on the latter two points. It's their unwillingness to accept the first point, and their tendency to write tedious apologies for beliefs I consider prima facie absurd, that keeps me outside their tent. Because I really, genuinely, honestly have no idea whether there is a god or gods and whether he or she or they bear any resemblance to published accounts. And it really shouldn't matter either way to how we choose to live our lives."

Exactly right.

Posted by Korha | June 6, 2008 3:27 PM

David replies: "Which is why I don't think that a sense of supernatural evil agency means that there is no human choice involved. A Hitler or a Dahlmer might be enabled and supported in their evil in demonic ways, but they embrace and pursue it to the best of their abilities, and will the results. I find the idea of supernatural evil cogent and convincing precisely because it is hard to look at the dull ciphers and mediocraties who have created such proportionally greater losses than their own poor talents would have suggested possible and not conclude that they are empowered."

It may to you, but I don't find anything about your argument to be unconvincing. Demons, schmemons.

Hitler was a talented politician and a gifted orator who fell into a situation that amplified his "talents." Theists don't like to make allowances for chance because they want the universe to be ordered and sensible, but, well, shit happens.

If the politics of 4th century Rome had been different I might be having this conversation with a Mithraist instead of a Christian. If Hitler had sold a few paintings maybe Bette Midler would still be Bette Mitler.

There are people in all categories of human achievement who are outliers - maybe Hitler and Stalin and Cheney are just outliers in bastardhood. That seems perfectly plausible without having to get scaly-assed demons involved. Let them stay in bad movies where they belong.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 3:32 PM

The problem of theodicy is a much larger problem for some religions than others. Usually, when you are talking about the problem in a Western context, you are doing so by using reference points put in place by traditional Christianity. So when a western "atheist" rails against religion, what he is really railing against is traditional Christianity. He may also claim to oppose all religion, but really, if other religions are in there, they are just sort of tacked-on as an afterthought. It's the Catholics and Protestants who are his real target. Usually he hasn't really given other religions much serious thought, other than to note crazy Muslim terrorists, and maybe spicy data points like Hindu wife burnings, etc.

But the only target that gets a systematic treatment is Christianity, and the others don't get much notice.

Now, with respect to traditional Christianity, I don't really disagree with the atheist criticisms based on theodicy. They are pretty darn problematic for traditional Christians.

The problem is with the ontology Christians have historically used to set up the universe.

In the universe, you have essentially two kinds of things:

1. Creator - who depends on nothing external for its existence

2. created - all the rest, which depends on a creator for its existence, or intermediate causes, which ultimately lead back to the creator.

Simple enough.

The details can vary.

Some view the creator as the famous absentee watchmaker, who designed the universe, and then left it to run itself.

Some reject the idea of absentee landlord, and instead posit a creator who is still actively and intimately sustaining the universe and ordering it, down to the minutest detail.

But in both models, God is some "other" upon whom we all depend for our existence - either directly or indirectly. We, by contrast, are helpless before this creator and whatever forces he has chosen to create or allow in the universe.

In both models, the intuitive reason for personal connection with the creator is weakened. We are placed in an inherently antagonistic stance with God. Submit or die!

When you take the view of orthodox Christianity and posit God as intimately guiding all the details of the universe, it becomes even worse.

Under this view, all "created" things are dependent directly on God for their existence. That doesn't just mean that I am dependent on God for being born. It means that God personally sustains me from nano-second to nano-second. If he were to withdraw that active support for even a moment, it's off to the void for me, and I cease to exist. What this means, is that I am essentially being re-created by God from moment to moment. Which makes God responsible for who I am and what I do, far more than just deciding whether I would be birthed in Ohio or Bangladesh.

And it's the same for everyone else and everything else.

As the Russian soldier rapes the German woman during World War II, God is personally recreating that Russian soldier every step of the way, not just as a Russian soldier, as opposed to something else, but as the KIND of Russian soldier who intends and wants to rape the woman. God created him that way and must take direct responsibility in a profoundly different way than one of the soldier's comrades who stands by and says or does nothing.

Pleasant huh?

It's not hard to see why such a God is hard to like. There's something definitely inhuman (pardon the pun) at work there. How can you warm up to that - unless you just aren't giving the matter serious thought?

The divine watchmaker doesn't fare much better because it simply one step removes the problem. God isn't some inhuman manipulator anymore, but merely someone who abandoned us in a terrible situation of his own creation, but was unwilling to do anything about it. It should be noted that I don't know many traditional Christians who ascribe to the watchmaker analogy. Most of them fall into the model described above.

So, the God of traditional Christianity presents two glaring problems:

1. He is alien and inherently unlikeable.

2. He is culpable of inflicting evil upon helpless beings who are incapable of resisting what he has done.

The situation changes when you look at other religions, but I gotta run. More later perhaps.

Posted by Seth R. | June 6, 2008 4:02 PM

Korha -- Thank you. I've also enjoyed your contributions to this thread.

David -- "I find the idea of supernatural evil cogent and convincing precisely because it is hard to look at the dull ciphers and mediocraties who have created such proportionally greater losses than their own poor talents would have suggested possible and not conclude that they are empowered."

Yes, it is hard. But at the risk of sounding flippant, I'd argue that a substantial percentage of human history is the result of dull ciphers and mediocrities who achieved things that their own poor talents would not have suggested possible... across the entire spectrum of good, evil, and banality. Look at George W. Bush. Or Jessica Simpson, for that matter.

We have a natural tendency to look for patterns and seek meaning in coincidences. But with six billion people running around, one-in-a-billion coincidences will happen to six of them. A spark, in the right circumstances, can burn down a city. And in a world as big and complex as this one, with cultural tides that can overpower any individual person in their wake, it doesn't take a transcendent force of evil to bring monstrous events to fruition. It just takes the wrong people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | June 6, 2008 4:28 PM

Seth R., you err in presenting a radical either/or where there is none. Christianity, in my view, posits neither the divine watchmaker of the deists nor the cosmic micro-manager of Islam or some forms of Calvinism. For a good treatment of this matter, see David B. Hart's book, 'The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?'

BTW, are you the same Seth R. that posts over at Mere Comments? If so, you are a Mormon, correct? How does LDS teaching deal with this issue?

Posted by Rob G | June 6, 2008 4:28 PM

to MoeLarryAndJesus:

Look, you're simply not using the right word for yourself.

Atheism has long tried to muddy the waters and be more inclusive of nontheists to bolster ranks. Hence, the current arguments about hard v. soft atheism. This also helps to make atheism seem more logical, which, of course, deep down atheists acknowledge that it isn't.

Unfortunately for atheists, simple dictionary definitions bear this out. Atheists and agnostics are separate. They both do not believe in god. However, agnostics do not believe in god simply for lack of proof. Atheists do not believe in god because it conflicts with their own belief in nothing being a higher power.

To convince an agnostic, a theist must merely present enough proof for the agnostic. To convince an atheist, a theist must shatter a previous belief and then present evidence.

Claiming atheism is agnosticism is like claiming a red is blue because some reds are bluish reds.

MoeLarryAndJesus, you're simply using the wrong term. Hard v. Soft atheism no more logical than arguing red is blue. A lot of people have tried to argue this simple muddling without a lot of success, in a sad attempt to hide the fact that atheism isn't logical at all.

And swearing does not help your argument.

Posted by Jack M. | June 6, 2008 5:39 PM

Re: The problem of evil is an argument against a tripple-O god (meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent).

This only works if you adapt an anthropocentric POV: namely, that whatever we humans know and perceive is the alpha and omega of reality. You can adopt a position that what we call "evil" ,though evil to humans, is not evil in the ultimate summation of the cosmos. To make an analogy, we know that the Earth is (roughly) a sphere, but from our own very limited POV it does not look spherical; it looks flat (and in some area may even look anti-spherical).

Re: St. Bridgit is the most obvious

Um, no. Brigit of Kildare was a historical person, albeit a bit obscure, who just happened to share a name with the Irish goddess. We have an earthy hymn she wrote, beginning something like "I desire a great lake of beer for my Lord...". It's hardly incredible that a real person might be given a goddess' name-- see: Pricess Diana. And names like "Venus" and "Minerva" have occasionally but less commonly been used for real women too.

Re: If the politics of 4th century Rome had been different I might be having this conversation with a Mithraist instead of a Christian.

Mithras has little appeal outside the legions, and the cult was dwindling by Constantine's day. He could not have served as a politically unifying god.

Posted by JonF | June 6, 2008 5:41 PM

And MoeLarryAndJesus:

Saying theists don't attribute things to chance is like saying all muslims are sunni. You're attributing a set of beliefs some share to the entire group.

And your vain attempts to explain away all theists' psychology (i.e. "they all want the world to have order, therefore, they believe in God") belies your own a priori assumptions. After all, C.S. Lewis came to theism because he found design in everything, and therefore induced (not deduced) that a God existed. In other words, order/evolution proved God, not the other way around, for Lewis.

and to the atheist who ascribes the "laugh test" to Gods: how radical a notion was Darwin's once? How radical was Columbus's? Copernicus's? I'm sure both gained a lot of derision for their beliefs. Simply because the initial idea is strange doesn't mean it isn't true. Think Mentos in Diet Coke.

