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
As I mentioned, in the Philosophy of Religion, the Logical Problem of Evil and the Evidential Problem of Evil have been discussed for a very long time.
You might be right that I am unable to provide a coherent definition of the word “evil.” Great. But the discussion in philosophy of religion rages on as it has for thousands of years.
In a book titled, “The Faith and Doubt of Holocaust Survivors,” one Holocaust survivor says that the Nazi Holocaust demonstrated that “no God exists” because “If He wouldn’t come out then, during these times, when?”
You don’t have to agree with this Holocaust survivor. Just realize that when people are confronted by events like the Holocaust or even hurricanes, some people suffer a faith crisis and wonder, “Where is God in all of this?” This doesn’t prove God’s non-existence. But this debate has been raging for a very long time.
Perhaps the failure to clearly define terms in the argument is one reason it keeps raging on?
My bet is that some philosophers have defined their terms reasonably clearly, yet disagreement still exists.
Some people might think that the Nazi Holocaust wasn’t evil or that children suffering and dying of cancer isn’t evil.
People can offer definitions. But that doesn’t mean everyone is going to converge and agree on a single definition of the word “evil.”
That’s true. I’m not asking you for a definition of “evil” that everyone will agree on. I’m simply asking for the definition of evil you are using in the argument you presented, whether anyone agrees with it or not. I need that definition so I can understand your argument. Without it I literally don’t know what you are talking about.
When I think of “evil,” I think of things like the suffering of conscious beings and the death of conscious beings.
So, a hurricane that destroys the homes and lives of thousands of people, children suffering and dying of cancer and people suffering and dying in a Nazi concentration camp all qualify, in my mind, as evil.
If I were powerful enough to stop a hurricane from destroying homes and lives, if I were powerful enough to stop cancer from causing pain and death to children, if I were powerful enough to stop the Nazi Holocaust, I would use that power to stop those things from happening.
That’s basically what I mean when I use the word “evil.” Perhaps Epicurus and David Hume and other philosophers have a different idea of what “evil” is than I do. But that’s my take.
So the definition of “evil” is “the suffering and/or death of conscious beings?”
I wouldn’t say that this is “The” definition of evil. It’s just my intuitive sense of what people generally mean when they use the word “evil.” If there is a shooting at a school, generally people think of that shooting as evil because of the death and suffering caused by the shooting.
Other people might have different opinions about what is evil and what isn’t evil than I do. I am open to alternative conceptions.
stasis == ‘good’
Again, I’m just asking for the definition of evil you are using in the argument. I’m not trying to be tricky. As you noted, the argument with respect to evil has raged for a long time. I’m familiar with the history of it. A common reason for arguments going on without resolution is vaguely defined terms. When I ask for precision with respect to a definition of “evil”, I’m not demanding a definition everyone would agree with, just the precise definition of the word as you are using it. If you are using one understanding in your argument, and I have another in my head, then I’m going to misunderstand your argument. And that will likely make the argument rage on.
When I use the word “evil” I mean “events or actions that cause the suffering and/or death of conscious beings.”
I realize that not everyone agrees with my definition of the word evil. But I do think that it is a definition that many would find reasonable.
May I ask you what your definition of the word “evil” is? Or do you prefer to keep your definition of the word “evil” private?
I don’t mind giving my definition, which is that of Thomas Aquinas: “Evil is the privation of a good.”
But with respect to the evidential problem of evil, you are making the argument, not me, so it is your definition that is relevant. With respect to evil as suffering and/or death, the fact that we are born at all means that we will undergo at least some suffering and will certainly suffer death eventually. So if God is to eradicate evil, he’s going to have to do a lot more than just stop hurricanes. He’s going to have to prevent us from ever being born at all. God as the ultimate abortion advocate.
I’m not sure I understand you.
So, for a clarfication, do you think that children suffering and dying of cancer is good, evil or neither good/evil?
I think it is evil, but I understand “evil” in a very different way than you do. We will talk past each other if we argue using the word “evil”, but we have different understandings of the word. This is a big reason, as I indicated, why these arguments never seem to go anywhere.
I’m trying to understand your argument as you are making it, using your definitions. Using your definition, it sounds like your argument proves more than that God should stop hurricanes. He should stop people from ever being born.
I don’t think He would have to stop people from being born to prevent a hurricane from destroying peoples’ homes and lives, nor would he have to stop people from being born to obliterate childhood cancer.
I agree with you that you and I are working with quite dramatically different conceptions of “evil.” Thus our disagreement.
For me, it suffices that to deny free will is to contradict yourself. From a recent letter to the editor in WSJ:
All statements by conscious beings presuppose both the laws of logic and the free will of the speaker. Otherwise, the speaker is forced to admit that his words are mere noise compelled and predetermined since the big bang. Denying free will is a self-contradiction. Logic and free will are ax-iomatic to any meaningful statement. We may not under-stand the mysterious “mecha-nisms” of the origin of life and free will, but excuse me, there they are.
It’s odd that the two types of philosophy that reject free will are a) certain forms of extreme secularism/atheism and b) certain types of religion.
