A puzzle about theodicy
I’m reading an interesting book, The Improbability of God, edited by Michael Martin and Ricki Monnier. A collection of arguments on the subject. There’s a whole section on inductive evil arguments against the existence of God. In one, ‘An Argument from Non-gratuitous Evil’ by Thomas Metcalf, a half-sentence on page 330 started a train of thought: ‘If God exists, all the evil that befalls us is justified…’
The train of thought was about the subject matter of this whole section of the book, which is theodicy in general. It’s one that’s puzzled me for ages, but it took a perhaps slightly new form this time. The traditional idea or definition of ‘God’ is that it is omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent (also eternal). But – that’s strange. That’s stranger than we generally notice, it seems to me (unless I’m missing something). The third item doesn’t fit.
It makes sense, within the terms of reference of talking about ‘God’ at all, to define ‘God’ as omnipotent and omniscient. It has to be those in order to create the universe (though I suppose you could substitute veryvery for omni), and it is generally considered to have done that thing. We could think of God as the boss of just one corner of the universe, but theists generally don’t, so that’s a separate subject. Omnipotent and omniscient fit into the usual understandings and definitions; they make sense there; but what is omnibenevolent doing there? One, benevolence is hardly necessary in order to create the universe, and two, what does the universe have to do with benevolence? If you look at the universe and then think someone created it, you have to think of that someone as having a large quantity of power and knowledge; but benevolence? I don’t see why that’s even relevant.
The problem of evil, of course, has to do with reconciling a benevolent or Perfectly Good God with the existence of suffering (aka evil). But there again – why is it assumed that God is Perfectly Good? Or Good at all? Because that’s part of the definition; yes, but why? We can see why power and knowledge are, but I have to say, I have a hard time seeing why goodness is.
Goodness (or benevolence) seems like a different kind of thing – like the perfect island that is actually not perfect if you prefer a different kind of island. Power and knowledge are somewhat objective, universalizable qualities, but goodness isn’t. It is possible to make arguments for objective universalizable human goods, but they are human goods; it is possible to make arguments for extending some of them to all sentient beings on this planet; but that’s still a very local version of good. That’s what the word is – a word that describes what finite contingent mortal sentient beings prefer; it doesn’t describe anything cosmic, or if it does we have no idea how.
This matters because theists reply to atheist arguments from evil that humans can’t know what all possible goods are, and that suffering may be (or just is) necessary in order that other greater goods may exist, and that therefore the existence of horrible pointless (apparently, as far as we can tell pointless) suffering is not a reason to think God does not exist. In other words, ‘God’ is still perfectly good, still omnibenevolent, it’s just that it is those things in ways that are hidden to us but that make our sufferings (our=all sentient beings) justifiable all the same.
Well – it’s perfectly possible to suppose that, of course – but by exactly the same token, it’s also perfectly possible to suppose that, for instance, what ‘God’ means by ‘good’ is the enjoyment derived from watching sentient beings suffer. How the hell do we know? That’s not our definition of good, but the theists’ whole point there is that our definition isn’t the only possible definition and that it’s limited and inadequate. Maybe it is, but why do the theists get to suppose that the real, hidden, secret, theist definition is ‘good’ in any sense at all? Why do they assume that? Why isn’t it at least as likely that the secret hidden reasons that we don’t know about are indifferent or malevolent? If it’s unknown, it’s unknown, and there’s no more reason to assume it’s benevolent and good than there is to assume it’s sadistic and bad, or to assume it has no moral content whatever.
OB, have you by any chance read Ian Banks’ sci-fantasy novel The Algebraist..? He creates a kind of ultimate “prime mover” cult, who follow the belief that the universe is some sort of vast lab experiment (obvious nod to the late Douglas Adams!), and that when >50% of all beings come to believe this, it’ll render the experiment untenable, thus enabling us to meet the maker(s)…
of course, they have a distinct tendency to encourage people to their way of thinking by the large-scale application of, er, extreme violence.
so obviously no parallels whatsoever with our current corner of existence…
:-)
Theists who argue that our idea of good isn’t necessarily God’s idea of good, etc. are arguing themselves into a trap in that in Christian theism at least, reason and morality are seen to be of divine origin. There’s an inconsistency here. The “mystery move” would seem to be much more appropriate to an agnostic or atheistic stance than to a theistic one, which (usually) has the reasonability of the universe as a built-in assumption. It’s one of the reasons why I don’t like mysterious-ways defences like these.