Posted by Jack M. | June 6, 2008 5:46 PM

Jack M says: "to MoeLarryAndJesus:

Look, you're simply not using the right word for yourself.

Atheism has long tried to muddy the waters and be more inclusive of nontheists to bolster ranks. Hence, the current arguments about hard v. soft atheism. This also helps to make atheism seem more logical, which, of course, deep down atheists acknowledge that it isn't."

You're a moron who should probably go back to picketing abortion clinics full-time. Atheism doesn't try to do anything, chuckles.

"Unfortunately for atheists, simple dictionary definitions bear this out. Atheists and agnostics are separate. They both do not believe in god. However, agnostics do not believe in god simply for lack of proof. Atheists do not believe in god because it conflicts with their own belief in nothing being a higher power."

You get dumber with every sentence. Which televangelist do you send money to? How many times has Pat Robertson cured your hemmorhoids?

Dictionary definitions can be useful adjuncts to discussions but they seldom end them, at least among rational, intelligent adults. But those two adjectives don't apply to you.

"And swearing does not help your argument."

Doesn't hurt it, either, fuckstain.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 5:57 PM

Jack M again: "Saying theists don't attribute things to chance is like saying all muslims are sunni. You're attributing a set of beliefs some share to the entire group."

Of course that's not what I actually said, jerkwad. I said theists DON'T LIKE to attribute things to chance - when there's an opportunity for them to invoke their sky fairies or furnace fairies to explain something, they'll go that way first. I'll stand by that.

"C.S. Lewis came to theism because he found design in everything, and therefore induced (not deduced) that a God existed. In other words, order/evolution proved God, not the other way around, for Lewis."

People who want to find design in everything will find design in everything. I've never been impressed with Lewis. I'm even less impressed with people who cite him as an authority.

"and to the atheist who ascribes the "laugh test" to Gods: how radical a notion was Darwin's once? How radical was Columbus's? Copernicus's? I'm sure both gained a lot of derision for their beliefs."

Most of the derision towards Darwin came from your kind. The failure to understand the scientific method and the nature of empirical evidence goes a long way to explain your, uh, "thinking."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 6:09 PM

Dear MoeLarryAndJesus:

1. --Actually, swearing very much hurts an argument. It shows a lack of civility, which betrays an inability to hear the other sides argument. It shows that you're taking an argument personally and reacting emotionally instead of developing the ideas in the abstract. Basic debate class.

2. "Atheism doesn't try to do anything."
--I beg to differ. Atheism, like any belief system held on faith, tries to justify itself and why people should believe in it. Or, in your case, rant and scream and swear that people should believe in it.

3. "Dictionary definitions can be useful adjuncts to discussions but they seldom end them, at least among rational, intelligent adults."
---Well, when we're merely arguing about what a word means, they are very helpful. If we're going to discuss a subject, such as colors, we'd better know what red, blue, purple, etc. mean. Dictionaries supply those basic meanings by showing what is commonly held to be those meanings. Now, if you want to argue the dictionary definitions should be, that's a different argument. But seriously, you are simply using the wrong terms and deliberately confusing them out of stubbornness and an inability to admit the weaknesses of your position.

4. "chuckles", "But those two adjectives don't apply to you."
---ad hominem attacks very much weaken your argument. But I doubt you have much more than those petty insults.

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 6:15 PM

1. "I said theists DON'T LIKE to attribute things to chance - when there's an opportunity for them to invoke their sky fairies or furnace fairies to explain something, they'll go that way first. I'll stand by that."
--as I said, you are merely attributing to a group a belief only some members share. Many theists are perfectly willing to ascribe things to random chance--or perhaps you've not met the variety of religious belief we have on this planet.

2."People who want to find design in everything will find design in everything."
---a) that is an a priori psychological argument for which you have presented no facts and b) the reverse could be asserted: people who don't want to find any pattern will always find reasons to deny a pattern. Q.E.D.

3."I've never been impressed with Lewis. I'm even less impressed with people who cite him as an authority."
--I don't know why citing Lewis is somehow worse than being Lewis, but I was citing his logic to rebut your argument. You don't answer his logic, only make another ad hominem attack, thsi time against him and me. So I assume you can't counter it.

4. "Most of the derision towards Darwin came from your kind."
---once again, ascribing to a group the beliefs of a few. And using the general term "kind"--how wonderfully vague of you.

5. "The failure to understand the scientific method and the nature of empirical evidence goes a long way to explain your, uh, "thinking.""
---Sigh. Many, many scientists and empiricists have been theists and are theists. So claiming that scientific knowledge destroys theism is contradicts known facts. And it shows your own illogic: somehow, scientific method will prove a negative, which is impossible.
But I suppose you are saying that I, a random internet person, do not understand empirical evidence and scientific method. What proof you have of this is unknown; since you present none, you have not supported your thesis. Oh wait, it looks like I do understand it. ;)

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 6:25 PM

LaFollette,

Yes, we do have a natural tendency to look for and see patterns - this is what intelligence does - it orders, generalizes and makes abstractions. The fact that it works so well and enables us to communicate so freely suggests that this is a good way of approaching reality.

While the notion that shit happens is one way of reading the evidence of a Hitler, I think most people sense they are facing something more than that when they walk through Auschwitz or see lampshades made out of human skin. "Scaly assed demons" and the hell of the Medieval imagination could never have turned out more iconic evil than that of the Nazis or Pol Pot, etc. It doesn't feel or seem merely random, does it? And we have reacted differently to such things as opposed to ordinary human venality or violence, no?

Again, I think that religious people bring this way of seeing/sensibility to these situations their observations do not detract from analysis at all, but like our capacity to make order of random experience through reason, it can go right or wrong. To call certain things evil or defiling, or good and holy, and by that to mean more than an expression of cultural programming, is for many of us a way of more fully explaining and engaging the world.

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 6:47 PM

"i don't necessarily mean the orthodox Christian conception of the devil, but I do mean some spiritual being of great power and evil nature, opposed to God." Hector

TR: There you go an example not from Christianity. You even got one that does not work for Christianity.

Because in Christianity God is omnipotent. If the devil is the source of the problems, God should be able to just destroy the devil. In Zoroastrianism the good and evil God/force are roughly equal until the end of time when good will defeat evil. To imagine the devil as equal in power to God, or equal for now at least, doesn't work in any mainstream form of Christianity. (Or for that matter even the larger heterodox forms like Mormonism or Iglesia Ni Christo)

Posted by Thomas R | June 6, 2008 6:59 PM

Dear ML&Jesus,

It doesn't take a constant resort to "furnace fairies" to explain most human malice, like your own. Your own need to pour contempt is perfectly comprehensible as an all too common kind of internet discourse where you get all the pleasures of contempt without any of the real social costs of looking at people in the eye when you cut lose - and you and people like you have turned many internet forums into parties of the like minded is a varient of Gresham's law. It is all too comprehensible as type of human failure and a signe of conformity to our culture's general lack of civility.

A value of a religious sensibility is that it can remind me of your dignity and make me try to protect it even when you can't return the favor (and for every one reader who chuckles at your filth I'm sure dozens of thoughtful lurkers are seeing the dangers of atheist fanaticism and spite that seem more common than they ought for those who share your beliefs - a bit more serenity in the strength of your position rather than your use of bile to slime people could at least give the appearence that reason was more than just a weapon of self-assertion for you).

Be well.

David

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 7:03 PM

Jack M replies: "Actually, swearing very much hurts an argument. It shows a lack of civility, which betrays an inability to hear the other sides argument. It shows that you're taking an argument personally and reacting emotionally instead of developing the ideas in the abstract."

That's your opinion and that's all it is. I think your hall monitor badge is showing. Adding in an occasional epithet has no bearing on the strength of an argument, and the degree of civility in an argument has no bearing on the substance. You're confusing style with strength.

""Atheism doesn't try to do anything."
--I beg to differ. Atheism, like any belief system held on faith, tries to justify itself and why people should believe in it. Or, in your case, rant and scream and swear that people should believe in it."

Atheism is an abstract concept which is incapable of action and therefore incapable of "trying" to do anything, let alone actually doing it. I'm surprised I have to explain such simple matters to you and I wonder how you manage to feed yourself.

Further, I don't care what you believe and I'm not looking for converts.

"Now, if you want to argue the dictionary definitions should be, that's a different argument. But seriously, you are simply using the wrong terms and deliberately confusing them out of stubbornness and an inability to admit the weaknesses of your position."

I think the opposite is true and that my position is stronger than what you would like to claim my position is. But then I don't think you're bright enough to understand anything beyond a basic level, which is why you harp on basic definitions.

""chuckles", "But those two adjectives don't apply to you."
---ad hominem attacks very much weaken your argument."

Again, I disagree. I'm simply being honest with you about your shortcomings.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 7:30 PM

David replies: "A value of a religious sensibility is that it can remind me of your dignity and make me try to protect it even when you can't return the favor (and for every one reader who chuckles at your filth I'm sure dozens of thoughtful lurkers are seeing the dangers of atheist fanaticism and spite that seem more common than they ought for those who share your beliefs - a bit more serenity in the strength of your position rather than your use of bile to slime people could at least give the appearence that reason was more than just a weapon of self-assertion for you)."

