Weblog of a Christian philosophy student

Weblog of a Christian philosophy student. Please feel free to comment. All of my posts are public domain. Subscribe to posts [Atom]. Email me at countaltair [at] yahoo.com.au. I also run a Chinese to English translation business at www.willfanyi.com.

Name:
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Saturday, September 24, 2011

God's suffering

One thing that distinguishes Christianity from other religions is that in Christianity God is supposed to have experienced the evil and suffering that humanity experiences in everyday life. Jesus is supposed to be God in the same way that you are you, and I am myself (John 10:30, Mark 2:5-12, John 14:9). This means that although God hasn't taken away evil and suffering in this life, God has experienced a pretty broad range of evils and sufferings, which, I suppose, is more comforting than if it wasn't the case.

The fact that God has suffered from the things that we go through means that God can more easily have empathy for what it's like, having been in our situation. God knows exactly what we're going through. God's ability to emphathise with our situation reminds me of John 11:33-5: "When Jesus saw her crying, and the Jews who were crying with her, he was deeply moved and troubled. So Jesus asked, "Where did you put Lazarus?" They answered him, "Lord, come and see." Jesus cried."

An interesting aspect to God's suffering is whether Jesus on the cross experienced more than purely anguish at his situation and physical pain. When Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the tree" (1 Pe 2:24), did this involve more than being crucified? One analogy I have heard about this is that you can imagine humanity's sins like a big pool of black sludge, and then this is somehow collected and poured onto Jesus on the cross.

If so, then Jesus' crucifixion involved much more than the anguish of his situation and physical pain. It also involved the pain of carrying humanity's sins, which could be quite horrible. Carrying all of humanity's sins would be an act on a massive scale. It is also an act with a terrible nature - we don't know what it feels like to carry someone's sins, but it could be really horrible. Perhaps it is the most painful experience anyone can go through. And maybe Jesus was also spiritually separated from the first member of the trinity in some way while it happened (Mark 15:34), which could be quite awful for God to undergo.

Suppose this is correct, then perhaps God is the one who has suffered the most in the history of the world.

This is a very surprising idea. Normally when we think of suffering we don't see God as an example of the miseries in the world. We might imagine a starving child in Africa, or someone with terrible chronic pain, or a victim of horrible evil. But, actually, according to this reasoning God is actually the person who has suffered the most in history. God's story is a good example of what it means to live in a world of pain and evil.

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, December 26, 2010

A possible solution to the problem of evil

An easy solution to the problem of evil is just to say that God is not very powerful. That is, God wants to help us with our pain and suffering, but for various reasons just can't.

This is not a very good 'solution' because it undermines our ability to trust God. If God isn't very powerful, then can God save us from our sin? Can this God really guarantee an eternal existence of goodness, contentedness, and peace forever?

But I believe you can rework this 'easy solution' into something that does not undermine our ability to trust God.

What if you limited God's power in a key way? What if you, with surgical precision, cut out aspects of God's power that do not undermine our ability to trust God and yet answer the problem of evil?

How about this: as long as there is sin in the world, there must be evil and suffering. As long as there is sin in the world, God can't get rid of evil and suffering. BUT God can easily and quickly get rid of our sin if we let Him. So God can easily and quickly get rid of all evil and suffering in the world forever if we let Him take away our sin.

If you said this, then you could explain why there is evil and suffering in the world even though God could take it all away in a moment.

You could say for those who aren't Christians, God could take their suffering away in a moment if they let God take away their sin, through Christ.

For those who are Christians, God could take away our suffering in a moment, but then our ability to influence non-Christians to follow Jesus would be 'shut down' as a result, for some reason. Maybe people need to leave this world to enter eternal life? So we could not (effectively?) encourage others to let God take away their sin if God took our suffering away, because the end of our suffering would mean the loss of our ability to evangelise.

Therefore, God can take away humanity's suffering in a moment, but will not do so either because people have not freely let God take away their sin or, alternatively, God has taken away someone's sin, but they need to continue to suffer in order to be able to influence non-Christians to accept Christ (so God can take away their sin).

There's a parable that sort of connects to this issue from Matt 24:24-30:

Jesus told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

“‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

“‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”


In one interpretation of this parable, if God took away the suffering of Christians as soon as they accepted Christ, then, yes, our suffering could go away in a moment, but then we wouldn't be able to influence a whole lot of people to accept Christ as well. As a result some wheat would be 'pulled up' because making eternal life happen so quickly would prevent lots of people from hearing and accepting the gospel.

There are several issues that arise if this idea is pursued.

One big assumption is that evangelism to non-Christians gets shut down if God takes away the suffering of Christians. So you can't get incredibly happy and contented Christians, who are already experiencing eternal life, hanging out normally with non-Christians for some reason. I'm not exactly sure why this is the case. Maybe eternal life can't be experienced in the world in which we live.

Another assumption is that God can't evangelise very well if there are no Christians on earth.

Another is: why can't God take away suffering as long as there is evil in the world?

A preliminary answer to this is that although the idea of limits to God's power may make a lot of people uncomfortable, most Christians are on board with the idea that God cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, or make it so that you have never existed and have always existed. So perhaps the idea of a world with sin that doesn't have a lot of suffering in it implies a logical paradox, for reasons we don't know.

I think that reality may have unknown aspects that guarantee evil and suffering while there is sin in the world, which operate in mysterious ways. I can't explain any more of this though - why humanity's sin should generate a hurricane, virus, or earthquake somewhere is inexplicable.

Fourthly, why does God taking away our sin involve free will? But this is not extremely controversial because respecting free will usually makes God sound more loving.

A fifth issue is: how does this relate to God's word?

Not having an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible I can't speak about the general Biblical picture on this point with confidence, but here are some relevant Bible verses:

Romans 5:12-14: "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

Romans 8:20-23: "Against its will, all creation was subjected to God's curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us." (NLT)

Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me."

One thing that would be good to get from this idea is that there's a solution to the problem of evil that could make sense given the truth of some assumptions which are not too outlandish.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The 'Salvation' Theodicy

This is one type of answer as to why God allows people to suffer. A 'salvation' theodicy says that at least some of the suffering in the world is a key part of bringing people into eternal life. I don't think it can be a very complete explanation for why people suffer, but it has something worthwhile to say.

The Bible associates the suffering caused by our disconnect from God with people returning to God and choosing to enter eternal life by giving their lives to Christ:

Luke 15:11-24 'And he said, "There was a man who had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.' And he divided his property between them. Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.

But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."' And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' But the father said to his servants, 'Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.' And they began to celebrate."'

In the 'salvation theodicy' somehow, in a way that we can't rationally explain, this world is the world in which the greatest number of people choose to enter eternal life.

The picture below illustrates a 'magical black box' analogy for God's decision to create our world, click it to see it full size:



Below is an illustration of the possible histories God might have faced in creating our world, click it to see it full size:



It makes sense that if 100 'degrees' of evil gets just one more person into eternal life, then God would choose to make that world. But God can never use immoral means to get someone to choose Him, so there must be limits on how much and what type of suffering can be a part of this process.

God cannot explain His choice of world because He cannot explain His understanding of our choices. Only God knows how someone is going to choose because only God knows how free will really works. So God's explanation wouldn't make sense to us because we'd only be going on what God says, we couldn't 'see' into other people's souls and understand why more people choose to enter into eternal life in this world rather than another, for ourselves. See Matt 24:36, Deu 29:29, and Rom 11:33.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, September 28, 2009

A theory on the relationship between the Fall, and suffering today

This is a speculative look at a difficult topic: how does the Fall lead to so much suffering today, especially suffering that seems to have nothing to do with free will?

The Bible says there is a strong relationship between the Fall and suffering:

Romans 5:12: For this reason, as through one man sin came into the world, and death because of sin, and so death came to all men, because all have done evil

Here is a theory of how suffering, death, and sin could be related. It has a few problems, but maybe there is something in it to answer questions in a genuine way.

A while ago I was reading an online comic and in it one character was trying to justify the existence of hell. But instead of saying 'God is a God of justice' or 'God gives us the freedom to reject Him' the character said that the reason for hell was something like: 'God will not allow sin in His presence, because He is a good God'. I thought that was an interesting response, because 'God not allowing sin in His presence' because of His goodness would seem to have nothing to do with hell and suffering, depending on your view of hell.

Later on I got into reading about the philosophy of mind and consciousness. Consciousness is what you feel when your brain processes information. Whatever consciousness is, it seems different from our physical brain. It seems to exist in a 'mental world' quite different to the world of e.g. tables and chairs. Debates in the philosophy of mind are about how a 'mental world' arises out of a physical world.

