Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If God Exists, Why Does He Do Such a Lousy Job?
When venturing to discuss the nature of G-d, the discussion can get very complicated. And when you add in the component of the dominance of secularism over religion in our times, the conclusions we draw may be all over the map. For that reason, I’ve chosen to discuss briefly many of the expectations that people have of G-d, but I believe there are a few key ones that have driven the secular Left to reject G-d and embrace nihilism. If we are going to have any chance of breaking the hold that secularism has on our society, we have to address not just religion, but the nature of our relationship with God. And we must deal with the deep disillusionment that many on the Left are experiencing, and encourage them to expand their understanding and awareness of G-d.
The OP title suggests that the source of some people rejecting G-d is their disillusionment with Him: what He represents, how He interacts with the world, and His role within the world. But even more devastating for some people is that G-d doesn’t behave the way they think He should: He shouldn’t allow bad things to happen (like hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes, rockslides, and especially the Holocaust). He shouldn’t let bad things happen to people (like disease, heartbreak, car accidents, bankruptcy, and severed relationships). He should act even when his actions could compromise our free will (such as our robbing a bank, stealing from a store, using drugs, and ignoring our obligations. He should make sure that people live satisfied lives (such as being happy, living without poverty, disappointment, or stress).
In other words, if we believe that G-d exists, He should exist to make our lives precisely as we would wish them to be.
I believe many people hold some aspects of this description in their spiritual mindset. If they are going to put their faith in G-d, it makes sense that He ought to earn our faith. Any G-d worth his salt should have to earn our respect. He should frequently demonstrate that He is taking care of us, making our lives meaningful and carefree. If He is not able to do all these things, then why should any of us make the effort to include Him in our lives?
In fact, if He can’t make life perfect, why should I invest my heart in Him at all?
When a person holds these ideas about G-d, it could lead to their making the effort to seek solutions for problems in their own lives; their solutions are probably less than perfect, but over the long term can be perfected. It means that they can only rely on themselves and others who believe that no one else can be trusted to create the perfect world. It might require a leap of faith to believe that a human being has the wherewithal to act in these remarkable ways, but if one remembers that we are all created in the image of G-d (which they technically wouldn’t believe), we have the potential to create the perfect world. And if we unite in that utopian imagery, all things are possible.
* * * *
The problems with secularism and the rejection of G-d are numerous and disappointing. It’s worth taking a look at them to better understand why secularists are so unhappy, unfulfilled, and alienated from the rest of society. The following list represents the “limitations” of belief in G-d, as a secularist would see them.
- First, we are simply unable to “know” the mind of G-d. Although He has given us many laws and direction, we are unable to know his thinking all of the time. He calls for us to trust that we have the power to live rewarding and fulfilling lives, based on the guidance He has given us, but we are the only ones (no other person, no other organization) who can take the initiative to make those things happen.
- Based on #1, we never know for sure when, or if, G-d will act in our lives. This fact goes back to the impossibility of our knowing the mind of G-d. That uncertainty can be disconcerting.
- Since we have free will, with no equivocation from G-d, we must assume that He will never compromise our ability to act freely. That means, however, that G-d may intercede in our lives, but we will likely not know when, how, or if He will act. That means we are called to actively fulfill our responsibilities to each other, and to Him. Assuming He will bail us out from a careless decision or action (or inaction) is very risky, and we are likely to be disappointed.
- Having free will also means that we are free to create the lives we wish. If we are lazy or not resourceful, life will be a great disappointment. If we want to live lives of richness and satisfaction, it is on us to do so. I personally believe that there are times when G-d sees our efforts, He will help us out; the nature of that help can be physical, emotional, mental, or financial, but we have to take the first step. He may even point in a direction where we can begin, but we have to be awake and pay attention to that often-subtle guidance.
* * * *
What do all these ideas have to do with secularism? The secularists have gotten themselves into a bind. First, they reject G-d because He doesn’t behave the way they believe he should act, if He exists at all. They feel they are entitled to His intercession, and they shouldn’t have to “do life” all by themselves. At the same time, however, they grudgingly believe that if they have to take action, they have the attributes of G-d that can kick in. They believe they are capable of creating the perfect, stress-free, fun world, just like G-d would do if he actually existed. And finally, their methodology is to destroy everything around them and create that new, perfect world in its place.