I remember that the "value of a religious sensibility" helped Martin Luther write a pamphlet called "On the Jews and Their Lies" which is basically a blueprint for the Holocaust, David, so let me just say that I think your contempt for my "filth" and your exalted sense of your own "civility" don't impress me much. I think your "religious sensibility" robs you of a certain sense of the absurd if you miss the humorous nature of most of my comments here.

PS - If I get to heaven before you do can I sleep with your mom?

Moe

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 7:42 PM

Dear MLandJ,

Fair enough, 'tis your view, and I've done my duty in being honest with you. As for what you value or don't in terms of civility, I think I've made it clear how little your views and manner discomfit me. But to be specific, to refer to someone as "fuckstain" is not at all clever or absurd, but simply filthy and shows the kind of denigration of another's person that I do associate with the worst kind of atheism (and religiosity).

Oh - as for Martin Luther providing a blueprint for the Holocaust why did it take over 400 years to actualize it? And does this mean that we can hold Martin Luther King in contempt to, given his namesake and his use of Christian religious sensibilities to inspire the civil rights movement?

As for sleeping with my mom, what does this have to do with whether one or the other one of us get's to heaven first or even for that matter asking for my permission? As I understand contemporary sexual morals, your task would be to meet my mother and convince her to bed you, since I don't presume to own her. She is a working-class woman of strong religious convictions who would find the idea of casual sex repulsive, and has been hurt by enough men that I rather doubt that she would find an approach by someone so patriarchal that they inquired of a male relative as to whether she was sexually available very compelling. But then, given your contempt for everybody else, why should I be surprised by your contempt for women?

Take care,

David

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 8:09 PM

David replies: "As for sleeping with my mom, what does this have to do with whether one or the other one of us get's to heaven first or even for that matter asking for my permission? As I understand contemporary sexual morals, your task would be to meet my mother and convince her to bed you, since I don't presume to own her. She is a working-class woman of strong religious convictions who would find the idea of casual sex repulsive, and has been hurt by enough men that I rather doubt that she would find an approach by someone so patriarchal that they inquired of a male relative as to whether she was sexually available very compelling. But then, given your contempt for everybody else, why should I be surprised by your contempt for women?"

Davey, I don't think there's a heaven, so what does it matter?

PS - If you get to H-E-double-toothpicks before I do, can you tell Anne Frank Jesus loves her?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 8:27 PM

And David also said: "As for what you value or don't in terms of civility, I think I've made it clear how little your views and manner discomfit me. But to be specific, to refer to someone as "fuckstain" is not at all clever or absurd, but simply filthy and shows the kind of denigration of another's person that I do associate with the worst kind of atheism (and religiosity)."

Well that's sweet, Davey, because the fuckstain you're so concerned about said, in his very first post in this thread at 9 PM on June 5th - "Now, little atheists, start your clusterfuck." That he later started complaining about my own occasional "accented prose" just makes it even more clear that if anything "fuckstain" is a more polite form of address than he deserves.

PS - If you get to charm school before I do room with somebody else. I'm pretty sure your music collection would suck.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 8:39 PM

1. "That's your opinion and that's all it is. I think your hall monitor badge is showing. Adding in an occasional epithet has no bearing on the strength of an argument, and the degree of civility in an argument has no bearing on the substance. You're confusing style with strength."
---No, I'm not. As I stated above, by having to resort to immature swearing, you're telling all who hear you that you are not willing to argue in a civil manner; because you are not acting civility, you are clearly not listening to the other side's argument and merely shouting dirty words because you feel personally hurt. Your incivility gives away your inability to hear rational counter argument.

2."Atheism is an abstract concept which is incapable of action and therefore incapable of "trying" to do anything, let alone actually doing it. "
------Actually, Atheism is a very concrete concept; you are arguing in the reality (or, in your case, nonreality) of a being. In any way, I agree, I should have qualified that by saying internet adherents of atheism.

3. "Further, I don't care what you believe and I'm not looking for converts."
---Funny, your actions contradict your words. Obsessively attacking theism and taking great personal offense when your own logic is questioned is the hallmark of someone trying to win adherents to their cause when they haven't thought about their viewpoint very much.

4. "I'm surprised I have to explain such simple matters to you and I wonder how you manage to feed yourself."
----Sigh. Another weakening of your own argument.

5. "I think the opposite is true and that my position is stronger than what you would like to claim my position is."
---That's some fine logic right there. "Nu-uh! I'm right!" is perhaps the weakest form of justification. And, unsurprisingly, given how empty your logic is, you follow it up with another ad hominem attack that further shows your illogic.

6. Not to step on David, but your attack on Martin Luther for being anti-semitic? I'm sorry, another ad hominem attack, instead of actual logic? And if you want to play the "moral atrocity" game, you'd better realize atheism will lose to theism no matter which form of theism you choose; Hitler himself....atheist; Stalin; atheist; Lenin, atheist; pol pot, atheist.

See, this is why you don't bring up ad hominem attacks; they're pointless name calling, childish, immature, and betray a lack of logic. Funny, that sums your "arguments" up nicely.

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 8:40 PM

"Well that's sweet, Davey, because the fuckstain you're so concerned about said, in his very first post in this thread at 9 PM on June 5th - "Now, little atheists, start your clusterfuck." That he later started complaining about my own occasional "accented prose" just makes it even more clear that if anything "fuckstain" is a more polite form of address than he deserves."
---Are you seriously trying to argue that my using an internet term ("Clusterfuck") to describe what happens when someone makes a controversial statement designed to start multiple postings on an internet board--in other words, using it as a descriptive term--is the same as you filing ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack against anyone who disagrees with you?
And that using the term "little atheists" is of the same vein as direct on an individual such as "fuckstain" and making comments about people's mothers?
Honestly, your logic unravels the more you pull the string.

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 8:46 PM

I don't thing MoeLarryAndJesus is a good example of any atheistic logic. His defense is weak, his attacks personal, vindictive, and devoid of context, and his basic argument can be summed up into, "I'm right, you're wrong, go away, fuck fuck fuck."

I would like to hear from some other atheists. Preferably ones out of high school.

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 8:50 PM

Dear MLandJ,

It matters because I believe there is a heaven and a this worldly culture that needs a basic level of civility and even kindness. I believe your comments(not your beliefs, but as strange as it may seem your style is a form of substance - the contempt and cruelty in your posts that you try to pass of as absurd, or the anti-intellectualism that masks its weakness with invective) is likely as not to unsuit you for goodness in this world as well as the next.Since I hope we are well met in heaven and that you do well now in expressing your atheism here so that I can understand better the intellectual side of it, and fellow believers learn to attend to the merits of your position I try to chide you, and besides an exercise in futility can keep my mind limber.

As for hell, since it is a state of radical lovelessness and isolation I doubt I will be able to carry out your wishes, and if my soul deteriorates to the point that I end up in Hell I would not believe in God's compassion or be willing to convey it. When, please God, you find yourself in heaven, please pray for me and my mother, LM&J that we be spared Hell (since I believe it would be worthless to give you any words of advice beyond aquire the spiritual equivilent of million sun-block if you are hell bound I will spare you pious wishes if you end up there - if you are in purgatory, do what the angels tell you to do, it will make things go easier).

Bonne chance, mon ami

David

Posted by David | June 6, 2008 8:51 PM

Jack M replies: "Are you seriously trying to argue that my using an internet term ("Clusterfuck") to describe what happens when someone makes a controversial statement designed to start multiple postings on an internet board--in other words, using it as a descriptive term--is the same as you filing ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack against anyone who disagrees with you?"

You're a real laugh riot, fuckstain. Apparently your position is that swearing is an immature act which weakens an argument EXCEPT WHEN YOU DO IT.

Bitching about ad hominems is the single most tedious behavior in these discussions. Get over yourself, idiot.

Lastly, your claim that "clusterfuck" is "an internet term" is the single dumbest thing I've read lately - even dumber than Hector's "Hitler was evil, therefore god exists" bit. The word predates the internet, of course, though apparently you do not.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 8:54 PM

1. "You're a real laugh riot, fuckstain. Apparently your position is that swearing is an immature act which weakens an argument EXCEPT WHEN YOU DO IT."
----Swearing is immature, especially when used to attack an opponent and insult them. Clusterfuck is not attacking anyone or insulting them; its a descriptive term. It's as if I said, "Someone took a shit." or "that dog is a bitch." In other words, descriptive, not a personal attack. I felt it was the only way to express my thought then, and if I offended, I apologize. But if you're seriously comparing one use descriptively to your constant, never ending barrage of little kid-like attacks, then you've seriously got an imbalance between what you can say and what others can say.

2. "Bitching about ad hominems is the single most tedious behavior in these discussions. Get over yourself, idiot."
---No, if you cannot comport yourself like a rational, mature adult, I will call you on it and show why it severely weakens your arguments. Simply because on this issue (ad hominems) you are dead wrong does not mean you get to brush it under the table.