Thinking about the philosophy of mind, one interesting idea is to say that there are two worlds that humans live in: a physical world and the mental world. So instead of trying to figure out how the mental arises out of the physical, you can sort of give up and say that humans are a combination of the physical and the mental and the mental is in its own world with its own rules. The mental is based on the world of God.

You know that phrase 'God will not allow sin in His presence, because He is a good God'? Imagine that in the mental world, either a mind is connected to God or it's not. If it's not connected to God the mind suffers horribly. The problem is that when we do something wrong, God needs to separate Himself from our wrongdoing, and that means that God has to disconnect our mind from His. This means that sinners' minds get disconnected from God, creating horrible suffering, even if physically everything is fine, and there are no diseases, tornadoes, tsunamis, nothing of the sort...

So physically, God can stop any hurricane, earthquake, disease, accident, anything. But God cannot stop pain, terrible, unrelenting pain, if a mind is not connected to Him in the mental world. Because that's what it feels like for a mind not to be connected to God in the mental world: death and pain.

Somehow, if God remained connected to a mind that wants to do wrong, then God Himself would be 'infected' with sin. Or maybe it's not a matter of choice, and God simply cannot be connected to a mind that wants to do wrong. Either way, you can explain how horrifying pain must exist in a world where there are people who do wrong, even though God is perfectly good and all-powerful.

There are a few big issues here:

1) Animal suffering. They don't really do wrong because they aren't morally responsible. Yet there's a lot of suffering in the animal world. The Bible does say that the animals were subjected by God to the pain that humans are under (Romans 8:19-22), but why?

2) So maybe getting disconnected from God causes pain. But it sure seems that viruses cause pain. One way of getting out of this problem is to say that the pain has to be there anyway, and God chooses to make it look like physical stuff causes the pain. This seems a little bit odd and counter-intuitive... God needs to have a reason to make it look like e.g. earthquakes cause pain when actually our mind getting disconnected from God causes pain. God doesn't add to our pain by making it look like it's the result of e.g. diseases, so at least that aspect makes sense.

3) Suffering is a universal fact of life, and there isn't anyone who doesn't experience it. OK, but some people suffer a lot more or less than whatever is 'average'. Why? This remains a bit of a mystery. Maybe suffering gets 'balanced out' over an eternity, assuming a person doesn't have their sins removed by Christ - Luke 6:24?

On the good side, this theory does fit in with Luke 17:20-21, which talks about what the Kingdom of God involves:

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

If suffering happens because our mind gets disconnected from God, then perfect happiness will come when our sins are completely removed by Christ. Because we have never experienced life having our mind connected to God, then this theory explains why heaven is going to be so wonderful, even if it sounds to a non-Christian like it's just a change of scenery. They might ask: what's so great about heaven, just because it looks beautiful? The great thing about heaven is that our soul/mind will be connected to God for the first time, and we will experience life as it was originally meant to be experienced - in union with our creator, feeling the happiness that the image of God was originally meant to feel. We cannot even imagine what this is like - if we could, our mind would not be currently disconnected from God due to sin.

It also explains why no matter how much God helps those who reject what Christ did for them, they must suffer forever if they continue to reject Christ (very reminiscent of CS Lewis' Great Divorce).

In summary, you could say that the theory works like this:

Do we suffer because of a greater good? Yes.

1. Either we are perfect and there is no suffering.
2. Or we are morally imperfect and God becomes evil, because God allows sin in His presence/does not separate Himself from a soul that does wrong.
3. Or we are morally imperfect and there is horrible suffering, but God is perfect and provides a way for us to be free from sin and be truly happy one day (through the cross).

The third option is the best, which is what we see God doing. For the greater good of God remaining free from wrongdoing, we must suffer, assuming this whole system regarding a 'mental world'.

[See comments for clarification]

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Answers to tough questions: suffering

When we see suffering going on in the world, often not connected to wrongdoing, it is hard to see how a loving God exists. Suffering is also pretty random. The traditional Christian answer is that because we live in a fallen world, therefore terrible suffering must happen.

I think there are some gaps in this explanation. Here is my attempt to fill them:

We are mental and physical beings. Mentally, we have a mind which is not the same as our brain. Physically, we have a brain and a body. The mind is based off the brain, but it is not the same thing as the brain.

I think that the mind lives in a mental world that follows different rules to the physical world around us.

I think that one of these 'mental' rules works kind of like gravity. Say you throw a rock up into the air. It will fall down due to gravity. In an analogous way, in the Christian view, a mind is naturally connected to its creator, God, in the mental world. God is the 'super-mind' from which all other minds come, creating this connection.

But in the Christian/Judaic view, if a mind sins then it gets pushed away from its creator, God (in the mental world). Sin pushes a mind away from God sort of like a rock suddenly flying out into space instead of falling to the ground (for some reason).

When a mind is connected to God it feels infinite happiness. It is enjoying what God feels all the time. But when a mind is 'pushed away' from God due to sin, the mind suffers, and loses ultimate happiness.

The stuff I just described only goes on in the mental world. It does not happen physically. So physically, everything can be fine. Someone can be in good health, be having a good time etc., but if our minds are cut off from God due to sin then we must suffer no matter what is going on physically.

God makes our mind getting cut off from God go along with physical suffering, like e.g. a disease. It doesn't have to go along with physical suffering like disease. But whether it does or not, the suffering we must all feel is roughly the same. So God should not be blamed for making this process go along with physical suffering, because the same suffering must happen regardless.

I think this is how saying 'We live in a fallen world' can make sense of suffering, and yet 'God is love' and all-powerful.

Two questions remain:

1) Why does our mind get cut off from God due to sin?
Answer: Because the mind is connected to God, and God simply cannot be connected to a soul that does wrong. It's impossible for such a connection to be maintained, because God is holy. Even though God is all-powerful, God cannot allow sin in His presence (for a reason we may not fully know).

2) Why do some people suffer much more than others?
Answer: I'm not sure, but this argument does explain why there must be horrible suffering... even if we can't explain why some people suffer more than others. This must simply be left unexplained, and so the argument is not complete. But this argument is at least something...

Labels: , , ,

Friday, May 01, 2009

The problem of evil

Can the difference between our mind and our brain help explain why we suffer?

If you have a cup of coffee with a friend, and sit across from them, will you ever see your friend's mind? Of course not. You can see their body but not their mind. Can you see your own mind? You can feel your mind: emotions, happiness, thoughts and so on, but you can never see it. That means that we cannot really see ourselves and others because we ARE our minds. We can see our own and other people's bodies, but never minds.

If I cannot see my mind then where is it? My mind isn't hiding under a rock, and although it is based off the neurons in my brain it cannot literally be hiding inside my brain. So where is my mind?

In a sense, humans are like a person standing with one foot in the sea and one foot on land. My brain could be viewed as the foot in the sea. My mind could be viewed as the foot on land. They both make up the whole person because I need some kind of brain to think with. So my mind must be somewhere else, somewhere not in the sea, somewhere on land...

But where, and what, is this 'land'?

I think the 'land' must be the World of God. If we're made in God's image then something about us must be like God, and anything like God could be thought to live in His reality. So our mind is in the World of God. It has always been in the World of God and it can never leave there. Our foot in the sea is our physical body and brain; our foot on land is our mind in the World of God.

When suffering happens, we usually think it happens like this:

Bad physical event
=>
Bad mental event (pain, suffering)

We usually think bad physical event => leads to bad mental event. But what if it sometimes operates differently? What if a bad mental event can cause another bad mental event, purely in the World of God (the mental world)?

If our mind is in the World of God, then presumably it's natural for it to be connected to God in a very deep way. And we know that God is perfect. So if we do evil with no excuse for our actions, then surely that could weaken, or destroy, our mind's connection to God in the World of God, because God is a holy and good God. It's easy to think that any sin could cut-off our mind's relationship with God in the World of God. It's also easy to imagine how this would make us suffer, because anything in the World of God can only feel truly happy when it's connected to God (Ezekiel 18:4; Romans 5:12-14).

That would mean a bad mental event can cause another bad mental event purely in the World of God (the mental world).

So how about this:

Bad mental event involving our mind getting disconnected from God in the World of God due to sin
=>
Bad mental event (pain, suffering)
========
Bad physical events going along with the bad mental events like parallel train tracks, which mirror but do not cause bad mental events.

Like parallel train tracks, God makes bad physical stuff go along with bad mental stuff. But this doesn't add to anyone's suffering - suffering MUST happen if there's a disconnect between our mind and God in the World of God.

In other words, God chooses to make bad physical stuff go along with bad mental stuff for His mysterious plan. Bad physical stuff doesn't add at all to suffering; suffering must happen, because our sin separates us from God in the World of God, regardless of what happens physically.

This doesn't explain why people suffer different amounts, although it does account for generalised pain and suffering. It also doesn't explain the suffering of those before the age of accountability, and animal suffering. But it is an interesting view of it...

