« Campaigning and Propagandizing
Main
Sheep Omens, Akkadian in Greek Letters and Other Mysteries »
May 29, 2008
Theodicy Happens
I've been tagged by Iyov. I like Iyov. I read her or his blog nearly every day. I think kindly of Iyov. But still I get tagged! And tagged to answer questions about theodicy of all things. The good news is that there are only four questions I am required to answer. The bad news is that I don't exactly understand three of them. In addition, theodicy is a courtier's problem and I am no longer a courtier. I am, however, an interested spectator. So I'll try anyway but I sure won't be as poetic as is Iyov. Here goes:
1. if the nature of god is omnipotent, benevolent, and anthropomorphic (that god is a person, who sees suffering as wrong, and can change all of it), why does god not act to relieve all suffering, or at least the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest amount of people the greatest amount of time?
I'm have no idea. It's really hard to respond to an interrogative consequent when the antecedent has so little hope of being true. If I take the antecedent as purely hypothetical then all answers will themselves be equally hypothetical. How about this one: God thinks suffering is a good thing. Perhaps in His benevolence He even causes suffering.
2. if you were god, and you were omnipotent and benevolent, how would you respond to suffering?
Now this is certainly hypothetical. Who in their right mind would want me to be God? I don't even want the job. I am enjoying my retirement. Note: if I were god, I would be part of natural and therefore subject to it in the same way as are all other natural entities. But then I guess I wouldn't be omnipotent. Oh well this isn't the first time I've broken the rules. As god, I'd likely see two different kinds of suffering. Those caused by nature I would take steps to mitigate as much of the suffering as possible. These steps would be more or less like the ones people are trying to do on their own. Hopefully, I'd be better at it but I wouldn't bet on it. With regard to suffering caused by willful actions, I'd put the perpetrators in jail for varying lengths of time depending on how much suffering they caused. But I would not put them in jail or even take notice of it if the suffering they caused resulted in their rigorous, even insulting verbal or written reactions, but not involving threats, to some idea or opinion expressed by an adult. Among such ideas and opinions that would get a pass are ideas and opinions regarding religion, politics, science, and philosophy. Also, I would not punish snakes for causing rats to suffer while killing them or chimpanzees for causing red colobus monkeys to suffer in the process of hunting them. I would punish any person who caused snakes, rats, chimpanzees or red colobus monkeys to suffer.
3. if this is not the nature of god, what is the nature of god, that allows suffering in the world?
I just can't get my mind around this question. It rests on a premise not in evidence. I will point out that God lacking the "property" of existence would account for suffering in the world with no theodicy problem at all.
4. if these are the wrong questions to ask, what are the right ones?
I'm not sure there are any "right" questions in this neighborhood. I thing any question about theodicy is malformed. On the other hand, I don't think that the problem of suffering is important in considering the existence of God or gods. That is an epistemological and/or ontological issue not an issue of the nature of God or gods. If they don't exist then the whole issue is meaningless. If they do exist, then suffering can and often is made understandable within some theological framework, "suffering is caused by the Devil," "suffering it is God's reaction to human sin." As I said at the beginning, theodicy is a courtier issue not an epistemological, ethical, or even ontological issue.
In addition, there is a liberating "metaphor" that I find extremely comforting in the face of suffering in this world, "shi stuff happens."
In order to reduce the amount of suffering in the world I have decided not to tag anyone with these questions.
Posted by Duane Smith at May 29, 2008 10:28 AM | Read more on Religion |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2515
Comments
I saw some pictures on Iyov's blog the other day. It sort of reminded me of the Bay Area. I wonder if Iyov lives in SF or Oakland?
Posted by: Alan Lenzi at May 29, 2008 6:37 PM
Well, despite our different perspectives, I used your liberating metaphor without bowdlerisation in my answer to this meme.
Posted by: Doug Chaplin at May 30, 2008 11:53 AM
Yeah, I bowdlerized because I was afraid of offending Jim West!
Posted by: Duane at May 30, 2008 4:41 PM
Don't be. Take a leaf out of Tilling's book, and live to offend Jim West.
Posted by: Doug Chaplin at May 31, 2008 2:36 AM
I love these questions because to me it's futile. It's what happens when a logical mind tries to answer things that are by their very nature beyond logic. I always say that Existence precedes Logic because Logic depends on Existence to... well... exist. Yet, here we're pondering on Existence itself, something that logic is incapable of answering because it is founded upon it. Very circular, as you can see. Alas, philosophy may very well be the gateway to madness but it's as entertaining as any drug :)
Posted by: Glen Gordon at June 1, 2008 10:52 AM
I'm told that insanity is hereditary; you get it from your kids. Both my grownup kids are professional philosophers.
Posted by: Duane at June 1, 2008 11:47 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.