3. "Lastly, your claim that "clusterfuck" is "an internet term" is the single dumbest thing I've read lately - even dumber than Hector's "Hitler was evil, therefore god exists" bit. The word predates the internet, of course, though apparently you do not."
----Sigh. I'm sorry, the only time I ever have heard the term used is in describing web boards where controversial issues are being discussed rapidly. Perhaps you have heard it other places, but it does apply to the internet community, and so, thus , is an internet term. Much in the same way the term "message board" is both an internet term and used in other places--because there were message boards before the internet. in other words, once again, you're wrong.
I'm not sure you're going to grasp that subtlety. But I'm sure you'll drag out a swear word to attack now.

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 9:04 PM

"Hector's "Hitler was evil, therefore god exists" bit" is actual a valid argument, although it doesn't appeal to me. It's a constant thorn in the side of many a nontheist argument--"ok, so there is no god, therefore no moral truth, yet how do we know Hitler's actions were unspeakable?"

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 9:10 PM

David writes: "As for hell, since it is a state of radical lovelessness and isolation I doubt I will be able to carry out your wishes, and if my soul deteriorates to the point that I end up in Hell I would not believe in God's compassion or be willing to convey it."

But you'll be in Islamic hell, David, cleaning out animal stalls with your tongue for the next billion years.

It's as likely as your own religion's juvenile scare stories.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 9:12 PM

Rob G.

Yes, same person. And yes, I am Mormon.

If you want to know how Mormonism deals with the theodicy, first you have to separate how normal Mormons deal with it, and how the actual theological material deals with it.

Your average Mormon probably doesn't deal with the theodicy much differently than your average free will Arminian Christian.

But the underlying theology is radically different.

Mormon theology makes no artificial division between "creator" and "created." In Mormonism, God is not the only thing in the universe that is "self-existent." According to Mormon scripture, all matter is eternal and was never created "ex nihilo" or out of nothing. Furthermore, we are just as eternal as God is. We have always existed and God never created us out of nothing. So for us, God is eternal, it's just that everything else is too. There is no "First Cause" in the Mormon universe.

Therefore, God did not create evil either. It's just the way things are in the universe.

For a Mormon, God is a literal spirit father, and our purpose in mortality is to become like Him. We are of one species with Him, and we aspire to godhood as individuals and as families. Not to surpass our Father, but to join Him and take part in the perfection He takes part in.

Furthermore, it is a well-established part of Mormon scripture and theology that there MUST be opposition in all things. Good can have no meaning without evil. Perfection is not an absence of pain and sorrow, but a perfect capacity to feel both joy and sorrow - both of which God feels. Mormon scripture doesn't see Heaven necessarily as an escape from troubles so much as a fulfillment of our divine destiny and capacity.

In the Mormon cosmos, God does not seek worshipers and subordinates, as much as devoted peers. For this to work, there MUST be full and complete agency among human beings.

You cannot have peers without there being a bona fide choice. We must be given the choice to accept God or not, and He will not interfere with that freedom of choice and action for anything - not for a destructive hurricane, not for a mass murderer, not for AIDS, not for anything. For this reason, God does not intervene in the worlds troubles. He will not force the unbelievers to believe in Him through brute demonstrations of power. If we choose Him, it is to be willingly.

Basically, Mormonism does an end run around a lot of the problems of theodicy by:

1. An uncompromising demand for human free will and

2. A God who is subject to a universal order of things, rather than the ontological source of a derivative universe.

Creation ex nihilo, and the demand for an ontological universal divide makes the theodicy hugely more problematic for traditional Christianity.

Posted by Seth R. | June 6, 2008 9:15 PM

1. "It's as likely as your own religion's juvenile scare stories."
----this need be all there be said on the sad, illogical arguments of one MoeLarryAndJesus

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 9:15 PM

good night all...and yes, even you too, MoeLarryandJesus.

Posted by jack M. | June 6, 2008 9:21 PM

Jack M is a parody wrapped in a caricature sucking on a cartoon: "Swearing is immature, especially when used to attack an opponent and insult them. Clusterfuck is not attacking anyone or insulting them; its a descriptive term. It's as if I said, "Someone took a shit." or "that dog is a bitch." In other words, descriptive, not a personal attack."

So if I were to write, "Run off to church, little Christians, and begin your clusterfuck," that would be okay with you, and it would be a mature use of language. Got it.

"Sigh. I'm sorry, the only time I ever have heard the term used is in describing web boards where controversial issues are being discussed rapidly. Perhaps you have heard it other places, but it does apply to the internet community, and so, thus , is an internet term."

Well you're the one who's so fond of going by definitions - you could have looked the term up and found it's history very easily, instead of relying on your sadly lacking personal store of general knowledge. I guess you just don't get out much and most of your information has been obtained electronically.

In your honor I hereby declare that "fuckstain" is now an "internet term" and applies to nitwits who bitch endlessly about "ad hominem attacks" and "immaturity." Therefore it is no longer "swearing" and is purely descriptive, as though I were saying that you were taking a shit.

Thanks for playing, fuckstain.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 9:21 PM

Jack M again: ""Hector's "Hitler was evil, therefore god exists" bit" is actual a valid argument, although it doesn't appeal to me. It's a constant thorn in the side of many a nontheist argument--"ok, so there is no god, therefore no moral truth, yet how do we know Hitler's actions were unspeakable?""

Because we choose our own morality, each one of us, every day. This explains why so many Christians aided Hitler's actions while still believing the same things you claim to, and why the loudest voices in favor of torture in this country do, too.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 6, 2008 9:29 PM

David: "While the notion that shit happens is one way of reading the evidence of a Hitler, I think most people sense they are facing something more than that when they walk through Auschwitz or see lampshades made out of human skin."

Do they? The lesson I draw from the Holocaust is that human beings--us--are capable of both immense good and immense evil. Hitler was, I think, a uniquely evil figure, but the Nazis and the Germans as a whole were not. You have to remember that the very same people who operated the furnaces in Auschwitz would go home to their wives, children, and live otherwise normal, ethical lives. The only thing was that they saw the Jews and Roma as something not human, not patriotic Germans--not like them. And it didn't take any more than that.

When you walk through those concentration camps, do you see evidence of an evil beyond human comprehension and human possibility? I don't. No, the horrible truth is that it was all too human--a tale of all-too human frailty and weakness, of the power of prejudice and the ease with which a entire society can be coerced to do extraordinary evil. A tale of how in economic desperation and social anarchy people will turn to anyone, anything, that promises them salvation. A tale of how quickly the average person will outsource their own judgment and sacred conscience to an outside Authority, obeying it unquestioningly. For those who resisted the Nazi program at great personal risk, we salute them as men and women of uncommon courage and wisdom. For the rest, we condemn them as we should, but it's a condemnation tempered with the knowledge that they were only going along with the flow--tempered with the fear that we would have done the same thing if we had been in their place. There's nothing that happened in Nazi Germany that hasn't happened in many others places elsewhere, in the past and most likely in the future as well. The only thing really different was the scale, for which we have only modern technology to blame.

Was the Devil behind the Holocaust? A metaphorical devil, perhaps--the evil within man, within our own souls, the dark impulses of hatred and anger and fear, ambition and power and sadism. But some real devil? I don't see it. We're all intimately familiar with human prejudices and evil desires. The Nazis were just the worst of us brought to power by extraordinary circumstances and then writ large.

"To call certain things evil or defiling, or good and holy, and by that to mean more than an expression of cultural programming, is for many of us a way of more fully explaining and engaging the world."

Yeah, but I can call Hitler evil without positing some transcendent evil deity behind it all manipulating the strings. What's the problem?

Posted by Korha | June 6, 2008 9:43 PM

Jack M: "Hector's "Hitler was evil, therefore god exists" bit" is actual a valid argument, although it doesn't appeal to me. It's a constant thorn in the side of many a nontheist argument--"ok, so there is no god, therefore no moral truth, yet how do we know Hitler's actions were unspeakable?"

God is hardly the only source of moral truth. Though I guess you're right that a lot of nontheists (i.e. me) have rejected the idea of objective moral truth. Even then there's no reason we can't have our own strongly held moral codes (which I do). As for the foundation for morality, basic moral intuitions are constant across all societies and cultures, including such dissimilar places as modern-day Western Europe, Nazi Germany, the United States, feudal Japan, etc., and we can build up from those intuitions to construct our moral belief systems.

By the way, Hector's argument is completely different from the way you're stating it. He thinks that the existence of Hitler necessarily means that the Devil also (literally) exists. Again, it's not clear to me how these two assertions are connected in any way.

Posted by Korha | June 6, 2008 9:59 PM

Jack M: "Atheists and agnostics are separate. They both do not believe in god. However, agnostics do not believe in god simply for lack of proof. Atheists do not believe in god because it conflicts with their own belief in nothing being a higher power."

Of course, using this (stupid, incoherent?) definition means that you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist, and they people like Dawkins and Harris are "agnostics".

Here's a hint to guide you out of your mental clusterfuck (har!): read up Richard Carrier on "Atheist or Agnostic?"

Posted by Soma | June 6, 2008 10:20 PM

Great thread. But I think the basic idea that theodicy becomes more important as people's lives become more "luxurious" and less subject to material suffering is simply wrong - if the implication is that it makes us wusses. THere's a correlation, true, but the reason for it, I think, is that we begin to see how unnecessary suffering is given just a little bit of practical intelligence.