Is it just the product of desperation? The problem of suffering is of course the deal-breaker, or tooth-breaker. Are the mysterians just grasping at straws?
No, Andy, I haven’t read that – I’ve read me Douglas Adams though!
See, OB? You didn’t need me to write up my thoughts, since you were having the same kind of thoughts anyway. ;-)
And Merlijn, I think you are definitely right about the untenability of the “mysterious ways” maneuver. But is there a way out of the problem of evil without it? It seems to me as if most of the central ideas of theodicy are only there in the first place as answers to the obviousness of the problem of evil. And I don’t mean the philosophical argument labeled “the problem of evil,” I mean the actual problems all of us face every day living in a universe that veers between being indifferent and outright hostile to us, and living with our fellow humans who often range over the same indifferent-to-hostile turf. This world so obviously sucks much of the time that it’s almost psychologically required, or at least very natural, for people to make up stories about how life will be better when we’re dead or how Gawd (or Jeebus) is gonna come make everything right in the end.
Even many polytheistic myths had elements of this same idea: The world was born (like us) and some day it would decay and die (like us), but it would be replaced by something better or somehow or other be redeemed at/after the end. Think of the end time tales of Thor facing down Jormangundr the World Serpent at Ragnarok, and the rebirth of Baldur afterwards. Even the grim Vikings wanted to believe the whole world would turn out better on the next go-round.
If you ask me, OB, you’re phrasing the question wrong. Theologians engaging in abstract arguments didn’t come up with the omnibenevolence of God. A bunch of shepherds who picked one of their sky gods and decided that He was the Only One as an exercise in priestly political acumen declared that God loved them, his Chosen People. When a later splinter cult grew out of those beliefs, part of why it caught on was that it said God loved EVERYONE (not just those special people). The marketing (or cultural selection, if you prefer less crass cynicism) came first – the theology came much, much later. To ask whether the assumption of omnibenevolence is legitimately a logically warranted part of the nature of a being capable of creating the universe is to put the proverbial cart a few thousand years ahead of the horse.
I blame all this religion stuff on the jews myself!
I’ve never understood this biz about how evil is somehow necessary in order that greater good might exist. I know most theologians would argue that even God can’t make a square triangle, but I don’t think we’re in that territory if we merely ask this question: why does an omnipotent being need this workaround, and why can’t he/she/it merely create good – period?
But, as G sayas … if “god” loves EVERYONE … then why is there such gross and unecessary suffering around?
To which there are two possible answers, really:
One: “God” doesn’t exist, and you are making it up.
or, much, much worse…
Two: “God” does exist, and he/she/it/they is a murderous, sick, torturing bastard, whom I want nothing to do with.
Do Xtian theologians claim that ‘our definition [of good] isn’t the only possible definition and that it’s limited and inadequate’? I thought it was more that we simply don’t have all the pieces – not that we don’t undestand what ‘good’ is but that lacking the full data we are unable to see the ramifications in all directions. We’re like children in the hands of good but firm parents: we fail to understand that we’re being given the nasty medicne because it’ll help us, we just taste the medicine and see it as evil. That’s not a question of different definitions of goodness but a lack of understanding.
“Goodness (or benevolence) seems like a different kind of thing – like the perfect island that is actually not perfect if you prefer a different kind of island”. Perhaps it is a quality of perfection that something perfect can appear differently to different people, so that each experiences his/her own conception of perfection. Or the experience of a particular perfect thing is so psychologically overwhelming that it changes the taste of the observer.
More importantly, how could such questions ever be decided?