(Check out the comments as well)

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

How can a loving God send someone to hell?

This picture illustrates the ideas in this article (click to enlarge):



I think that Christianity offers what you could call a really bipolar-like view of reality (speaking as a Christian). A lot of religions will say that when you die you dwell at some kind of distance to God depending on how bad you were. So good people are closer to God and happier, and more evil people live further away from God and are less happy... or something like that. Christianity is bipolar-like in saying that either you're absolutely perfect, flawless in your moral behaviour, and happy, or you're imperfect to the slightest degree and suffering in some sense (either in a hell on earth, Rom 5:12-14, or in some other kind of hell).

I think the reason for this philosophically has to do with our soul. I think that humans have in a sense one foot on the land and one foot in the sea. The foot on land is our physical body and brain, which is what we see. The foot we have in the sea is our soul, which is something that I would say we get from God and exists in God's world. The soul I believe is responsible for generating consciousness, free will, and a moral sense, exactly like what God has.

Because our soul is the same kind of 'thing' as God and exists in His world then it's actually connected to Him in a very fundamental sense. This is what creates the notion of hell. Since God is perfect then if our soul sins God has to sever His connection to our soul, because He cannot be connected to a sinful soul. If God did stay connected to a sinful soul, then that evil would become a part of God, which He will, of course, not allow (remember the old canard, 'God will not allow sin in His presence, being a righteous God'?) This is responsible for what causes hell, because not being perfect = your soul being excluded from God = suffering (either in a hell on earth or another kind of hell). I believe this is why the Christian view of salvation is so bipolar-like.

So when Christians say 'If you remain a sinner for eternity then you will go to hell' they're really saying something like 'Don't walk in front of cars or you will be hit and potentially killed'. It's a legitimate comment because it's a warning to us of something that God cannot change - He simply cannot be connected to a soul that sins, and that equals being in hell (although I should note that the hell in this world is unjust - e.g. good people suffer but evildoers get away with evil - and that the hell in the next world will somehow be just). Souls can't be destroyed because they're made out of stuff that necessarily lives forever because the soul is made in God's image and God necessarily lives forever (Ecc 3:11).

So either we become morally perfect at some point over eternity (only having perfect intentions towards others and God) or we will always suffer.

Universalism: everyone will choose this.
Liberal exclusivism: only good people (by the world's standards) will choose this.
Orthodox Christian exclusivism: only people who accept Christ and do God's will shall choose this (and maybe some people who never got to hear about Christ).

That's the core difference between these radically opposed views (in my reading). They have to work with the basic, unchangeable fact that being a sinner for an eternity = suffering for an eternity.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Why Christians are tested; why God lets us experience doubt

I should caution that in places this contains a fair degree of theological speculation...

I think that before we had physical bodies, God made our souls (Jer 1:5) and He 'knew' how everyone would choose in an infinity of possible situations. Some people God knew would come to Him very easily, some people would come to God through a lot of effort, and some people would not come to Him at all.

In Zec 13:8-9 it says that 1/3rd of all the people in this age will be saved. That seems a bit high considering traditional talk on how hard salvation is. But it's not when you consider how many people die outside the age (children) or state (mentally disabled) of accountability, and thus go straight to heaven.

Even more people are saved than that. In the next age (where the lion lies down with the lamb) virtually everyone will be saved (Isa 33:20-24).

It's interesting to me that most people in the Kingdom of God (those outside the age/state of accountability, and the people in the next age who live in a paradise) will have undergone virtually no testing at all in their faith. But obviously, almost all Christians who are mature Christians in this world and serious about their faith undergo moderate to severe testing in their faith, in all kinds of ways ("I will refine them as silver is refined" - Zec 13:9).

I think this is because state-of-accountability Christians in this age are composed of the souls that God has identified as 'borderline cases'. There's something about us that means we need to change in some way before we will accept God's grace forever, never taking leave of it in the Kingdom. But change we can. So God puts us in difficult situations and tests us over our lives so that when we die, God knows that we have changed in ways that will allow us to accept His grace forever. Unfortunately, this testing is grievous (Heb 12:8-11). But it changes us in ways that are needed for us to live forever in God's Kingdom, so it is absolutely the right thing for God to do.

So God's will is for ALL state-of-accountability Christians in this age to be tested, possibly severely, and to pass, and He will always provide us with a way out if we choose to take it (1 Cor 10:13). So all accountability-age Christians have been inserted into history facing the specific (often painful) tests that will, with enough time, change us in ways allowing us to be with God forever. Our salvation would be in danger without these personality changes, because without growing in His word God foreknew that we would have failed at some point in the Kingdom of God by rejecting His grace.

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Original sin and God's terrible compromise

Introduction: God's terrible compromise

In a nutshell, where does our moral badness and suffering come from?

It's a result of what you might call the 'great compromise' (or terrible compromise) that God had to make to create beings that were something like Him.

Think about this: can God make another God? Can God make another being fully equal to Himself?

The answer seems to be no. God cannot make another God.

Why?

Because whatever God is, it's a 'possessive' kind of thing. Only God gets to be God, in other words. No one else can be God.

So right away, we know that to make beings in His image, God will need to make some kind of compromise. God will never be able to make beings with all the great things that He has. Other beings can never be all of what God is.

So God cannot make another God. But can He make a 'half-god', as it were? Can God make something like Himself, without making another full God?

The answer would seem to be yes. God is a possessive kind of thing that doesn't allow for another God (that's the idea behind monotheism). But He should be able to make 'half-gods', things sharing in Godness to some degree.

That's what we basically are: half-gods. We share in the 'possessive' kind of thing that God is, without being another 'full' God.

The terrible compromise that God had to make, is that the stuff making us 'half-gods' rather than a 'full' God is totally alien, totally different to God. Otherwise there'd be stuff lying around the place that is as great as God that isn't God or connected to God. So God had to make humans using stuff that has literally nothing in common with Him, because we're 'half-gods'. And that leads to problems.

Which parts of us come from God - are 'Godlike' - and which parts of us are different to God - 'less-than-God'?

We can tell what parts of humans are 'Godlike' and which parts are 'less-than-God' by comparing ourselves with the idea of a perfect, personal God.

Our reasoning and knowledge is 'less-than-God', clearly, because we don't know everything that God knows.

Our body is 'less-than-God' because we're not everywhere like God is.

Our moral sense, free will and consciousness are 'Godlike', exactly like what God has, because we are held to God's moral standard, we have free will like God, and we are self-aware like God.

Our love and other emotions are 'Godlike' because God is loving (and feels other emotions).

So our reasoning, knowledge and body have to be made out of something totally alien to God, in keeping with the idea that we're 'half-gods'. But not our moral sense, free will, consciousness, love and other emotions, that come from God (and are 'Godlike').

If the former things are in the 'less-than-God' category, and the latter things in the 'Godlike' category, then does this present any problems?

This view predicts that reason should have a quirky and uncomfortable relationship with morality, free will, consciousness, and emotions, because our reason is from the 'less-than-God' category while those other things are from the 'Godlike' category.

That's true indeed. Reason views emotion as irrational; it views free will and consciousness as a mystery; and it can just barely work out a moral system through reason by appealing to self-interest. But as self-interest is a product of irrational emotion (self-love) then even there, reason doesn't have anything to say about morality by itself.

Specifically, one of the side-effects of 'less-than-God' reason is that our reason doesn't support what our moral sense says. Our 'Godlike' moral sense says that we should always do the right thing, but our 'less-than-God' reason, in the specific way shown above, has no relationship with morality.

So our mind is pulled in different directions. On the one hand, our 'Godlike' moral sense pulls us in the direction of always doing the right thing, and our 'less-than-God' reason pulls us into passivity or to ignore our moral sense. The arbiter of which side wins out is our free will, which is in the 'Godlike' category.

But we won't pick the 'moral' side over millions of contests. So we fail (sin) frequently.

'Sin' is essentially committing a category mistake. It's treating humans as an object when we should be treating others as 'half-gods'. It's putting humans in the wrong category: 'less-than-God' rather than 'half-god'.

Our moral sense tells us what the appropriate conduct towards 'half-gods' is. The problem is that any part of our thinking that comes from the 'less-than-God' will tend to pull us away from the 'Godlike', because it's totally alien to the 'Godlike'.

It's because of sin that the 'Godlike' parts of humans have to be pushed away from God. Sin essentially corrupts the stuff we get from God, and that means that the stuff we get from God (the soul) can't be closely connected to God, which causes suffering.

So in this analysis, all of our moral failings and suffering is the result of a great and terrible compromise that God had to make to create beings in His image. Because we cannot be full Gods we must be half-gods. All of our sin is made possible by the 'less-than-God' aspect of us, which exerts a constant force to make us trip up, and not follow the moral standard of the 'God' part of us. This unfortunately prevents us from having true happiness, because our 'corrupted' God part must then be disconnected from God.