When people didn't know much about how to live the material life well, when they didn't know about nutrition, sanitation, the basic of modern science and engineering and so on, they could imagine that it was really, really difficult to avoid such things, that nature was almost impossible to deal with, and it didn't seem that things could be different. But the better human beings get at preventing material suffering, the more they begin to wonder why God didn't clue us in to these things to begin with. Why didn't God teach us about these scientific and material processes? It begins to seem irrational that a loving God wouldn't at least help us out with these things. Instead, we wander in the dark, suffering our asses out, having to figure everything out for ourselves. Well, thanks a lot, God, is what people begin to think after a while.

What has to be contemplated at a certain point is the possibility that God actually wants us to suffer these terrible things for some purpose. It's either that, or there is no God, because the evidence sure doesn't suggest that God is trying very hard to help us stop suffering even the most ordinary human miseries. Even, worse, there's the notion that God actually wants to punish us, like some sadist, for being such morons. So as people get a little bit smarter, they also say fuck you, God. Maybe even that is a phase God wants us to go through in order to come to some kind of deeper understanding of our own evil.

One thing seems fairly clear to me - without some kind of recurring metaphysical system like reincarnation balancing things out for us, theodicy seems hard to accept. If it's one lifetime only against whatever fate throws at us, with eternal life or eternal damnation hanging in the balance, it seems like an incredibly stupid way to go about judging anyone. But if we return again and again trying to move through these difficulties over and over again, it at least begins to make some kind of sense. There's at least the chance to learn and grow from life to life, and confront the evil in ourselves and others over and over again until we understand and transcend it. I wouldn't say that's the most "loving" system for a God to create for us, but at least it gives us a fighting chance to makes sense of the world. Slow, but at least possible.

Posted by conradg | June 7, 2008 7:14 AM

Lots here to respond to.

Xeynon,

I think your point about societis like Japan and Korea is well taken. I think it would also probably be true of Vietnam. Even people who may not describe themselves as 'religious' believe in some sort of supernatural power. I remember a memoir written by a former Viet Cong soldier that talked a lot about rituals and 'superstition' even if his comrades didn't specifically call themselves Buddhist, Catholic, or whatever.

TR,

YEah this is one area where I find traditional Christianity a little insufficient. I think that for God to destroy the devil would be to detract from His own perfection, which is impossible.

1. To be good connotes giving to all things the degree of affection they merit.
2. Perfectly evil things merit pure love and perfectly evil things merit pure hatred.
3. A conceivable God who loves good and hates evil is therefore more perfect than a conceivable God who simply loves good.
4. Since God is the most perfect being imaginable,
the first God exists and the second one does not.
5. Since we can say that God loves good and hates evil, this statement would not be true in a world without perfect evil (i.e. the Devil). Therefore, for God to destroy the devil would be to detract from His own nature.

It's not a limitation of God's omnipotence to say that He 'cannot' destroy evil or limit His own perfection, any more than it is to say that He 'cannot' do evil, or make a sixth Platonic solid, etc.(I'm aware that this view is heterodox at best).

Moe,

The point is that Hitler's evil cannot be easily explained on the basis of material, everyday motives. It's vastly in excess of the degree of atrocity that He might have indulged in to keep himself in power, or to keep his enemies in fear, etc. Hitler was actuated by pure _hatred_ and pure hatred of that magnitude is very hard to explain in a materialistic worldview, just as pure love is.

Posted by Hector | June 7, 2008 8:33 AM

Re: and why the loudest voices in favor of torture in this country do, too.

The "loudest" voices? I don't know about that. Too many Christians, I agree, are willing to let expediency do the talking on this subject (though many others are firmly opposed), but seems to me that the loudest pro-torture faction is found among the Neocon fringe (not to mention Dick Cheney) and those people seem to have no more religion than my cats.

Re: Yeah, but I can call Hitler evil without positing some transcendent evil deity behind it all manipulating the strings. What's the problem?

I agree with much of what you wrote in your post, but the "problem" you ask about is this: once you start using words like "evil" (and using them sincerely, as I think you do here) you are automatically positing some sort of transcendental reality behind the scenes. A true materialist and atheist (yes, you can be one without being the other) would describe Hitler and such as "sick" or "dysfunctional" but not as "evil
A materialist would not even accept that evil exists. Now, a "transcendetal reality" is not the same as the Christian God-- it might be the Tao or Karma or some other abstract philosophical concept, not a personal deity at all. But it does force you to go beyond (soulless) matter in (random) motion.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 10:09 AM

So let them be muddied. Look, I'm sorry if some of you are upset because you learned these words when you were 10 and you don't want your conceptions of them to change, but my use of "atheist" is entirely consistent with the literature on the subject.

Perhaps you would like to avoid being lumped in with the sort of reactionary idiots who boldly proclaim their absolute certainty that a higher power doesn't exist? Many atheists of your definition simply chose that title as a petulant response to Christian overbearance, then erect a scientific fort to defend their position. In effect, their 'empirical godlessness' is the equivalent of Hillary supporters voting McCain. From what I've seen, agnostics past the tipping point have wrested the moniker from atheists - its not as if any true atheists have accepted religious pragmatists into the fold, and the former should have the final word on what exactly defines an atheist.

PROTIP: You wouldn't qualify, MLaJ.

Posted by Shifty William | June 7, 2008 11:29 AM

JonF writes: "I agree with much of what you wrote in your post, but the "problem" you ask about is this: once you start using words like "evil" (and using them sincerely, as I think you do here) you are automatically positing some sort of transcendental reality behind the scenes. A true materialist and atheist (yes, you can be one without being the other) would describe Hitler and such as "sick" or "dysfunctional" but not as "evil
A materialist would not even accept that evil exists. "

You're using Christian caricatures again, Jon. Evil is an adjective. It doesn't exist in and of itself, it's a descriptive term for behavior. I know you guys like to think you own certain words but you don't.

For most Christians, shoplifting is evil. I wouldn't apply the term to such a mundane activity, but I would apply it to genocide and deceiving a country into war. Therefore Hitler and Dumbya Bush qualify as evil, but some kid swiping a Coke from a store doesn't.

He might get there when he grows up and votes Repiglican, though.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 3:00 PM

Why does anyone here continue to interact with ML&J? He has demonstrated himself to be a vulgar, pompous, condescending boor; he is the Beavis & Butthead version of Richard Dawkins. Leave the poor bewildered creature alone, for pity's sake.

Seth R., thanks for the rundown on the LDS take on things. I think it has problems of its own, but this is probably not the place to go into them.

Posted by Rob G | June 7, 2008 3:22 PM

Rob G writes: "He has demonstrated himself to be a vulgar, pompous, condescending boor; he is the Beavis & Butthead version of Richard Dawkins."

Oh, look! Robbie used a semicolon!

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 3:37 PM

Re: Evil is an adjective.

It's both an adjective and a noun, which is somewhat unusual in English, though very common in many other languages. However, in order for an adjective to (accurately) describe something the quality is describe must exist, no?

Re: Therefore Hitler and Dumbya Bush qualify as evil, but some kid swiping a Coke from a store doesn't.

I rather agree-- thiough Im not sure I put even Bush in the "evil" category. I see him as stupid, stubborn and ambitious, but without the sabulous hatred that animated Der Fuhrer. He's closer to the shoplifting kid (but on a very grand scale) than to the author of Auschwitz. But no, I don't think "evil" is a synonym or "wrong" or even "sinful".

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 4:15 PM

Dear Rob G,

LM&J can be both practice for those who professionally have to deal with sophomores given the similarity in attitude if not age (though I wouldn't be surprised if he were any age from 13 to 60), but also because letting him unleash bile, while personally very unpleasant does help discredit his positions. Think of the lurkers reading these forums and seeing the example of supposedly superstitious thralls of misogynistic and spiteful ideologies being gracious in the face of ML&J's antics. If those wavering between belief and atheism are under the impression that anti-religiosity is the key to balance, mental health and insight, ML&J is so priceless a refutation of that notion, that did he not exist it would be necessary to invent him. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that ML&J is real a believer in disguise, pretending to defend while in fact discrediting his positions. But that's just part of the kabuki of the internet. But I agree it is wearying and your point is well taken.

Take care,

David

Posted by David | June 7, 2008 4:26 PM

JonF replies: "It's both an adjective and a noun, which is somewhat unusual in English, though very common in many other languages. However, in order for an adjective to (accurately) describe something the quality is describe must exist, no?"

No, not in the sense of "existing" as a separate entity or object. Love and evil and hunger and happiness don't exist on their own like puppies or manatees or pickles do.

"Im not sure I put even Bush in the "evil" category. I see him as stupid, stubborn and ambitious, but without the sabulous hatred that animated Der Fuhrer. He's closer to the shoplifting kid (but on a very grand scale) than to the author of Auschwitz."

He's getting closer every day. I think that when you deliberately start a war based on lies and it results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people you've earned a big fat EVIL stamp on your record. "Not as bad as Hitler," sure, but I have no problem saying that he's as bad or worse than bin Laden. If they spent the rest of their lives in adjoining cells I'd say justice was being served.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 4:55 PM

David writes: "Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that ML&J is real a believer in disguise, pretending to defend while in fact discrediting his positions."