My Christian friends have an interesting and even more frightening response – that “good” and “bad” or “moral” and “immoral” are simply whatever God says they are, and he can, and perhaps even does, change this at will. Therefore there is no contradiction between the OT God, the problem of evil, and religious morality – the downside of this view is that their morality is utterly contingent and grounded in nothing more than divine decree – making them a whole lot scarier than atheists (and probably explaining their bizarre question – “if you’re an atheist why don’t you just kill people?”)
“I thought it was more that we simply don’t have all the pieces”
Yes…but that comes to the same thing, really, especially given what it is that they’re trying to explain (away).
The parental analogy doesn’t work, as William Rowe (and doubtless many others) points out, because God doesn’t even hold our hand or explain why the suffering is necessary or give us ice cream afterwards. (Well that’s a slight re-wording of Rowe’s argument.)
Some of the more punitive believers claim that suffering came into the world when Adam and Eve disobeyed God – Adam caused smallpox and tsunamis, apparently. We are all so fallen we that we deserve whatever happens to us, and only God’s grace stands between us and an eternity of suffering which we richly deserve, as distinct from this short lifetime of not so serious suffering.
“The parental analogy doesn’t work, as William Rowe (and doubtless many others) points out, because God doesn’t even hold our hand or explain why the suffering is necessary or give us ice cream afterwards.”
Ah but He sends us His priests to do this. Think of them as God’s babysitters. He’s just too busy running the universe to spend too much time at the pinnacle of His creation’s ball game.
Failing that we could always assume that God is a drunken, abusive, incompetent parent.
Either way, God The Father isn’t exactly a role model for parents. I’m sure theologians would be happy to go along with that.
G –
hey, c’mon, be fair – the old Norse* weren’t “grim”! Long-distance adventuring (far more trade/settlement than raid), fantastic saga poetry, beer & feasting?? They rocked! :-)
Of course, if ye were one of Bede’s chums back then ya might not have agreed, but he was biased!
plus they did get to america – and found out how much of a mistake that can be…
;-))
btw – which part of OH are you from…my wife was originally from South Point…?
cheers,
man with underemployed brain cells and a dribbling baby on his shoulder…
* in case nobody was interested, “Viking” was an activity, or profession even, rather than a title…boy, i don’t get outr enough, do i?
“Either way, God The Father isn’t exactly a role model for parents. I’m sure theologians would be happy to go along with that.”
Oh but they wouldn’t. They’re not kidding around with this stuff – they really mean it. And it’s philosophers of religion as well as theologians. Rowe is replying to Plantinga among others.
Andy Gilmour –
I’ve always found the Norse pantheon much more interesting than the Greek. The Norse at least revered a wise seer, a God who lost his eye in the quest for knowledge, as supreme Deity. As opposed to the testosterone-crazed meathead the Greeks revered. And I’m exceedingly fond of Hel, the Nordic death Goddess.
And indeed, the old Norse were far from grim, and even usually quite friendly to Christian missionaries (St. Ansgar was not hindered in any way in his work in the Viking town of Birka). I’m convinced that Lindisfarne was a mistake. They must have taken the wrong turn or something.
The medieval Scandinavians on the other hand… Yikes. I’ve studied medieval Swedish law a bit in my research. Still remember the part that specified capital punishment for both counterparts in adultery cases, which started with: “The dearest property and tool of the farmer is his lawfully wedded wife…”
Merlijn,
I was turned on to the rip-snorting fun of the norse myths when I was a kid – I mean, what’s NOT to like about the tale of Thor & Loki’s visit to the giant Utgard-Loki, f’rinstance?? :-)
Turned into a mild obsession in adulthood, resulting in a larger-than-could-ever-be-strictly-necessary saga collection…
Found it interesting [new, entirely personal definition of that word] to discover that most people worshipped Thor primarily, and revered him most highly, rather than Odin. Thor was seen as more down-to-earth, and representative of the stolid farmer/craftsman. Odin’s just too damn sneaky! :-)
Thanks be to good old Snorri Sturluson…
Oh, and let’s not forget that most of the greatest “miracles” of St. Olaf seem to involve helping some folks beat the snot out of some others…usually at horrendously disadvantageous odds…
;-)