The argument from evil:
1. If God exists, He must be omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
(This premise would be true by definition for traditional, orthodox Christians.)
2. If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then He is, to that extent, impotent.
(This premise is true by definition of the word impotent. It means willing but not able.)
3. If God is able but not willing, then He is, to that extent, malevolent, not benevolent.
(If someone can prevent evil but allows it to happen, we don't think of that person is all good. That person is, to some extent, culpable for allowing that evil to happen. What do you think of someone who watches you being mugged or raped and does nothing, not even calling for help, even when there is no threat whatsoever to this witness and the witness has ample opportunity and ability? Able but not willing means not benevolent. This premise seems true.)
4. Evil exists.
(Some people may argue that what we think of as evil is simply a lack of good or our lack of seeing the big picture, as if some evil is necessary to prevent greater evil somewhere else. We endure pain at the Dentist to avoid greater pain of a future toothache. This could be the case with apparent, unnecessary suffering. However, most people are willing to concede there is what we can rationally conclude as unnecessary suffering. If evil is unnecessary suffering or what causes it, then most of us agree it exists.)
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
(This is the inescapable conclusion from the argument above if all the premises are true.)
Let's look, though, at some of the hedges on that argument:
Some people contend the God had a reason for allowing evil. that a perfectly wonderful world would be worse than one with evil. It would be sterile, dull, no chance for nobility or courage to develop. Much good comes out of tragedy, as when people are heros or character is developed.
Along these same lines, some people say some evil is necessary to contrast with good. A successful hedonist, one who never experienced pain, would never appreciate pleasure. Successful hedonist is incoherent.
And, some people say God allowed evil so humans could have free-will, an alternative. (This would make that story about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden a little wrong. If God actually wanted evil in the world, then He actually wanted Adam to eat the apple. And, mankind was punished because Adam did what God wanted him to do. What kind of God is that?)
Anyway, in "the Mind's I," there's a very interesting dialogue, by Raymond M. Smullyan, between God and a mortal trying to take God to task for allowing free-will.
First, the mortal opens by beseeching God to absolve him of having to have free will. This is, after all, a paradox emphasized by existentialists, that we are "forced" to be free. God may see it as His greatest gift to us, but we did not ask for it. The mortal, in this dialogue, says that he would never have freely chosen to have free will; free will brings with it unbearable moral responsibility.
Next, in typical Socratic fashion, God takes the mortal through the other possibilities and logical consequences, such as if God were to relieve the mortal of impending punishment for sinning or even his natural abhorrence for sinning. The mortal would refuse those options even if God were to command him to accept them. His present abhorrence of sin would be enough to cause him to freely choose not to accept the responsibility of not having future responsibility. Thus, God demonstrates that free will is a pretty handy thing.
Then, they get sidetracked talking about how God could learn from His mistakes "if" He made mistakes. This is just a transition, though, for the mortal to state his case that God made a mistake to give mortals free will in the first place. God even seems to understand and help the mortal with his argument. The mortal would not be in the predicament of having to choose if he were not given free will in the first place.
Now, God sets up a hypothetical reality where He introduces a new man which may or may not receive free will at the outset. The mortal, at first, happily proposes that he not have free will, but then God tells him that the man will then do terrible things which are now considered sinful and painful to others. They discuss that these acts will not be considered sins because of the lack of free will, but they will nevertheless happen.
Well, the mortal, seeing himself in God's predicament, revokes his proposal because he could not bear the responsibility of creating people who have no choice not to commit terrible acts. He decides to give him free will.
Out of this conversation comes the revelation that God is a utilitarian. He is concerned with hedonistic ends and the greatest good, or lack of suffering, for the greatest number. It doesn't matter whether something is called sin or not, the mortal and God are against unnecessary suffering. This is in opposition to Kantian type ethics that certain acts are right or wrong regardless of consequences. Smullyan's God seems not as ridgid as Kant or the God of some fundamentalists who follow legalistic rules like the ten commandments.
