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
If you agree that evil exists in the world and you also agree that an all powerful, all good and all knowing God would eliminate all evil from the world then you acknowledge the paradox that Epicurus pointed to.
That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying that one must conclude that God doesn’t exist.
As for whether the world has certain features that seem more subjectively surprising to me or to you given the presence or absence of an all powerful, all good, all knowing Being, I think this is still a very interesting and enlightening way of looking at the issue. You don’t. That’s okay.
Oh, I had the misapprehension that you thought the argument from evil was an argument the conclusion of which was that an all powerful, all good God doesn’t exist. I guess the whole discussion was based on a misunderstanding.
I have found these two things to be mutually exclusive.
Nice post Susan.
Sometimes I think life is about coming to the realization that our lives are not our own to do with as we please and the difficult task of taking that head knowledge and turning it into faith in action. Once we get to that righteous place, God says “Well done, good and faithful servant!” and calls us home.
Duplicate.
I once heard a priest say, “Your life is not about you.” That’s the “dying to self” language you hear from Christians so often.
To be more accurate, it isn’t “us limiting G-d” but G-d’s choosing to limit himself. That’s a big difference. We are most certainly limited and can’t possibly conceive of all that G-d can do. So we’re partway there!
Eh, I think people confuse God’s foreknowledge with impinging on free will. Just because he knows and has accounted for your free choices in his plan of salvation doesn’t mean he’s imposing his will on you. That total picture of all time and all outcomes of our free choices is what we can’t even begin to imagine.
So to be precise, do you think that G-d knows precisely what we are going to do in the future? I suppose that’s possible, since we have no way of being certain about whether G-d wants to know all the choices we will make. I guess his knowing or not knowing makes little to no difference to me, since either way, it doesn’t (in my mind) infringe on my free will.
Yes, God is omniscient and eternal, meaning he is outside of time. As creatures in time, we can’t even begin to fathom what he knows.
Also, if you can imagine anything greater than God’s omniscience (omnipresence, omnipotence, . . . His perfections), you’re not really talking about God, but someone lesser.
Ben, my son whom you’ve met, :-), and I were talking about this the other day–apparently “free will” is the topic du jour on the Internet. :-)
He said something very interesting, (a) that there has to be free will because God has promised justice and he doesn’t break his promises, and (b) that there would be no perfect justice unless there were free will. God would not do that to us.
I thought that was really interesting.
I believe C. S. Lewis said God views time the way we view space because he exists in “an eternal Now”. We can move and look in the three spatial dimensions but can move in only one direction in the single dimension of time. God does not have that limitation. I think he also said that “watching a man do something from that eternal now is not the same as forcing him to do something.”
Whether this is logically consistent is not something I can comment on, at least not in a useful manner.
I’ve imagined it as God overlooking a tapestry where every stitch is a free choice direction in someone’s life — good or bad. But the totality is of God’s making and quite beautiful (Beautiful), even with the dark stitches we sometimes choose. You don’t get shading without the darkness.
I think the tapestry is bad but tastes differ. Quite alot it seems.
Thank you and yes. Sue died of MBC that got into her liver and she suffered. She is with Him now and joyful and fulfilled. She awaits her family.
Well, I was saying that we are interpreting God as having a self-imposed handicap, whereas we are the one’s who are the most likely to be handicapped. I haven’t had time to draw up a list of reasons why I think God is omnipotent. And that includes self-existent, sovereign, that He created everything that ever has been created (including time, space, and all energy and matter), and all-knowing (existing outside of time). These are debatable I suppose, but the debate is about how we view God; that is, what are His immutable character, characteristics, and power and authority; so immutable that God cannot deny Himself or any characteristic of Himself; and the one thing that God cannot do is be less than Himself.
It sounds like — I’m not sure — you are saying that God can indeed create a bolder that is too heavy for Him to pick up, because He hides or reduces His own strength. And I’m frankly sceptical that God would choose to reduce His power and knowledge over his own fantastic creation — for what purpose would He do this?
Added: I guess what I’m saying is (regarding just God’s omnipotence and omniscience — and I suppose His purposes) if God were to talk about the essence of time and space with Einstein, He would have to talk baby-talk (much as He did with Job, “You wonder about it, but I know it, because I did it.”
If he doesn’t demonstrate His holding back, if He is as powerful as you say, how are we motivated to do our part to save the rest of the world? If He can do everything, why should we bother to participate in continuing creation? I still believe he wants us to work with Him, and if He doesn’t invite us to do that (because He has demonstrated that He can do it all), how are we to respond?
He has created creatures who are in His image. It probably has something to do with that. Why did he create man in the first place?
Gosh, Flicker you may be taking me beyond my pay grade! I would go back to my comment that he wanted us to work with Him. What do you think?
God is already complete in Himself and didn’t create the world because he was fulfilling a need. “God created the world and saw that it was good.” The nature of goodness is that it flows out of itself into other things gratuitously; in God’s case, in the act of creation. Not as though God needs creation to complete Himself, but as pure gift. He invites us to participate in that creation, again as pure gift.
God didn’t need the Angel Gabriel to announce to Mary that she would conceive the Son of the Most High. He could have done it Himself. But God used Gabriel as an opportunity for Gabriel to participate in the story of salvation. God didn’t need Moses or Elijah either. But He used them as well to glorify them rather than Himself.
I think He wants us to love and adore Him, and to be like Him.
As to your point about above your pay grade, I think that’s my point too. Everything which pertains to God has much that is above our intellect. That’s why He tells us “Just do what I say.” But even then God doesn’t want mere strict obedience, but unity of Spirit.
I do appreciate how respectful you and JClimacus are to my comments, in spite of my late start in learning. Thanks to you both.
If.
We are all learning. Thank you for the kind remarks.
Not a fan of Shakespearean tragedies then? No beauty there?
Yes, Susan, it’s a pleasure. And my thanks as well.