But your definition of evil is “events that cause the suffering and/or death of conscious beings.” Since God is omnipotent, and all good, he should strive to eradicate all evil; that is, all suffering and death of conscious beings. Not just cancer. The only way to do that is to prevent mortal beings from ever being born.
You want God to stop hurricanes but allow you to be born. That’s inconsistent with your argument from evil. So we’ve either got to agree that it would be better for God to have never allowed us to be born, or change our definition of evil.
God could eliminate hurricanes while still allowing human beings to be born. God could also eliminate Alzheimer’s disease, childhood cancer and Rheumatoid Arthritis if God so desired.
To say that God could not eliminate these evils without eliminating the birth of humans is to describe God as being impotent, not omnipotent.
Thanks for asking. Let me think about it and get back to you.
But just very briefly, I believe that God is totally sovereign in all things, and yet man has free will. This presents a paradox. But I don’t think the answer lies in us limiting God, but in acknowledging that we are limited and can’t conceive of all that God can do.
There’s stuff we just don’t know, and relying on our own intelligence to say “Well, that’s just logically impossible” seems to me to be the hubris of deifying our own intelligence.
God could do that. But your argument implies that God should do both. God is all good and should prevent all suffering and deaths of conscious beings (that’s your definition of evil, not mine). The only way to prevent the death of a mortal being is to prevent him from ever being born. If we are to take your argument seriously, we need to consider all the implications of the argument, not just the ones you want us to consider while ignoring the inconvenient ones.
God could eliminate death without eliminating birth. To say otherwise is to say that God is less than omnipotent.
Perhaps you think God is less than omnipotent?
God cannot create mortal beings that are immortal. That’s a contradiction in terms.
But God could have created some other type of creature that was immortal. We agree on that. Can we agree that an implication of your argument (and its definition of evil) is that God should never have allowed mortal creatures like ourselves to be born? He should have used his power to create immortal creatures instead?
God could allow humans to be born while eliminating human death. To say otherwise is to say that got isn’t omnipotent.
If God eliminated death and suffering, then the Holocaust could not have happened, childhood cancer would not exist and hurricanes that destroy homes and lives would not occur.
The fact that the Holocaust did occur, that childhood cancers do exist that hurricanes do destroy peoples’ homes and lives simply means that evil exists in the world and God did not prevent these evils from happening.
Thus, the paradox that Epicurus mentioned over 2,000 years ago.
Nope. Human beings are by nature mortal creatures. We get old and die. Just like lions, bears, earthworms and fish. That’s why we say of very elderly people that they died a “natural death.”
I agree God could have created some other creature that looks a lot like us but was naturally immortal. An omnipotent God could do that. So I think we agree that your argument condemns God for creating us mortal creatures rather than the alternative immortal ones?
The argument that Epicurus made over 2,000 years ago is simply that evils exist in the world and that if an all powerful, all knowing and all good God exists, one might think that no evils would exist in the world.
I’m not saying you have to agree with Epicurus or David Hume. I’m just pointing out that this Logical Problem of Evil isn’t new. It’s over 2,000 years old.
Maybe God should have created humans in such a way so that humans would not develop familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a genetic disease that results in children having heart attacks before they are 10 years old. Or perhaps God has his reasons for allowing FH to exist.
However, if an all powerful, all knowing and all good God does not exist, then the existence of familial hypercholestrolemia isn’t surprising at all.
@jclimacus
I do think it is worth thinking more about the similarity between human beings and “lions, bears, earthworms and fish.”
Someone who does not think that an all powerful, all knowing and all loving God exists is very comfortable acknowledging that humans are very similar to lions, bears, earthworms and fish in the sense that you mentioned in your comment.
Do lions, bears, earthworms, and fish concern themselves with good and evil? If they don’t, why should you?
Yes, I’m well aware of the history of philosophy. The argument of Epicurus is worth taking seriously. How do we do that? Do we stop with the consideration that one might think that no evils would exist in the world? Or do think more fully and deeply about the implications of the argument to see where it leads us? I prefer the latter approach.
Yes, it’s been with us a long time and a lot of wise people have thought about it.
I prefer addressing questions systematically. That’s how we were investing the Logical Problem of Evil. It looks like now we want to abandon that approach and turn to a sort of heuristic argument about what is surprising and what isn’t. I don’t find this approach fruitful since it is very subjective, hinging on what one happens to find “surprising.”
I could counter with some things I find surprising and not surprising, but where would that get us? We’d just go back and forth on how surprised we are about various things. And then we might conclude that there was no progress to be made on the question of evil, which would be unfortunate since it would be due to our unsystematic approach rather than anything specific to the question itself.
Not to make light of the suffering of innocent people and the whole debate, but one of the all-time favorite comic strips I ever saw was this:
Whether we should or shouldn’t concern ourselves with good and evil, human beings have a tendency to concern themselves with good and evil. Perhaps some animals have some inchoate sense of good and evil. But human beings have a large prefrontal cortex and an ability to think of such concepts in detail.