What does this have to do with original sin?

We have to be 'half-gods' - that cannot be different. But God can protect us from the 'gravity-like' pull towards making a category mistake that comes from our 'less-than-God' aspect. That's the idea behind the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve.

The idea of the Garden of Eden is a state where God protects humans from our 'less-than-God' bits by helping us only think good thoughts. That's how Adam and Eve can live with God near the 'tree of life' and not feel ashamed which arguably wasn't necessary for them to feel (shame symbolises awareness of other people's condemnation, and therefore a loss of complete innocence).

Because God didn't want to mentally enslave us, He allowed us to 'opt-out' of this system at any time, and this is what the Fall symbolises. In the Fall, humans chose to 'opt-out' of receiving God's help, which protected us from the 'less-than-God' in humans. That is, Adam and Eve symbolically exercised their free will to make it through life without help; to make choices without God's protection.

That's why Genesis says 'On the day that you, Adam, eat of this tree you shall surely die' (referring to spiritual death, which is disconnection from God). What God is referring to is that there's no way that 'half-gods' cannot sin without God protecting our thoughts, because the 'less-than-God' exerts an extremely strong force on us to get us to make 'less-than-God' choices. Without God's protection, some degree of sin is inevitable.

So on this interpretation, the tree of knowledge of good and evil didn't make us morally responsible, because Adam and Eve already were morally responsible and, up until they fell, were morally faultless. The knowledge of good and evil they received was knowledge of good and evil of their own selves rather than knowledge of good and evil controlled, moderated and mediated by God. Independent rather than dependent knowledge of good and evil (which meant that they would surely make moral mistakes, and get disconnected from God).

So if people had a 'Fall' then why didn't God just reset everything after the Fall happened?

I think the reason is that without experiencing a Fall, and knowing what God is protecting us from, everyone chooses to Fall. That's why it wouldn't have accomplished anything for God to make another Adam, because eventually, everyone chooses to Fall. So God ended up persevering with a world where people start off Fallen.

And God didn't reset Adam to a non-Fallen state because He wanted to honour Adam's choice to have God not protect Adam's thoughts.

We all share in Adam's sin in the sense that a) God foreknows that everyone would choose to Fall if *we* had been in the Garden and not Adam, and b) God honours that hypothetical choice by letting us experiencing morally wrong thoughts (lacking God's protection) to begin with.

That's the sense in which we all share in Adam's sin. Not in a direct way, but in a roundabout, indirect way.

Having a 'Fall' and losing God's protection for our moral choices isn't a completely bad thing, because afterwards people can find themselves in a non-Fallen state on much more solid ground. Why? Because experiencing sin and making a strong decision to go to a non-Fallen state puts your decision to have God protect your thoughts above any possible temptation to Fall. After experiencing sin and evil for ourselves, we know how bad it is for God not to protect humans' thoughts. That's why the people who choose to go back to a non-Fallen state, after experiencing suffering and sin, will last in a non-Fallen state forever.

In Christ, God will once again protect us from making category mistakes (sins) through grace, by the Holy Spirit working within people.

The period after original sin, and the period before the Kingdom of God, is an interregnum period. In this middle period God doesn't do anything to protect us from being pulled into sin by the 'less-than-God' in us. We need to choose to have this protective cover reinstated before it is restored, because it's very important to God that we freely choose to have it (for the sake of preserving freedom).

[Added] What about angels?

Come to think of it, there are actually beings who never choose to 'Fall' in a sense and reject God. What about the angels who never sin?

I think that angels possibly have a different kind of free will to humans. It's long thought that when an angel makes a choice, somehow the choice is 'forever'. So whereas humans constantly make choices that make them better or worse people, angels possibly only make one choice - to never sin or to sin - and then they stick with it forever. So angels somehow have the ability to 'stick' to a choice never to sin forever that humans can't do. It's because the choice to follow God comes up again and again that ensures we would all have fallen in the Garden of Eden (in my interpretation).

So why don't we all have 'angel style' free will where we make choices forever?

I think possibly for two reasons. a) The same proportion of angels disobey God as all humans reject God, so it doesn't save more people, and, b) It increases God's glory to have people constantly choose to be good over being evil, rather than only evaluate the decision once and in only one decision choose to be good over evil.

Labels: ,

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Suffering, Hell, and the Atonement

This is a series of interesting theological conjectures that deal with suffering, hell, and the atonement.

I would say that the answer to why we suffer is that when God made us in His image, He put something in us exactly like what He has (Ecc 3:11; John 10:34). What God put in us we call our 'soul'.

I think that the way a soul works is that through a miracle performed by God, our brain is made to somehow 'draw on' or 'make use of' the divine to a small extent. From that we get a soul, which is what we borrow from God, and yet we're distinct persons to God.

This 'soul' of ours gives us free will, consciousness, and a moral sense. You can't get those things from a physical body (in the sense of a person rather than a machine).

In other words, personhood, free will, consciousness, and morality are things that only God has, and we get to have them since we 'draw on' God to a small extent through a miracle performed by God.

Because our soul is borrowed from God, it is always 'hanging around' God, even though our bodies are here on earth. So while half of us is on earth, half of us is always 'up there' with God, in a sense. It's like we have one foot in the sea (our physical body) and one foot on shore (our soul that is with God, connected to the brain through a miracle).

When we sin we sin with our soul. Why? Because you need personhood, free will, and a moral sense to sin, and we get those things by borrowing from God... without those things you cannot sin, so without being a 'god' (in the sense of John 10:34) it is impossible to sin.

It's because we sin with our soul that leads to all our problems. When we sin we essentially 'corrupt' our soul. We corrupt what we've borrowed from God by doing evil which is totally against God's nature. This is a problem because God is normally connected to our soul, because our soul is borrowed from Him. But if we sin and do evil, then God has no choice but to separate the sinful soul from Himself, otherwise the soul's evil choices would transfer to God by remaining connected to God, and thereby corrupt God (another way of viewing it would be that God's holiness cannot tolerate the presence of sin).

This process causes a lot of pain - actually all the pain in human existence - because we feel through our soul and our soul is only free from pain when it is connected to God. But God is right to do it, even though it causes unimaginable suffering, because He has the right to take what steps are needed to protect Himself from our sin.

This results in a buildup of pain every second for the soul of a sinner according to a 'constant' of how much it hurts our soul not to be connected to God. This might be about 50/50 good experiences to bad experiences. People in our world who have unhappy lives have this constant 'front-loaded' so they suffer more in this life, which is then made up for in the eternity to come. Some people have it the other way around. But the constant always stays the same and is the same for every person. So every sinner who remains a sinner will ultimately end up suffering the same, necessary amount as long as they remain sinful (souls cannot be destroyed because they're made in the image of God and God is eternal).

These bad experiences don't have to be accompanied by any physical stuff, but God chooses to make them go along with physical stuff (like e.g. diseases, earthquakes, and so on) because He wants a visible cause of suffering, rather than have people suffer for no apparent reason.

The only solution is to become sinless, which allows God to keep with Him what we've borrowed from Him. This makes the person who is sinless happy in a kind of happiness that we can't imagine and have never known (1 Cor 2:9).

God enabled this to happen through the atonement, where Christ died for all possible sins that we have, or could ever have, committed. The sins were put on Christ, and through Christ's Spirit we have access to a sinless person who has the happiness of God.

Everyone who accepts Christ could be free from all suffering in the moment that they do that. God wants to accomplish something with suffering, however, which is why people who have accepted Christ still suffer (Zec 13:8-9).

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

The 'problem of evil' can never disprove God

God is infinite (1 Kings 8:27; Psalm 147:5)
God = infinity, and from infinity comes all of what God is like, which we cannot see with our finite reasoning (interesting assumption from a Christian worldview)
God-infinity = Everything (Col 1:17)
God-infinity = 1 (there can be only one God; one infinity) - Deu 6:4
Finiteness = something infinitely less than God, that can admit of distinctions (e.g. 1, 2, 3 and so on)
To make beings like Him God had to make us partly infinite and partly finite, rather than completely infinite, because all of infinity = God
= We have to be made partly infinite and partly finite (Ecc 3:11)
The infinite part of humans = our soul
Our reasoning had to be made finite
Finite reasoning is infinitely less than the reasoning of God
= Finite reasoning can't understand the things of God
= We can never understand the things of the soul
= We can never fully understand the things of God and the soul like e.g. why there must be a God-infinity rather than nothing, why God must be the way that He is, suffering, free will, consciousness, morality and so on through our reason (but only through revelation and faith). God literally *cannot* tell us the answer to these questions in a comprehensive way to finite reasoning

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Why Did God Create Hell?