That's funny, Davey - I have a sneaking suspicion that you're here to discredit the English language by unleashing rancid prose like this gem:

"LM&J can be both practice for those who professionally have to deal with sophomores given the similarity in attitude if not age (though I wouldn't be surprised if he were any age from 13 to 60), but also because letting him unleash bile, while personally very unpleasant does help discredit his positions."

I also think that you should stop engaging in the weird fallacy that an advocate for a position somehow discredits said position if he behaves in a way you find offensive. I don't think the fact that you sodomize parrots discredits your thoughts on Christianity. Those are two separate matters.

Now put the parrot down and go work on your syntax.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Dear MLandJ,

I'm not engaging in a fallacy, I'm operating under a reasonable person test that "what I regard as offensive" (like many people who interact with you here) in your commentary is likely to be regarded as rather hideous by most other people of good will. In this I will trust Woodrow Wilson's observation that if you want to discredit a fool, rent him a hall. On the whole, I'll take the chance that it is worth encouraging you to be drop dead, viscerally authentic in your own winsome way, with the assumption that you will alienate 10 thoughtful people for every soul mate you amuse or embolden.

And for someone who can both criticize my syntax and write to me above that

"...I don't find anything about your argument to be unconvincing. Demons, schmemons."

I presume what was meant was (were you translating from the original troll?) "I don't find anything about your argument to be convincing." Such elementary errors on your part (sort of like most of your arguments) make it a tad hard to take advice on improving my syntax from you, you'll understand.

And you do seem so interested in so many outre descriptions of fucking. You really ought to get out more amigo.

Posted by David | June 7, 2008 5:21 PM

David replies: "I'm not engaging in a fallacy, I'm operating under a reasonable person test that "what I regard as offensive" (like many people who interact with you here) in your commentary is likely to be regarded as rather hideous by most other people of good will."

That's fine with me, considering what you mean by "other people of good will." The presidential election of 2004 probably went in your direction, and I don't regret being in the minority in that case or in this one.

"Such elementary errors on your part (sort of like most of your arguments) make it a tad hard to take advice on improving my syntax from you, you'll understand."

Of course I'll make an occasional error, but there's a ripe turd in almost every one of your posts. I'm not interested in giving you lessons but you should get some help.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 5:34 PM

Re: Love and evil and hunger and happiness don't exist on their own like puppies or manatees or pickles do.

???
None of those things exist on their own either. All of them require the entire ecosystem, and beyond that the sun, and beyond that the underlying laws of physics. But you do agree that love and hunger are objective realities, not just fantasies or illusions?

Re: I think that when you deliberately start a war based on lies and it results in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people you've earned a big fat EVIL stamp on your record.

The percentage of national leaders who have done this down through history is rather large (with adjustment of the death toll for technology and population size differences). Not a majority, maybe, but certainly not a tiny fraction either.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 5:54 PM

JonF quotes and replies: "Re: Love and evil and hunger and happiness don't exist on their own like puppies or manatees or pickles do.

???
None of those things exist on their own either. All of them require the entire ecosystem, and beyond that the sun, and beyond that the underlying laws of physics. But you do agree that love and hunger are objective realities, not just fantasies or illusions? "

No, I don't.

Take a pickle or a puppy out of its ecosystem and it still exists. If love is an "objective reality," what are its properties?

"The percentage of national leaders who have done this down through history is rather large (with adjustment of the death toll for technology and population size differences). Not a majority, maybe, but certainly not a tiny fraction either."

I know. I'd stamp EVIL on the records of all of them who did so.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 7, 2008 6:02 PM

"1. To be good connotes giving to all things the degree of affection they merit.
2. Perfectly good things merit pure love and perfectly evil things merit pure hatred.
3. A conceivable God who loves good and hates evil is therefore more perfect than a conceivable God who simply loves good.
4. Since God is the most perfect being imaginable, the first God exists and the second one does not.
5. Since we can say that God loves good and hates evil, this statement would not be true in a world without perfect evil (i.e. the Devil). Therefore, for God to destroy the devil would be to detract from His own nature.

It's not a limitation of God's omnipotence to say that He 'cannot' destroy evil or limit His own perfection, any more than it is to say that He 'cannot' do evil, or make a sixth Platonic solid, etc.(I'm aware that this view is heterodox at best)."

TR: Interesting, but it seems to be resting on a some assumptions that could justify a variety of things. Does God need to have a pure response to every "perfect thing" and does that therefore means there are perfect examples of every such thing? Is there a being perfectly balanced in a way that it is perfectly neutral? So God needs it so he can feel pure neutrality? Or is perfect good and evil the perfect form of everything?

Posted by Thomas R | June 8, 2008 12:59 AM

"If those wavering between belief and atheism are under the impression that anti-religiosity is the key to balance, mental health and insight, ML&J is so priceless a refutation of that notion, that did he not exist it would be necessary to invent him. Indeed, I have a sneaking suspicion that ML&J is real a believer in disguise, pretending to defend while in fact discrediting his positions. But that's just part of the kabuki of the internet. But I agree it is wearying and your point is well taken."

Thanks, David. I do see your point and presumed that your continued engagement with him would have reasons along those lines.

BTW, his criticism of your syntax is somewhat similar to a member of Slipknot critiquing Bruckner's use of counterpoint. Carry on, good sir.

Posted by Rob G | June 8, 2008 2:13 PM

Rob G writes: "BTW, his criticism of your syntax is somewhat similar to a member of Slipknot critiquing Bruckner's use of counterpoint."

Oh, look! Robbie's making a friend!

I have no doubt that Robbie and David have lousy record collections.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 2:35 PM

"I have no doubt that Robbie and David have lousy record collections."

Now THAT'S what I like! Good, solid, pertinent, intelligent criticism.

Posted by Rob G | June 8, 2008 2:55 PM

Robbie replies: "Now THAT'S what I like! Good, solid, pertinent, intelligent criticism."

Really? From your few posts I thought what you really liked was making bland pronouncements and using words like "hence" and "akin."

You seem like the sort of termite that uses the word "indeed" a lot.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 3:47 PM

Dear RobG,

There are two other reasons for engaging with ML&J over the last couple of days (not today, just not in the mood - afraid I'm not reading your posts dear ML&J today except for the occasional glance so any comments about what I'm writing about you are or what I've written today will be wasted).

The first is that enemies, be they honest or nasty keep you on your toes. ML&J caught me in a hyperbole/mistake about Dawkins. He termed it a lie which was unfair and unjust, but I was wrong and he caught it in a way that a fellow traveler would have let slide. Treasure your enemies - they will teach you your weaknesses, and treasure the gifts of your enemies. LM&J's conduct brings home like nothing that what really actuates many believers is fear. It is worth knowing what we look like in their eyes, and LM&J is letting us and others know. His facile arguments and nasty insults are no threats to robust faith, but his need for such tells us that atheists are not the real danger for believers, our own tendency to arrogance that inspires such fear is much more of a threat. Let the enemy teach.

Secondly, a'la Steven Pressfield's Gates of Fire, putting oneself in the way of a harrowing is a way of cultivating lightness of mind. LM&J's need to hold us in contempt is painful and is meant to wound - learning to take it like a man and not return spite for spite is character building.

Take care friends,

David

PS: And what struck me as particularly funny when I thought about it more this morning, in threads about theodicy LM&J is illustrating in microcosm the problem of evil - his malice and promiscuous effort to calumny and harm is almost over the top irony given our thread's topics.

Posted by David | June 8, 2008 4:35 PM

David writes: "The first is that enemies, be they honest or nasty keep you on your toes. ML&J caught me in a hyperbole/mistake about Dawkins. He termed it a lie which was unfair and unjust, but I was wrong and he caught it in a way that a fellow traveler would have let slide. Treasure your enemies - they will teach you your weaknesses, and treasure the gifts of your enemies."

Oh, joy! I've been upgraded to "enemy"!

The sheer pomposity of David's weirdly old-fashioned prose reminds me of a really bad fantasy novel. In the animated version his lines should be read by Kelsey Grammer.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 8, 2008 5:48 PM

ML&J,

That was almost civil of you so I'll reply. You've not been upgraded to enemy, you've been behaving like one from the moment I've been on the blog. (And from lurking earlier I realize I'm not getting special treatment - this is the identity you want when you are here. I only hope for the sake of anyone around you in real life that you manage to keep this attitude in cyberspace, though I imagine the chances of that are slim). You constantly insult and try to hurt others with whom you disagree and pour contempt on them with a great deal of gusto. So just as you say you are being honest or merely "absurd" (that sounds better than cruel), so am I. And in calling you an enemy I'm using secret Christian code for the other believers on the blog, since our faith teaches us to love our enemies (and don't worry, it is in the "just friends" sense, sorry to dissapoint).

Czesc,

David

Posted by David | June 8, 2008 7:24 PM

Dear ML&J,

I hope I'm making a friend in Rob, and maybe even a few other smart people here. It is a fun part of being on line for some of us. And sad to say you are right. I have just awful taste in music.

Posted by David | June 8, 2008 7:53 PM

ML&J,

One final thing - I think that Yoda's voice would be the best for the post you think Kelsey Grammer should read.