* * * *
In my reading, I came across a quotation from the skeptic’s dictionary https://www.skepdic.com/naturalism.html , and I’m including it because I think it summarizes the empty, flat and mundane description of a world without G-d:
Finally, a naturalistic worldview is one that has no supernatural or mystical element to it. The universe is all we can ever hope to know and there is no compelling reason to posit a supernatural world beyond and in addition to the natural world. The infusion of supernatural elements into human societies is itself a natural phenomenon that has a naturalistic origin and history. There may be elements or forces in nature that are not understood, but there is nothing that requires magical thinking or superstitious positing of transcendent beings to account for them. Even religions and philosophies that center around beliefs in the supernatural, as well as so-called mystical experiences, are themselves natural and originate without the assistance of anything supernatural. Even so-called miracles are explicable in terms of natural phenomena.
* * * *
So the secularist who rejects G-d is often disillusioned, perhaps subconsciously, because he realizes at some level that he is incapable of perfecting the world in spite of his best efforts, and he resents it. As a result, life seems mundane, unchallenging, and routine.
Nevertheless, he will keep striving for perfection with his cohorts.
No matter the costs.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
I think Carol was teasing you that when you have a two year old, you probably have no free will! (as in time)
Your conscience is not an authority:
You can read the entire transcript of Father Thomas Crean’s lecture on: The teaching of Aquinas on conscience.
You need to serve the right G-d though. Figuring out who is who ain’t easy.
Why did Al-Ghazali defeat Ibn-Sina?
Your point is a good one, Susan, as I was teasing.
Bbut what I meant was that two year olds most certainly demonstrate that they are determined to exhibit their free will.
Two year olds exhibit their will. Why is it free?
Doug, this is a fascinating read, but I’m not clear on whether it applies to the OP or a comment on the post. Could you clarify for me?
I would say that the fundamental faith in God is possible because God is constant. He is not capricious, or chaotic, and on this reason gets a foothold.
Are you joshing me, Henry? Your question really isn’t relevant for two year olds, and I think Carol was stretching the meaning of willful to free will. They are too young too fully recognize their own agency, which is what free will is about.
Why is that?
There are things that are ephemeral to me, and take such concentration to think out, I avoid them. One is the existence of free will in a creation in which God is completely sovereign, and the other is what Adam was: what he was capable of, and what he was thinking when he deliberately disobeyed God, having already been told that if he did so, he would die (and what was his conception of death? Nothing had died yet).
What this has to do with the OP is that everyone eventually makes the same decision that Adam or Eve did, and for the same reasons. There are two prime reasons for rejecting God*: one is stark disobedience, and the other is deception.
I’ve always said, the first person (human) that I want to meet in Heaven is Adam, and ask, “What were you thinking?!!” (The answer is probably closer than I think, but I just don’t want to think about it.)
——
*Rejecting God is identical to rejecting His Word of command and His Word of warning, and disobeying Him. This is why Abraham was accounted as righteous for merely believing God in what He said (his leaving for an itinerant life was the secondary effect of that belief).
Interesting, Flicker. I can understand your reaction to Adam’s choice, but I’m not clear on why free choice existing when G-d is sovereign is something to avoid. In Judaism, we say that G-d chose to pull back so that people could have free will, which would empower them to be his partner in continuing creation. (Oops, there’s that word partner, again.) I don’t think He ever expects us to be perfect like Him, since we are humans, so he wants us to be free to explore our choices and creativity. If we don’t have free will, it limits our ability to do so.
Then again, you wanted to avoid this topic. Feel free to ignore me!
No I don’t think so. They are so emotional they don’t have free will. They have chaotic impulses but I don’t think that’s the same as free will.
G-d is all loving. He does not have the freedom/power to move against love and justice.
My wife passed not so long ago and I can assure you that all you ponder doesn’t mean stuff. He awaits our decision to join him. Not the other way around.
I’m sorry about your wife’s passing, JAW. I hope G-d has provided you with some peace and comfort.