A lot of Christian thinkers say that God is infinite. Here's an interesting thought: what if God IS infinity in a way that we don't or can't understand? What if infinity and God are the same thing observed from different vantage points?

An interesting fact about infinity is that it is always a whole that cannot be divided into parts (infinity - 10 = infinity, infinity + a billion = infinity.) So you can't separate some of infinity from infinity.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has placed infinity in the human heart, which makes us in His image as He is an infinite God. I think what this means is that through His power God allows our brain to 'draw on' infinity somehow, which gives us a 'soul'. We're creatures because we're also finite - our brain contributes to who we are, and the brain is finite. We have to be partly finite because there can only be one infinity/one God.

Somehow, we get our *own* personality when our brain draws on infinity. So we aren't God, even though our soul is one with God. How this can be is a mystery.

So we sin through what is, ultimately, one with God - a soul.

Picture that helps illustrate this [click to enlarge]



This means that when a soul sins God can't disconnect Himself from that soul, because souls are infinite and infinity is always one (it cannot be divided). Therefore, to protect Himself from the sinful soul God has to 'cast' that soul into 'outer darkness' (in a sense), to the very periphery of God. Otherwise, because infinity is always together, the soul's choice to sin would spread to God and make God sin as well. This causes the sinner to suffer because they ARE that soul, and being 'pushed' away from God is very painful (Romans 5:12-14). That's why we suffer: it's a side-effect of God shielding Himself from our soul's choice to sin, which He has to do because our soul (being infinite) is one with God.

Having said that, I don't know why we suffer in the way that we do (i.e. from earthquakes, diseases and so on). That's a mystery.

This also explains why hell exists: if a person never becomes sinless then they must live at the very 'edge' of God forever. A soul, being taken from God, must have an eternally living nature (I think this accounts for the strong Biblical link between suffering and hell - "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6:8)

Labels: , ,

Monday, December 08, 2008

Understanding Suffering (Short Version)

Note: this article is only trying to defend Christianity to those who say that it doesn't make any sense, and doesn't go beyond that and argue for its Christian assumptions... Read a longer version here, and I've recorded a podcast of it here.

How did God make us in His image (Gen 1:27)? Did God make creatures in His image by giving them reason?

We're not made in the image of God because we can reason, since computers and calculators can reason in a sense and aren't made in the image of God. So when God made us in His image He gave us something more than reason...

Let's look at the God who made us. God is infinite. How can anything finite be made in the image of the infinite? You cannot get anything more different than the finite and the infinite. If God is infinite, then how can we have anything in common with God?

And yet to say that humans are infinite like God would put us on God's level. Also, we're obviously not infinitely smart.

I think that we are made in the image of God because God puts some infinity in us, but we're not completely infinite like Him. In this way we have something in common with God, and have inferior reasoning and knowledge. See Ecc 3:11 "God has set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end".

But why wouldn't God make us completely infinite? Because only God can be completely infinite (Deu 6:4). God 'encompasses every infinity in His being', and that means that there can be only one God; God cannot make another God.

Because only God can be completely infinite, God has to make us out of finite stuff (like the brain) as well as infinite stuff. In practice, this means that we must have finite reasoning and knowledge (Matt 24:36).

We borrow from this infinite God whatever we have in common with God, like feeling, love, morality, free will and so on. What every person has borrowed from God is called their 'soul' (John 10:34).

The fact that our soul is infinite means that we can never understand it fully. Why? Because the logic of the infinite world is really different to the logic of the finite world, and we can only reason using the logic of the finite world.

Here's an example (more here): try giving infinity a value. Let's say that infinity equals the undefined value 'X'. In finite reasoning X + X must equal 2X. But infinity always remains infinity. So if we say that infinity = 'X', then X + X equals 2X... but X + X also equals X (because we're dealing with infinity). That would imply that 1 = 2.

OK, so why is this relevant to the problem of suffering?

Without our soul (something from the infinite world) there would be nobody 'in there' to feel stuff (animals also have souls but not understanding Job 39:13-17). So although we suffer because of problems like hurricanes, diseases and earthquakes, we also suffer because we have a soul that we borrow from God.

So no wonder we can't completely understand why we suffer, because we suffer through an infinite object, i.e. we suffer because of what goes on in the world of the soul (Rom 5:12-14)... creatures with finite reasoning just can't understand that stuff.

So the problem of suffering shouldn't be seen as a problem just because we don't know the answer in a way that would explain everything. We should feel able to rely on what the Bible says about it because it's impossible to get close to the answer using finite reasoning any other way.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Problem of Suffering and the Answer to Job

The Problem of Suffering and the Answer to Job

I want to talk here about what I currently think about the problem of suffering, the problem of why a good God allows us to suffer when he could help us. (Note: I've recorded a podcast of this article here).

SUMMARY: I think that God is infinite and that people are partly infinite and partly finite. I say partly infinite because I think that we have to be partly infinite to be made in the image of an infinite God and relate to him. We can't be fully infinite like God because God alone can be fully infinite, but we can be partly infinite. Through the infinite part of us - our soul, we get the ability to feel stuff e.g. happiness and suffering, free will, morality, and so on, like God. Other living things have a soul as well but not understanding (Job 39:13-17). Through the finite part of us we get everything else, including our reasoning and understanding. Why is this important? Because if suffering comes to humans through our infinite soul... and finite reason can never fully understand the infinite... then we can never fully understand that through which suffering comes: our infinite soul. And I'd say that means never understanding suffering the way God knows about it. And it had to be this way. That's why it's OK for Christians not to know the answer to why we suffer in a way that would please philosophers, because we can probably never know the answer in such a way. So we should feel able to trust God's answer in the Bible.

In what sense are humans made in the image of God (Gen 1:27)? Is it being able to think that makes us in God's image?

Maybe. But then again, computers can think in a sense. With advanced enough technology, we could easily make thinking computers just as smart as we are. So either humans can design and build stuff in God's image, or being made in God's image is something more than this.

Let's look at the God who made us. There's an important distinction that people often forget about God, which is that he is infinite. Not infinitely good, or infinitely smart, but actually infinite. So we're made in the image of an infinite God.

This raises an interesting question: how can anything finite be made in the image of the infinite? You literally cannot imagine anything more different than a finite object and an infinite object. Humans in one sense have more in common with rocks than with God if we're finite, because at least rocks are finite. Yeah, but rocks can't think, you might say. But if thinking is just a matter of doing mental calculations, then actually we have more in common with computers than with God, because computers can 'think' in a sense and are also finite like we are. And advanced enough computers could think as intelligently as humans or be even more intelligent.

So there are a couple of problems with thinking that we have much in common with God if we're finite and God is infinite. Actually, it's relatively common to think that our finite language and knowledge are utterly inadequate to talk about the infinite hence = agnosticism.

Yet the apparent alternative of saying that humans are infinite like God makes no sense... it's even worse than saying that we're finite. If we were infinite then we could do an infinite number of calculations a second. Obviously, we can't. Being infinite would also make us equal to God, which is not the Christian view. Does this mean that we have to see humans as being *finitely* made in God's image, despite the problems?

But could there be a third option? What if you said that humans are partly infinite and partly finite? That way you could have the best of both worlds. If you said that human reasoning, knowledge and bodies are finite then you could make sense of our limited knowledge, power and understanding. And by saying that we're partly infinite you could show how we're made in the image of an infinite God without making humans in any way equal to God.

But why are we partly infinite rather than completely infinite? It's easy enough to suggest a reason: God *is* the infinite, all that is infinite is God, and there can be only one infinite ("Hear O Israel: the Lord is our God, and the Lord is one" - Deu 6:4). So through God's power we can use (or 'borrow') some of the infinite, but not all of it, as then we'd be God.

We're made in the image of God, and that means that we're like God in some way. What is God like? He feels things: happiness, love, hurt, joy, anger and so on. We're like that as well. Where do we get it from? I'd say from our infinite part. God has free will, so we get free will from there as well. And moral knowledge in the same way. Our infinite part could be called our (infinite) 'soul'.

But because we can't be fully infinite, we have to be made out of parts that are not infinite, and that means finite parts. Finite parts are infinitely less than God. So the rest of us, whatever isn't our soul, has to be made out of finite stuff, and that stuff is our physical body in this universe. Through God's power the infinite can interact with the finite in this way.

It's because every creature had to be made partly finite that God had to give all his creatures finite reasoning and understanding. There's something about having infinite reasoning that is one and the same with being fully infinite, and only God can be fully infinite, see for instance Matt 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only". Also see Ecclesiastes 3:11 "God has set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end". I.e. our soul is infinite, but our reasoning is finite, because only God can be fully infinite.