(However, , I say there are some problems with utilitarianism. Although I employ some components of the classical theory in my Neo-Objectivism, I reject the catch-phrase of 'greatest good for the greatest number.' Under this, not only would it conflict with my egoism, it would be perfectly acceptable to murder a rich, old miser and distribute his money to the poor. Kantian ethics would forbid that because of the wrongness of murder, whether it is utilitarian or not. Sometimes there is suffering involved with doing right and being moral, as in choosing to die on the Titanic. Smullyan doesn't deal with that enough here.)
Okay, then they talk about how to define God and determine His existence. This is where they finally get into Taoism and tie it into the discussion. There could be the possibilities that God is part of the mortal or part of being itself, but no answer to will satisfy the mortal. This is another sidetrack to set up more discussion of the reason God gave man free will. He didn't make man angels automatically but gave them a process to go through. Mortals are approaching sainthood and have simply not arrived there yet. Evil is just the lack of perfection to which God is assisting mortals towards, but this is misleading because God is the process as well as the facilitator. God says to the mortal, "...The ancient Taoists were quite close when they said of me (whom they called "Tao")that I do not do things, yet through me all things get done. In more modern terms, I am not the cause of Cosmic Process, I am Cosmic Process itself. I think the most accurate and fruitful definition of me which man can frame--at least in his present state of evolution--is that I am the very process of enlightenment...."
(So, this is what I get out of Taoism. At first I thought it was anti-intellectual, and some philosophers agree with me. Taoists do not like breaking things down and classifying them, but this is necessary for western type, scientific knowledge. We have our divisions and cubbyholes. We got them from philosophers like Aristotle, who categorized and labeled everything so as to discuss it and think about it. Taoists reject this kind of analysis. They don't care to capture thoughts with words. They would rather just feel their way through. It's like in "Enter the Dragon" when Bruce Lee told his student not to think but to feel. "It's like a finger pointing away to the moon." When the student looked at the finger, Bruce Lee slapped him on the back of the head and said, "Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory." I can understand now how this being one with nature is reflexive thinking, like driving our cars or doing routine tasks. Even martial artists or basketball players get into a zone where they are at one with the task at hand, not distracted from it. I can appreciate that mode and try to enter into it from time to time, but I also want to stand back, as would a spectator, and analyze. I sometimes want to think reflectively, not reflexively. Certainly reflective thinking could get in the way when I am doing some tasks. A basketball player doesn't have time to reflect on every move he makes. He must allow his reflexes take over. However, he might be able to control his reflexes by watching himself on video tape and analyzing how he could do better. I think both Smullyan and Taoists are more deterministic than this. They say that whatever we do is in our nature to do. It is our Tao.
Nothing much of intellectual value comes from this. In fact, I think it ultimately negates free will. It's non-human life forms or life forms without structured languages that have such fixed natures. They are the objects, but we are the subjects, IMV.
I also have mixed feelings about how Smullian's God gets around the typical altruism associated with utilitarian ethics and most non-egoistic ethics. When the mortal talks about a duty to others, God talks of the Mahayana Buddhists, who refuse to enter Nirvana until all others have entered, and Hinayana Buddhists, who seek only their own salvation. Smullian's God recommends a synthesis, a process that is partly social and partly individual. Nick Otani's Neo-Objectivism says that individual efforts can include others but should not be subjugated to others. If everybody is helping others, than what are the others doing?
Finally, I'd like to make some comments about Taoism and Buddhism apart from Smullian's dialogue. It's where I think I depart from eastern thought, but let me say what I agree with first. I agree with being natural, authentic, real, not phony or artificial. However, much of eastern thought is concerned with being at peace with oneself or one with nature, avoiding stress or suffering. Buddhism seems to advocate getting rid of desires to diminish suffering. This seems to me to be trying to avoid obstacles in life rather than meeting them head-on and overcoming them. Certainly, we can use judgment. We need not be rigid. We can be like the grass that bends with the wind rather than like the oak that breaks. We can use Judo. But there is nothing wrong, in Nick Otani's Neo-Objectivism, with having desires and going after them. There is nothing wrong with forging our own Tao within the parameters of allowing others to do the same, and I think we are forced into having the freedom to do so.
bis bald,
Nick,
|