Posted by David | June 8, 2008 8:09 PM

As I continue to read atheist writings, philosophical arguments, and all the rest, I find myself amused. Not because I'm some smug believer who thinks I have all the answers or have the whole thing figured out, and that everyone else is wrong. I'm amused because, of all people, atheists seem to be most interested in creating a god only to tear "him" down. In other words, God has to have xyz characteristics, and when there isn't a being that fits that description, then God doesn't exist and religious folk are (self-)deluded.

I don't know a whole lot about God, except to say that God seems more subtle and elusive than the grandiose claims we would like to make about God. God does not equal "person +", and when we make statements about attributes of God such as wills, or powers, or whatever, it appears to me that we are saying more about ourselves and what we wish we had, rather than about any sort of God that might be real. Indeed for all the talkin' talkin' talkin', we seem to care very little about what God might really be like. I would even go so far as to say this: that God, as God is, would most likely appear very uninteresting to most of us, for most of us are looking for yet more entertainments (arguments? or maybe cosmic light shows?), to alleviate our boredom, stroke our egos, and maybe even make us some money in academia or on the bestseller rack.

Posted by Clint | June 8, 2008 8:28 PM

Clint squints: "As I continue to read atheist writings, philosophical arguments, and all the rest, I find myself amused. Not because I'm some smug believer who thinks I have all the answers or have the whole thing figured out, and that everyone else is wrong. I'm amused because, of all people, atheists seem to be most interested in creating a god only to tear "him" down. In other words, God has to have xyz characteristics, and when there isn't a being that fits that description, then God doesn't exist and religious folk are (self-)deluded."

As an atheist I'm happy to report that we don't have to bother "creating a god" since theists have already done the job - and in the case of the biblical god he's a pile of laughable shit.

So I have no idea what you're bitching about, but you make no more sense than Jerry Falwell ever did.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 1:16 AM

"In other words, God has to have xyz characteristics, and when there isn't a being that fits that description, then God doesn't exist and religious folk are (self-)deluded."

This objection seems to be in remarkable bad faith. It isn't the fault of non-believers that "God" is such a vague concept that it can be reconfigured to have any sort of philosophical attribute: including unintelligible ones, at the drop of the hat. We're not "inventing" God or the alleged properties of the specific god that is claimed to exist. We are looking at what the specific theists we are responding to are claiming. It's not our fault that theists have such divergent concepts of what God is that we cannot possibly address all possible concepts of God all in the same argument.

Posted by Bad | June 9, 2008 2:04 AM

Dear Bad,

I think Clint is responding to the tone and not the substance of some of the atheist arguments here. But of course, most "theists" aren't simply theists, we are believers in specific religious traditions (and some traditions don't bother with the God/gods). It is not my fault as a Christian that your determination to make an abstraction called "theism" puts you in a very bad way as well. My side gets to deal with all the faults that the faith that built much of the civilization upon which many atheists feel the need to shit upon has accumulated over 20 centuries. We each have a tough row to hoe, amigo, deal with it.

But a friendly bit of advice from one missionary to another (yes, Clint, sad to say, I do hope that what I write might invite curiousity and investigation of my faith - I'm sure you knew that, but might as well get it out there). But to Bad, it might help if you want to do evangelical outreach (I guess that's what most of the atheists are banging on about here as well - though many of you aren't very good at it, particularly you-know-who/the Voldemort of the keyboard up above)to maybe pay attention to the questioner as well as the question, and not assume that because Clint's unimpressed by atheist arguments or not aware of the cruel disadvantages under which you labor, that the problem is him.

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 2:38 AM

David types: "But to Bad, it might help if you want to do evangelical outreach (I guess that's what most of the atheists are banging on about here as well - though many of you aren't very good at it, particularly you-know-who/the Voldemort of the keyboard up above)to maybe pay attention to the questioner as well as the question, and not assume that because Clint's unimpressed by atheist arguments or not aware of the cruel disadvantages under which you labor, that the problem is him."

Holy Herpes, Batman! David commits yet another atrocity on the poor English language!

Please switch to Esperanto, Davey. You'll butcher that, too, but who would care?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 3:11 AM

Dear ML&J,

I think we're done. I'll certainly not abandon this blog, but I wont read any of your posts since I don't need to write to someone who holds me in contempt.

Farewell,

David

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 3:31 AM

"In other words, God has to have xyz characteristics, and when there isn't a being that fits that description, then God doesn't exist and religious folk are (self-)deluded."

Clint, you may want to check out this piece, as it has some insight along those lines:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-05-020-f

"I hope I'm making a friend in Rob, and maybe even a few other smart people here."

David, I'm pretty sure I know you already. Have we had some previous email correspondence?

Posted by Rob G | June 9, 2008 8:24 AM

"It is not my fault as a Christian that your determination to make an abstraction called "theism" puts you in a very bad way as well."

You certainly haven't made any coherent or serious argument as to how.

The characteristics of the basic theodicy God do, in fact, fit what most Christians believe are characteristic of their God, in particular. Not all (for instance, generally less so for liberal Christians), but a darn good approximation of the basic ideas promulgated. And most Christian theologians seem to agree with me on this, which puts you a rather bad way on this, actually.

Except of course the few who enjoy arguing purely by indirect innuendo, adopting your model.

Posted by Bad | June 9, 2008 10:30 AM

Rob, be honest with me: do you really find Tingley's argument there compelling? Can you summarize what you think is the basic case that atheists and agnostics are all completely overlooking? Because it sounds more to me like the same special pleading we've heard so many times before.

As I read it, it's ten parts merely copping an attitude (those atheists and agnostics and crazy kids, grrrrr! they aren't so cool!), and one part simply asserting that we can know that God exists because we really, really, believe he does.

And isn't there some irony with a man claiming to be a "true" skeptic when he works at a place that requires employees to pledge allegiance to the faith right off the bat?

Posted by Bad | June 9, 2008 11:09 AM

Bad, I think that a summary of Tingley's piece would go something like this:

Tingley says, "He [the modern skeptic] demands that God show himself to senses or logic, and when God does not oblige, he considers the matter closed and ceases to think." In other words, the modern skeptic is a functional logical positivist. But if God is God, why would the skeptic assume that He adheres to positivist rules? Tingley is suggesting that the skeptic should perhaps be more skeptical of his own assumptions. After all, as Tingley says, paraphrasing Pascal, "If we do not know that God even exists, we hardly know how he behaves. So we cannot begin this ascent with any dogmatic presumption about his behavior."

Posted by Rob G | June 9, 2008 12:25 PM

Thomas Aquinas articulated the two objections to God’s existence-The Problem of Evil and Ockam’s Razor(before Ockham was even born)- in the thirteenth century. Even before then, these things were known. His answers was of course his five ways and some theodicy. I don’t know why we think we are so much more advanced in our thinking. Our physics is more advanced, but our theology doesn’t seem to be.

As for Wood, he seems to be complaining that since he doesn't have a God-like knowledge of God-he can't believe in him.

I also find it funny that he uses the BCE dating system in an article abotu Christianity.

Posted by P | June 9, 2008 1:57 PM

P writes: "As for Wood, he seems to be complaining that since he doesn't have a God-like knowledge of God-he can't believe in him."

Ross and P both perceive complaints in this article when there are none. Is this a common mental deficiency among theists, that they think observation and complaint are the same thing?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 9, 2008 2:55 PM

RobG,

It is possible, but I'm not sure whether we've been on the same blog or not. Do you ever pop over to Mark Shea's blog? A good way to contact me would be through Mark, but I'd rather not post any personal information on these forums (or even write about other sites where I post regularly, given that on those I use my full name). But I would enjoy corresponding if you are so inclined. (I'm off for research next Monday for several weeks and so will have some extra time to spend online).

I read the Tingley article in Touchstone and found it a bit of a slog I must confess. I think Bad was correct in his criticism of me that I was being too coy in referring to the diversity of theism as a way of deflecting criticism from Christianity, and it seems Tingley does something like that too. The problem is of course that I'm much more attracted to the scholastic faith in reason than the early modern postmodernism of a Pascal, and hence giving a rational account of the problem of evil is more important from that perspective than it would be for Pascal.

Yet I very much liked the part on the importance of the heart. I think for many believers love and gratitude rather than a hermeneutic of suspicion define our basic approach to life - guess that's why I like Scholastic rationalism. I think the world is both rational and good, while in what little I've read of Pascal there is too much of the modern suspicion of life. In that sense the scepticism does strike me as distinctly modern. So thanks for putting me on to the article, since it will help in an article I'm planning on writing about post-Tridentine Catholic modernism.

Take care,

David

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 3:52 PM

Rob G: "Tingley says, "He [the modern skeptic] demands that God show himself to senses or logic, and when God does not oblige, he considers the matter closed and ceases to think."

Ah, so it was merely a childish string of insults, as I read it then?

What skeptics are asking for is some means of evidence. If it's truly a pity that senses and logic are all we have when it comes to separating true claims from false ones, I'm afraid that's not the fault of skeptics.

And "ceases to think." What rubbish. That's just the laziest of excuses for dismissing our continued thinking just because it doesn't happen to find anything compelling about Tingley's ode to his own heart.

"In other words, the modern skeptic is a functional logical positivist."

Pragmatism is not positivism. I don't need to allege that empiricism is the only valid epistemology to note that I'm not going to just accept ANY random assertion that comes along, without any attempt to show that it is valid.