There's a question of how we can have our own personality if we're actually borrowing our soul from God. I would speculate that as long as not all of infinity is used (i.e. all of God), then God can reuse infinity as many times as he wants to make many creatures. And that through our finite body and infinite soul interacting we take on our own personality different to God's.

But is there any need for a soul? Can't the brain account for why people act the way they do?

Well, just because we see our brain working when we make decisions doesn't mean that the brain is all that a human is. God needs to connect the finite to the infinite to make creatures, because creatures cannot be all-infinite. We must get our reasoning from something in the finite world, so why not use the brain as the source of finite reasoning and knowledge in humans? So clearly God has to give the brain a lot to do, since it is responsible for our reasoning, knowledge, and carrying out the free choices that we make through our soul. When we look at the brain doing lots of things, we're really looking at the brain doing its required tasks as the finite aspect of humanity (whereas we cannot look at the soul, as that's actually infinite.)

Wait a second, if we get the stuff that makes us like God from the infinite soul, then that means we get feeling from the soul. But don't we get feeling from the brain?

Not in the way we might think. God wanted to put something in our brains that would allow us to react quickly and easily when something happened in the physical world. So when a person reacts to pain, God wanted there to be something in the brain that would allow a quick response to pain. God wants our bodies to have automatic responses, to deal quickly and easily with situations that come up. And that requires circuitry in the brain that deals with emotions and feelings more generally. But I don't think that the circuitry in the brain actually does feel anything, I think it's just like the circuitry in a computer, only organic and a lot more complicated. It only helps our bodies react/act when we make choices in the infinite world. The circuitry itself feels nothing, any more than a box or a couch feels anything.

God has also given infinite souls to animals and other living things so that they can feel things. We can know this because our moral intuitions tell us that animals need to be protected, that come from God. They are given much less understanding of the things of God, however (Job 39:13-17).

Note: my attempt in the preceding section to make feeling things and suffering a part of the infinite world is *very* important for my argument.

OK, interesting thoughts, but what does this imply? I'll talk about what it implies for human reasoning and our ability to understand God before moving on to the problem of suffering.

If God is infinite and our reasoning is finite, then we have serious issues with ever understanding God through our reason. This is because finite reasoning can't deal with the infinite up close, but always has to approach it from a distance. That is, we always have to use the finite to understand the infinite. This means that we could be missing out on a lot of what the infinite is like when we talk about it. Also, the stuff we've worked out about the infinite sounds absurd and is hard to get one's head around.

For example, take the paradox of the Grand Hotel by David Hilbert. In theory, you should be able to put a guest in every room of a hotel. But what if the hotel is an infinite hotel? Well, you can't ever fill an infinite hotel with any finite number of guests. No matter how many guests go to the hotel, there will always be room, because the person in room 1 can move to room 2, 2 to 3, 3 to 4, and so on ad infinitum. Like you can't think of a 'highest' number (someone could beat you by adding a zero on the end of your number.) You would have to get an infinite number of guests to fill an infinite hotel.

This shows how the finite is an entirely different kind of number to the infinite, or different concept. The finite deals with the finite and can't interact with the infinite without help from the infinite. The infinite deals with the infinite, and through God's power can deal with the finite. They're very different concepts; the infinite isn't just 'much bigger' than the finite, but a different kind of thing. A difference of quality rather than quantity.

Another example of an infinite paradox is the paradox of the circle. Suppose you have a circle and a line to every point of the circle. You need an actually infinite number of lines to go to every point of the circle, because otherwise when you zoom in there'll be gaps. OK, suppose you've drawn that circle and the lines. Now draw a much larger circle around that circle. And make the lines you previously drew go out to that even bigger circle. Now, according to finite logic, when you look at those lines in enough depth, there should be tiny gaps between them when they go out to the much larger circle, because that circle is, well, much larger. But that's not the case. No gaps will ever appear between the lines going out to the much larger circle, no matter how much you zoom in, because infinity is always infinity. This is a rather counterintuitive mystery of infinity.

You can also use infinity to show that 1 = 2.

Let's assign infinity some value. Like X. Let's say that infinity = X.

OK, now let's add infinity to infinity. What does infinity + infinity equal? Surely two infinities (using finite logic). So if we say that infinity equals X, then infinity plus infinity must equal 2X.

But infinity always has the same value. So infinity plus infinity remains infinity. That means that if we assign a value to infinity then we can show that numbers that are inherently different are the same.

So infinity = X. Infinity + infinity = 2X. But infinity is always the same, so infinity + infinity = X. But this means that 2X = X. That would imply that 1 = 2.

So infinity can be used to show that 1 = 2. This shows that there are clearly 'issues' with using our reasoning to understand infinity, to say the least.

We find infinity so hard to understand because God really 'messed up' our reasoning when he made us. He did this so that he *could* make us (in line with my earlier explanation of only God being able to be fully infinite). No matter how smart people or computers get, we'll never even approach the kind of reasoning that God has. No matter how smart we get we'll still think in finite terms and use finite reasoning, even if everyone had an IQ of six billion. God is not just smarter than us, but has a different quality of reasoning, and understands things that it's not just a matter of 'smartness' to understand. You can't be smart enough to understand these things and still be finite. If we could understand them, then we'd be God. No angel or human will ever understand these issues (it reminds me of Matt 24:36 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only".)

I'll now use what I've written to talk about suffering.

When atheists and Christians talk about suffering, they generally assume the 'commonsense' view of reality. In this view, when a hurricane hits, it seems obvious that someone could have been able to stop it. After all, we affect the physical world when we pick up a book, and we know that if we had really advanced technology then we could easily stop hurricanes. God, who is much more powerful than us, could easily stop the winds from blowing that hard, and could easily stop earthquakes and so on, which we could do with advanced enough technology. In fact, very advanced aliens who wanted to help us could probably get rid of all the suffering in the world. Am I saying that God is less powerful than extraterrestrial civilisations only a few hundred or thousand years more advanced than us?

Well obviously, if suffering was just in the finite world, and was just a 'finite world problem' then I'd have to agree with the atheist critic completely. Clearly, in the finite world, it would not be hard to stop any suffering. But there's a real question about which world the Christian is talking about when we talk about God preventing suffering... what if suffering is an 'infinite world' problem? What if suffering comes through the infinite world of the soul? It's not clear that the Christian is saying something illogical or odd sounding about the finite world... he/she could be saying something illogical or odd sounding about the *infinite world*. And that world could well have a really, really different logic to the world we see around us. This situation could frustrate people's attempts to disprove God.

Is suffering *really* a finite world problem? Suffering definitely manifests itself in the finite world and is affected by what we do there... but it doesn't seem like a finite world problem. Let me explain. Earlier I said that the ability to feel stuff comes from the infinite soul and brain working together. The body shapes the feelings, the feelings themselves come through the soul: the part of us made in God's image, the part of us that's actually infinite, that we borrow from God in some sense, that is actually 'up there' in the infinite world with God in some sense. So suffering doesn't actually come from things such as hurricanes or earthquakes, although those are immediate causes of suffering. Suffering must ultimately come from the infinite world, through our souls. So it sounds like suffering is in many ways an infinite world problem!

Sure, suffering manifests itself in the finite world, but the ultimate cause of and ultimate solution to suffering really has nothing to do with the finite world. I say ultimate solution because clearly we can lessen the amount of suffering in the finite world with our actions. Thinking finitely you could say that we create suffering everywhere in the world when we choose to sin, and God can't take this suffering away without cutting off our freedom completely, although this is just a finite reasoning guess. It's possible that God has made it so that suffering is reflected, like a mirror reflects images, in the finite world when suffering is created everywhere through sin, so that people don't suffer without any visible cause. So we would suffer, for example, from natural disasters. God needs to do stuff in the infinite world to get rid of suffering, not the finite world. And I'd imagine that God tries to lessen suffering as much as he can in the infinite world, since that's the only place where there can be a solution. I would not say that my attempt just then to explain suffering has to be right, the point is that suffering is mostly not a finite world issue.

There are a couple of difficulties here: although suffering is an infinite, not finite, world issue, it seems to be lessened and affected by what goes on in the finite world, which seems a little contradictory. It also seems contradictory that we can reduce suffering, but an all powerful God cannot even though he's doing everything he can to help us. This is one of the reasons why I'm appealing to suffering being an infinite mystery, through making suffering an infinite experience of an infinite soul. I hope that infinite logic (whatever that might be like) could explain such an odd situation.