In 1779 Philosopher David Hume attributed the Logical Problem of Evil to Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived from 341 BC to 270 BC:
Also discussed in Philosophy of Religion is the Evidential Problem of Evil, which is that each evil we observe is evidence of God’s non-existence.
This has been popularized recently by Dr. Stephen Law’s Evil God Challenge.
If you ask repeatedly and get no answer, you may eventually stop asking. Shortly after that point, you stop caring about those questions, and get on with your life. I guess the real question is whether you ever truly stop listening.
The job God does is still better than we deserve.
What is the definition of “evil” you are using here?
Lots of luck, J.
I think many people think of things like children suffering and dying from cancer as evil. That’s just one example.
If you can think of something happening to you or someone you care about that you would prefer to not happen, that “event” might be considered evil by many people. A hurricane that destroys thousands of peoples’ homes and results in the killing of lots of people could be considered evil. Someone suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis or Alzheimer’s disease might be considered evil.
But not everyone agrees that these things are evil.
I would agree with those people. Evil, to me, requires an intention. Those are terrible, devastating occurrences, but they are not intended by anyone or anything.
As usual, great thoughtful post, thanks. The whole notion is simply beyond me, but all human societies adopt some religious or religious like belief systems and some work better than others and they change and evolve. Without them human society doesn’t do well, but some belief systems retard, destroy or don’t help. That is especially true of the ones that assert non belief in god, a moral code or evolved wisdom and believe that superior humans can figure things out superior to silly old notions of evolved religion, or tradition. They’re no different in their beliefs than religious believers, but they’re not rooted in much and generally, a problem for all of us, shape views, knowingly or not, on self interest. The judo christian adapts and grows, not so much the root notions as the way we organize and promote it, or our general understanding of it but whether created by a god or just evolved, it worked, gave rise to science,(the article you attached is just wildly wrong although common view among “non believers” ) balance, incredibly complex and robust human societies and good governance when taken seriously. It looks back as well as forward and that turns out to be essential. It accepts evolved reality but asserts we have to try always to improve matters. It’s rooted in individuals not leaders or groups, and requires of both top and bottom certain core simple beliefs or integrity and it acknowledges that we’re very dangerous to each other when we get it wrong and the more power we have the more that is true.
I’m not asking for examples of evil. I’m asking for the definition of “evil” that is common to all the examples. For instance, if I asked what “spherical” means, I’m not asking for a list of spherical things like ping pong balls and beach balls, but for the definition of “spherical” common to all them: A three dimensional object whose surface points are all equidistant from the center of the object. I’m asking for that type of answer with respect to “evil.”
This gets back to Epicurus. Is God not powerful enough to prevent a hurricane from destroying the homes and lives of thousands of people? If so, God is impotent. Is God not interested in preventing a hurricane from destroying the homes and lives of thousands of people? If so, God is malevolent.
According to Epicurus and restated by David Hume.
You don’t have to agree. Just know that this discussion about The Problem of Evil in a world created by an all powerful and all benevolent God has been discussed for several thousand years.
I am tempted to defer to philosophers like Epicurus or David Hume when it comes to a precise definition of evil.
But if I had to guess as to what these philosophers mean by the word “evil,” I would guess they mean “events or states of affairs that intuitively seem terrible and/or events or states of affairs constituting enormous suffering.”
That’s just a guess on my part. When people say, “The Holocaust was evil” or “Stalin’s show trials were evil,” my sense is that people who say this mean that if these people who call these things evil had it their way, the Holocaust would not have happened and Stalin’s show trials would not have occurred.
These points miss the nature of G-d entirely. You assume that you understand the mind of G-d and can judge Him according to human standards. There’s a kind of arrogance in that belief. There’s a lot we can glean to create our understanding of G-d, but we can’t know his mind. If he allows a hurricane to destroy, there may be a reason he doesn’t interfere.
Susan, I am trying to point out that these discussions of why evil exists in the world despite the existence of an all powerful and all loving God have been going on for over 2,000 years. I’m not saying that one can’t think of a possible Theodicy to explain the existence of evil.
This argument hinges on the meaning of evil. Look at your statement of it. The word appears four times in three sentences. Shouldn’t we have more than a guess as to what the word means if we are going to take the argument seriously?