"But if God is God, why would the skeptic assume that He adheres to positivist rules?"

What rules? We're open to convincing arguments: if you think you have some fantastic new avenue towards veracity, please elaborate. But "I really, really think this is true" is not an argument of any sort.

All this argument seems to establish is that a completely unknowable being could exist, and without anyone having any way to know. I agree with that. But so what? Why is that any sort of compelling justification for belief or refutation of skepticism?

"If we do not know that God even exists, we hardly know how he behaves. So we cannot begin this ascent with any dogmatic presumption about his behavior."

Which is just pointless. Yes: the more obscure and unintelligible you make God, the harder it is to consider whether there's any reason to believe in God or not. And that is a win for theism... how, again?

Posted by Bad | June 9, 2008 8:08 PM

Dear Bad,

I think what Tingley's article is saying is that God in Pascal's understanding is unknowable by our reason, but you know "the heart has reasons of which the reason knows nothing." And the reason for this could be God's desire to preserve our freedom and ensure that faith is not simply due to some kind of rationalist compulsion. I don't think Pascal is trying to "win" but instead is trying to deal with the after effects of a shattered consensus in his time and place as to what constitutes sure grounds for knowing God.

And in all fairness to Tingley, he seems to be saying that we are not free to abandon the question of God simply when we can't prove the existence of a metaphysical being using physical reality - we do have other, internal resources with which to continue that search. I guess where I have some sympathy with the argument even if I don't fully buy it either, is, that if, like a Dawkins and many other moderns, one is going to talk about our mind's/reason's capacity to deceive us and create illusions, then perhaps in exploring an issue so important as the existence of God those convinced of the limits of reason should be willing to use their hearts as well (and this is not simply about feelings, though those might have a role). Too Schliermacheresque for me, but perhaps there is something more there.

Posted by David | June 9, 2008 8:36 PM

Fascinating thread. I don't think the problem of evil is interesting to atheists in itself. It it fascinating however to observe how theists- especially Christians- deal with the problem of evil. I personally don't understand how a person can reconcile a believe in a just and loving god with suffering. Free will does not serve. It sounds plausible but falls apart under closer scrutiny. At its most absurd the contention is that because our forefathers ate fruit they weren't supposed to the possibility for the Holocaust entered the Universe. Even if true, does that correspond to any sense of justice. Then there is the issue of just how much free will we actually have. Most of the hard choices I have to face involve situations where the right (moral, God-pleasing) choice is not clear. This has to do with a lack of information or an already morally-compromised situation I had no part in creating. (How do we morally extricate ourselves from Iraq, for example.) Even believers can't agree on God's will or even what the Bible says is God's will. But let's say I do choose evil, knowingly and with beastliness a forethought so then now-because of that- the Holocaust is consistent with a just and loving God? Really? Maybe it would be fair if I was punished in some way (pancreatic cancer or the like) but why should my evil redound on innocent people. There are babies with AIDS, are we forced to go back to the sin of Adam and Eve? Is the child's suffering punishment for the parents willful evil? Is that consistent with justice? Then there is the question of proportion. If one chooses to be selfish, let's grant that's evil, what is a fair consequence? A stern talking to? a plague of locusts? Katrina?

I've probably already exceeded your patience but my point is that I find it hard to understand how someone who believes in God's love and justice cannot be consumed by these problems. Even if you trust god regarding your own suffering, I don't know if you have the right to be so cavalier about other people's suffering. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett: it ought to be enough to kindle in the heart of a thinking man, a rage to storm the gates of heaven. Thanks for listening.

Posted by Anne | June 10, 2008 1:14 AM

"It isn't the fault of non-believers that "God" is such a vague concept that it can be reconfigured to have any sort of philosophical attribute: including unintelligible ones, at the drop of the hat."

HA! This is precisely what I'm getting at, namely that God, as God is, turns out to be fairly uninteresting on the surface because there aren't many philosophical attributes that easily capture God, or are assignable thereto. I think Jesus was right, talking about how God's Kingdom is like a pearl buried in the middle of a field, or a mustard seed, or a lump of leaven (not pretty little yeasts but BC-era yucky leaven), something that most people would miss, and really don't even need if they're not missing it in the first place. For example, "I came for sinners, not the righteous" or, "Blessed are the poor, the kingdom of heaven is yours...the rich have their reward already" etc.

And what does this observation have to do with theodicy? Simply this, that evil happens, and even Jesus is executed cruelly and was not immune. There's a story in Exodus I think, where YHWH doesn't let Moses see his face (whereas in the Gita, Krishna lets Arjuna see his face, interesting) but rather lets Moses see the backside of YHWH (talk about showin' your ass!). That's almost to say that luminous traces of the Divine can be more easily, even more bearably, seen in retrospect. I have a dear friend who is a Theosophist, and he always says he knows more about the Masters, etc. from studying history than from all the obtuse writings of Madame Blavatsky and co.!

So then, were I an atheist or agnostic philosopher, I would simply tell the believer that I have all the answers I need, thank you very much, and have every confidence in my ability, and the ability of humanity as a whole, to discover more. I am a believer, I must admit, but only because my life experience gives me reason to believe, and I can't imagine that the God I believe in would hold it against anyone that they can't come the same conclusions I do because their life is different than mine. I'll fight those theists every step of the way who are quick to condemn people because of honest intellectual conclusions that do not lead to a shared faith.

Posted by Clint | June 10, 2008 2:03 AM

As an aside, I really enjoyed that referred article by Tingley, and of course I did, because we both come from Anglicanism. I will not hesitate to add that I am in no way what one would call an "orthodox" Christian, only that Anglicanism has made an indelible impression upon my spiritual and religious life that will remain with me no matter where I find myself. Love those hymn tunes, love that attention to beauty. I will always find holiness there, even if I have trouble believing in anything else!

Posted by Clint | June 10, 2008 2:14 AM

"It is possible, but I'm not sure whether we've been on the same blog or not. Do you ever pop over to Mark Shea's blog? A good way to contact me would be through Mark, but I'd rather not post any personal information on these forums."

David, are you an Orthodox, by chance? I thought that perhaps we had emailed a few times via Fr. Reardon in Chicago.

"I've probably already exceeded your patience but my point is that I find it hard to understand how someone who believes in God's love and justice cannot be consumed by these problems. Even if you trust god regarding your own suffering, I don't know if you have the right to be so cavalier about other people's suffering. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett: it ought to be enough to kindle in the heart of a thinking man, a rage to storm the gates of heaven. Thanks for listening."

Anne, I'd highly commend to you the small book I mentioned above, "The Doors of the Sea," by David B. Hart, which discusses all these things concisely but very intelligently. By the way, evil does produce rage in believers (or at least it should), but it's not rage directed at God. Hart discusses this as well.

Posted by Rob G | June 10, 2008 7:41 AM

Dear Anne (and RobG),

I guess the other, existential problem, is that it is hard to live in anger, and spiritually dangerous to oneself and all one loves as well. I can feel the same impulse to want to storm the heavens, but when I try to live in anger I don't become more empathic towards those who suffer or more wise in my discerning of good and evil (and I don't even think I become a better fighter against real human injustice). Instead, I become an increasingly callous and contemptuous crusader who only thinks of striking at the enemy in whatever way possible. And soon, I become like the evil that I claimed to despise.

I'm a historian who studies wartime and postwar Eastern Europe, so I understand your sense of alienation. Three things come into this "equation" for me - first of all, I can't simply write off Hitler and the Nazis as clever politicians and brutal racists. There is something of a mystery, something far beyond normal human cruelty in their capacity for destruction. When I name it evil I don't think I'm simply saying "my culture really, really, doesn't like death camps" - I'm making a statement that is grounded in the nature of reality and would have been true even had Hitler's Germany won the war. Secondly, while the Nazis evil has metaphysical implications it is all too human as well. So the reality is that their freedom did cause this devestation, yet it has a superhuman/metaphysical quality - so we do have a vast amount of freedom and often use it for evil. Yet while human evil is all too destructive, there is a resiliance about most of us, and a rejection of evil in ourselves and in our world, a grace. I remember reading a story of how, in the Warsaw Ghetto a father was carrying his starving children about, and singing "thank God I was born a Jew" until he and then his children died. We can regard him as a fool or pathetic and just another number in the 6+million, or we can see something in the defiance of his faith that is equally supernatural and graced. He didn't die cursing God, and so I refuse to live and curse God. If I can feel solidarity for the suffering, can I not also feel solidarity for those who suffered in faith? Those are the ones I want to be with, whether death finally reveals to me a new and better life or simply chaos and dissolution. As Job said, though he slays me, I will still love Him.

But this isn't really an equation, is it? It is a choice to believe that either love is at the heart of everything and is not overruled by darkness, or not.

And Rob G. - you've got me confused with someone else. I'm a Catholic.

Take care friends,

David

Posted by David | June 10, 2008 10:09 AM

"Rob G. - you've got me confused with someone else. I'm a Catholic."

Interesting! I've contacted Mark Shea re: your email info -- I'll tell you why it's interesting when I contact you directly. Cheers.

Posted by Rob G | June 10, 2008 10:31 AM