Let's take a look at what the Bible says about suffering, to see what kind of logic might apply in the infinite world with regard to suffering:

Romans 5:12-14 "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned - sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

So is Paul saying here that Adam's sin caused all the suffering in the world? When I first read this I used to think 'Huh? How does that even work?' Atheists would probably think that this sounds ridiculous... indeed it does, according to finite world logic. There is a very weird cause and effect thing going on here. How on earth does a couple of people's sins a long time ago affect anything today? It makes very little sense using our reasoning. (Note: The relationship between sin and suffering is probably very hard to understand, not direct or simple like we might think it is.)

Where I'm going with these thoughts is the idea that even though something like Romans 5 makes little sense in the finite world it could make complete sense in the infinite world. This opens the way for us to look at suffering with a Biblical perspective once we accept that suffering is an *infinite world* problem.

Philosophers often complain, why doesn't God just come down and tell us the solution to the problem of suffering if he exists? Why doesn't he explain everything to us and then we'll stop arguing against his existence?

The thing is, I don't actually think that God can even articulate the whole 'suffering issue' fully using finite language. It's an infinite world problem. Sure, God can give us the main points, clarify why we suffer to a good degree, and we'll certainly know that his explanation is right if he appears to the world and tells us himself. That would be nice, and would satisfy our doubts. But can we really know why we suffer in the way God knows why we suffer? The answer, I think, is no. Even when we get to heaven, all we're going to know is as good an answer as can be articulated in finite language, describing what is really an infinite world problem. We can no more understand something like our consciousness, free will or suffering than perfectly understand infinity, although God can hopefully give us the main points and maybe add a few layers of philosophical 'varnish'. Our conversation with God in heaven about suffering will be much like God trying to explain to us what it's like to be fully infinite. It's going to be interesting, but ultimately we won't be able to follow the reasoning very well because there's a lot of stuff there that finite reasoning just can't understand. Hopefully we'll get the main points.

That said, God has told us the truth in the Bible. He has actually told us pretty much what we're going to hear when we get to heaven about the problem of suffering, in passages such as Romans 5. Literally, in a way that we can't understand, that we will probably never understand fully even with God's help, Adam's sin (or the original proto-humans if you accept theistic evolution) caused all the suffering in the world. This suffering had to happen; God could not have prevented or lessened the suffering in our world without damaging an even greater good. This 'odd situation' arose somehow (considering God is perfectly good and powerful) through Adam's sin, because of which people in our world suffered terribly. And somehow it was a greater good for Adam to have that freedom even though it caused all our suffering (or if this sounds too strange, you could say that we were all present in the Garden and came to our current world at different times in history, and Adam and Eve are symbolic for us.) God told us the truth in Romans, it's just that there are missing puzzle pieces to contextualise the what, when and why in a way that would please philosophers.

When God does tell us why we suffered, when we get to heaven, I don't think the answer he's going to give is going to be a matter-of-fact 'This is why'. I think that the 'best' stuff God will use to help us understand suffering in heaven, the really helpful stuff, will be in providing the context (like this talk of infinity) for *why* we can't understand suffering fully, and our experience of God's love for us in heaven (Rev 21:4) which will comfort us in letting us know that there is an answer. I think that a big part of why no philosopher has solved the problem of suffering is that the answer can't be very easily translated into finite concepts or thought, and so Romans 5 is close to the best that we'll ever get.

To sum up: we are in a sense in the permanent situation of Job when it comes to understanding suffering. Many believe that God avoided giving an answer to Job, or made excuses to Job. The reality is that no matter how God tries to explain it to us, the answer isn't going to get much better than Romans 5. By answering Job the way that he did, God tried to make this situation plain to people (Job 42:3).

The thing is, this intellectual stuff can never get us anywhere, even if we had God as our personal teacher. In fact, our intellect will never get us anywhere with God. The infinite world is so totally different to the finite world that it's an entirely different way of existing, and finite reasoning can only ever see it through finite eyes. You'd need infinite reasoning and infinite concepts to know intellectually what God is like. This means to know about God we have to relate to God using the stuff that we have in common with God, the infinite stuff that humans and God share. And that is: feeling, morality, free will, love and so on, not anything from the intellect. Or we can know key points about God through revelation. This means that to know about God we have to connect with him on a personal level rather than on a level of abstract ideas which, being finite, can never know much at all about God (1 Cor 1:19-21). If anywhere, this is where the best intellectual answer to the problem of suffering is to be found.

Labels: ,

Monday, September 29, 2008

My Approach to the Problem of Evil in a Nutshell

365 words

Say, first of all, that God originally makes everyone perfect and free, and this means giving people the freedom to sin.

If they choose to sin then they have to go through a laborious process to be made perfect again. Next go around they're perfect as long as they make a certain choice.

Think of this choice as a 'deep' choice that should be made over a long time, kind of like the choice to be a good person. This means that God has to let people who are imperfect be imperfect for a while.

Now, with the problem of evil, just find a way to 'make stuff up' or 'insert theology' into the idea of God so that people being imperfect = people suffering. Just make stuff up so that while people are in the 'choosing stage' there has to be a whole lot of suffering that God can't stop.

What's some stuff you can insert into your theology to make people being imperfect = people suffering? You could say that as long as people are imperfect they have to suffer a little bit from their sin... a small amount of suffering every minute, and not even God with all his power can stop this.

But this doesn't fit with science, which sees no reason for us having to suffer. Well then say that the physical world is like a 'veil' in front of us, and we're really spiritual beings in spiritual space, who have to suffer, and God makes us only see the physical world.

But then how come no one experiences suffering like this? Because God passes the suffering around from person to person and sometimes focuses it in really intense bursts. He makes suffering happen in really random, unfair ways, and makes us see it in terms of bad physical stuff (I believe God has a reason to hide the spiritual world).

But isn't this unfair distribution a serious problem? It's hard to know why God does this... but the necessary suffering has to be felt by someone, and we all contribute to it equally by existing as imperfect people. Maybe there's a reason, so this can be a decent defense.

Added Note 10/3/08 about God's redistribution of suffering (for those interested)

Maybe part of the reason God distributes suffering in our world so unjustly is that making evil people suffer uses up hardly any suffering, because they're evil.

In other words, an innocent person suffering a given horrible event might use up 10 units of suffering, whereas an evildoer suffering the same thing would only use up 1 or 2 units of suffering (or even none at all if they really deserved it.)

This could be because evil people deserve to suffer from their evil actions, regardless of whether they are physically brought to justice by a court of law or other people, because of their evildoing.

This could help explain God's distribution of suffering in our world. In this theory, making evil people suffer gets rid of hardly any necessary suffering... so even if you make every evil person in the world suffer you still have to dispense the vast majority of suffering to the innocent.

The question then becomes: is it better to have a system where some evil people live happy lives, and the vast majority of suffering goes to the innocent, or is it better to have a system where all evil people suffer terribly, and the innocent suffer a tiny bit less?

Well, given the almost insignificant contribution the suffering of evildoers makes to using up the total amount of suffering, then maybe it's OK to let evildoers be happy. This could give them a chance to repent. Meanwhile, good people in this plan who have to suffer a little bit more could be rewarded with happiness beyond their ability to imagine in heaven.

Also, truly good people on this model would enjoy heaven or a happy afterlife regardless of how much they suffer in this life, but the truly evil may never experience joy again after a brief interlude of momentary good feelings in this life (i.e. they'd be stuck in humanity's current situation, in a world full of evil, which could be thought of as hell, instead of moving on to heaven.) So maybe it's nice of God to allow them to enjoy some genuine happiness in their existence.

If this theory makes sense, then you could explain God's seemingly unjust distribution of suffering in our world a lot better.

Labels:

Friday, September 05, 2008

A Theoretical Solution to the Problem of Evil, Logically

A Theoretical Solution to the Problem of Evil, Logically
Will G

This is my attempt at explaining in logical form why I think God allows suffering. It doesn't add a whit of evidence to the claim that God exists, but if you already believe in God, and want to defend your belief against the declaration that it doesn't make any sense, then this argument could be useful. I think that the assumptions work and if you're a Christian I think they should be fairly acceptable. It might be a bit impenetrable to the casual reader but at least it brings out into the open some of my assumptions in dealing with suffering...

Assumptions:

General:

A1. God is all loving, all knowing and all powerful.
A2. The definition of an all loving God is that God tries to prevent suffering as far as he can, unless allowing suffering in a specific case is necessary to creating an even greater good.
A3. The definition of an all knowing God is that God knows everything that it is possible for any one being to know (i.e. if some knowledge requires you to be someone, and some knowledge requires you to be someone else, then God doesn't need to know to know all that stuff, only the most that any one being can know.)
A4. The definition of an all powerful God is that God can do anything that can be translated into a language or thought. This excludes some actions that cannot be translated into either mathematics or logic, for example, God cannot make a true major premise, a true minor promise, with valid syllogistic logic, lead to a false conclusion. This is because that cannot be translated properly into language or thought - only 'rigorously analysable tasks' can be done by God.
A5. God really wants to make other people apart from him, and will do so if it's morally justified.
A6. God is morally justified in creating a world with terrible suffering as long it is a necessary step to creating a perfect world with happiness for everyone or almost everyone (note: selectivity in salvation not mentioned to simplify things.)

