“
“God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent — it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.
Robert A. Heinlein (via vruz)”
Heinlein’s objection is serious, common, and ancient. Theologians even gave it its own word. It’s the theodicy question. If God is all he’s cracked up to be, how can he allow such horrible things to happen? Over the centuries, people have given a slew of possible answers.
One answer was that we indeed live in the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire brilliantly mocked this answer in Candide when the ever optimistic Dr. Pangloss teaches Candide that he thus lives in the best of all possible castles. As you might imagine, Pangloss’s life doesn’t go to well. The castle is burned by the best of all possible raiders. His ship is sunk by the best of all possible hurricanes. Etc..
Another answer (by somebody who was genuinely a serious theologian who will roll over in his grave by my mangling of his views) is essentially, “We suffer because it builds character.” It’s sort of like, “Eat your vegetables boy, they’re good for you.” Perhaps we weren’t created simply to be coddled. Maybe the world is an immense machine to bring out the best in us.
Another answer might have to do with balance. Is it possible to have joy without suffering? Would we want it? Maybe we’re happier when the stakes are a bit higher.
Back when I had the answers to everything, my explanation involved free will. Can we truly make meaningful choices if the result is always, “Yay! Everybody gets a puppy.” I suppose God could have created a mechanistic happy land where nothing is ever less than perfect. But maybe God had something in mind other than a scaled-up version of the It’s a Small World ride. Isn’t pain a necessary consequence of free will? Would we want a world without pain or would we simply want a world with less pain?
And yet…my elderly professor of Jewish law told us, “If you have to have that many reasons, none of them are right.” We could spend hours discussing each of these—but at the end of those hours, nobody would be persuaded much one way or another. People have struggled with this question for a few thousand years and continued to believe. Cleverly restating it won’t change anybody’s mind.
I’ve written on the topic before. Then as now, I noted that noting the flawed nature of the world requires the assumption that one possible world is better in some substantive way than the others. To me, this would strongly hint that we’re more than a bunch of atoms clumped together in a morally irrelevant way.
For now, I’ll simply add that the whole endeavor is rather presumptuous. It certainly assumes that we have the moral authority to complain about something. It also assumes that, despite our actions, we actually know what is best for us. In many ways, the problem isn’t really the suffering. It’s that we don’t understand why we have to suffer. Does the thought that God could know everything when we know so little offend us?
(via squashed)
” — Another problem would be defining what exactly makes a “perfect world.” If you wrote down your description of a perfect world and I wrote down mine, they would almost certainly be very different. How about a white supremicist? A Muslim extremist? A Christian fundamentalist? I doubt any of these guys would have the same idea of a “perfect world.” So how can we expect God to make a world that we deem perfect if we can’t even agree on what it would look like? Or is part of making a perfect world making everyone agree in their beliefs and ideals? Then you get back to the whole perfection is boring part.[video]