Assumptions specifically for the argument:

A7. God is infinite.
A8. Only God can be infinite.
A9. God can create finite beings.
A10. All finite beings must be created with the desire to do evil in at least one hypothetical situation.*
A11. Every intelligent being must be made in God's image, to a greater or lesser extent.
A12. Any being made in God's image who would do evil in at least one hypothetical situation must suffer terribly. This is not anything inflicted by God, but must happen from the nature of the 'soul'. God cannot stop it as long as the person is disposed to act wrongfully in even one situation.
A13. God cannot remove the suffering 'due' to a person as long as they might do evil. So the total amount of suffering in the world depends on the number of beings with flawed desires and cannot be reduced except by changing the number of morally flawed people. However, he can move suffering around, i.e. move suffering due to person A to person B, ensuring person A experiences less suffering and person B more. He can also transfer suffering between people who are alive at different times.
A14. The number of situations a person would act wrongfully in doesn't affect the amount of evil 'due' to them. That is, a person who would act wrongfully in just one situation is still due the same amount of suffering as someone who'd act wrongfully in almost every situation.**
A15. God regularly transfers suffering due to some people to other people.
A16. Assumption 15 is somehow compatible with God being good (perhaps from rewards in the afterlife?)
A17. Assumption 15 is somehow compatible with suffering seeming to come from physical things, like hurricanes, diseases, and people inflicting evil on one another with physical weapons. It's compatible because we live behind a 'veil'. Behind the veil we're spiritual beings who suffer. In front of the veil we see the physical world. What goes on behind the veil is the true cause of suffering and happiness, and what goes on in front of it, in the physical world, is only meant to go along with what has been decided upon for the world behind the veil, the spiritual world.
A18. God can change finite beings so that they would never want to do evil in any situation, even though they don't start off that way.
A19. God requires finite beings to accept something before he can make that happen.
A20. God must honour people's free will when he offers to do something to them that makes them never want to do evil. There is absolutely no coercion of any kind possible.***
A21. It is logically impossible for someone to accept something without experiencing a moment of thought.
A22. If someone is accepting a change to their situation, which needs to be accepted before the situation changes, then the change cannot yet be in effect while they are accepting it.
A23. To accept the benefits of perfection offered to us by God, we have to make a choice equivalent to 'I choose to be a good person.'****
A24. A choice like 'I choose to be a good person' is better made over many moments rather than very quickly, since it's a long-term kind of choice.*****
A25. Even an all knowing, all powerful God must work within what these assumptions say he can and cannot do. To go against these assumption would be like saying two plus two equals ninety-nine - to say such a thing is not to make sense. So it's not surprising that an all powerful God has these limitations. If I haven't illustrated why a given limitation applies to an all powerful God, then it's OK to believe it does regardless of the lack of further explanation.

The argument:

1. From A7, A8, A9, A10, A18, A19, A20, A21, A22, if God chose to make anyone, he had to make them morally flawed for at least one thought.
2. From A11, A12, A13, as long as there are a lot of morally flawed people then there must be terrible suffering.
3. From (1), (2), if God to chose to make anyone, then there would have to be terrible suffering in the world for at least one thought.
4. From (3), A23, A24, if God chose to make anyone, then there would have to be terrible suffering in the world for a long time, not just one thought.
5. From (4), if God wants to make a perfect world for people, where people can be truly happy forever, he has to make a world where people experience terrible suffering for a long time.
6. From A5, A6, if God exists then he will make a world with terrible suffering that goes on for a long time as long as it is a necessary step to creating a perfect world.
7. From (5), (6), if God exists then he will make a world with (possibly) as much suffering as our world, where the suffering goes on for a long time like in our world.
8. From (7) and A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, our world can be made to look like this hypothetical world that God is justified in creating. This is because first of all, the fact that different people suffer differently can be explained by God taking evil from some people at various times and giving it to other people at other times. Secondly, God is somehow justified in doing this. Thirdly, the seeming fact that what happens physically appears to relate to evil is an illusion because we only see in front of the 'veil' when we see the physical world, and suffering is really determined in the world of spirits.
9. From (7), (8), A25, the evil in our world is not evidence against the existence of an all loving, all knowing, and all powerful God because if such a God existed then he could have very well created a world exactly like our world.

Conclusion:

Major weakpoints. First of all, why is God limited in these ways? Why, for example, does being morally flawed generate suffering and why can't God get rid of the suffering without doing all this stuff? Also why can't God make finite beings who are morally perfect? These are the two biggest assumptions. They're important because it's not clear why an all powerful God must face these obstacles. So as long as they're not explained in more depth it's not clear that this idea of God is one that is all powerful. However, I think they could be better explained and justified, so this argument gives a good outline of my thinking on this.

Notes:

*Note: Part of my understanding of original sin. I actually mean tempted to do evil such that they would actually do the evil if they could. If someone was tempted to do evil, but would never actually give in to the temptation no matter what the situation, then they would not suffer. I also mean evil in the sense of 'blameworthy'; sometimes people do 'technically' evil things that don't deserve a lot of (or any) blame (e.g. soldiers killing other soldiers in war.)
**Note 2: This assumption is meant to pre-empt the objection that if suffering is generated by people's evil choices, then it seems grotesquely unfair the way suffering is distributed so randomly. Because a really evil person would be responsible for a huge amount of suffering, while many people would be responsible for hardly any, or none. So it would seem really, really unfair for Hitler or other evildoers not to suffer their own evil. But by saying everyone contributes the same amount of suffering into the 'common pool' of suffering, if they are even slightly imperfect, it is made somewhat more possible to argue that God distributes suffering around in a seemingly unjust way. In this view, a bad evildoer and a pretty good person contribute the same amount to a 'common pool' of suffering, which makes redistribution a bit more possible to believe in.
***Note 3: This doesn't necessarily have to involve 'free will'. It could be choice in the sense of 'rational autonomy' which is compatible with the idea that free will is an illusion and what we're really talking about when we talk about free will is someone choosing in line with their desires. This means that God creates finite beings with a random distribution of good and bad desires in a deterministic fashion, which presumably means God can't only make people with good desires. But why can't God only make people with good desires? Well maybe there's some kind of 'you have to make a whole lot of them in a bunch with random personality attributes' quality to making people. Hey, it's possible. Or if you think 'free will' makes sense then God literally can't make only people who would choose to do good because people's personality characteristics are determined randomly after they've been created (that's the opposite of 'determinism' - randomness). And somehow the randomness is a good thing.
****Note 4: I technically leave it open as to whether everyone is saved or only some. If it's everyone then everyone eventually chooses to be a good person and so everyone is eventually saved. If not then not everyone chooses to be a good person and so not everyone is eventually saved. This would imply that God can't only make people who would choose to be a good person (as mentioned above) otherwise he wouldn't create 'un-savable' people, but I've left this further assumption out of the argument.
*****Note 5: This is quite different from the Christian idea of God who creates or requires, depending on your view, a 'real faith that produces works' before someone can be said to be saved. This makes it seem less plausible that God would take a very long time to bring in a perfect world, because he could create real faith in people very quickly and then bring in a perfect world very quickly. A compromise between the usefulness of this idea and the Christian view would be to say that we do have a hand in producing 'real faith' in ourselves, and that God needs Christians to choose to have real faith before we can be said to be saved, which (it seems) should also take place over a long time like the choice to be a good person. And he makes sure that all Christians who will be saved do make this choice before they die. So that would seem to require a bit of time to happen, so God would take a while before bringing a perfect world into being. One problem is that a pretty small number of people would end up saved relative to everyone, which would leave most people behind in a universe with some suffering (i.e. hell.) This might be OK if the universe with suffering a) Wasn't too bad and b) Was permanently adjusted for you depending on how bad you were in this life. So for example a really good person who never became a Christian would have a pretty good existence in hell, but someone like Hitler would have a terrible existence, since the suffering due to the really good people would be given to him, because Hitler is evil and the really good people are good. In other words really good people in this life are actually pretty happy for an eternity even though they're in hell/not in heaven. I think this is probably what hell is; exactly the same as this world except evil is distributed less randomly. So hell isn't a special creation of God to torment people, it's just another universe exactly like ours except the same amount of suffering as was present in our world is distributed according to moral goodness, to deal with the people who didn't or can't choose to go to the 'highest heaven' (to be with God.) This means we are already in hell in a sense; actually our world is probably much worse than hell because the distribution of (necessary) suffering in this world is so unjust.

Labels: