"Thanks for having me over for Easter dinner," Charley said amiably. "That lamb was really good. Say, that's not a symbol for you or anything?" he asked with an innocent look.
"Don't go there, Charley," my wife said with a warning look.
"It being Easter, I just thought..."
"Charley."
"OK, ok, I was just funnin' you."
"Don't make fun of religion," she said. "It's important to lots of people. A lot of us need to believe that religion is good, that God is good."
"What would you do if you was God?" Charley asked.
"I'm not getting into that with you today," she said, and went into the kitchen, giving me a raised eyebrow as she went.
"How about you?" he asked me.
"What do you mean, Charley? Are you asking me what I would do different?"
"I was thinking, no matter how big the company, the CEO needs a performance review from time to time."
"You want to rate God, Charley?" I asked incredulously.
"Oh, I know it sounds funny," Charley said. "We don't have all the information, of course. But we got a lot of information just based on what we do know about. Here's an example, from what we were talking about last week, that Japanese tidal wave thing. Would you have sent that wave to kill all those men, women and children?"
"Probably not," I acknowledged.
"Why not?"
"I don't think there is any way they could all have deserved that."
"So I guess you're saying that God didn't show good judgment, or else he did have good judgment and just didn't care. And you yerself would be more forgiving and kind than God. Hmmm."
"Well, maybe there were reasons that we don't know about."
"Don't have to know the reasons behind a mass murder to know it wasn't good. So you'd give God a low rating on the tidal wave."
"Yes, I guess so," I said.
"Would you rate yourself higher than a mass murderer?"
"Charley, you're going pretty far!"
"Oh, yeah? Because I object to anybody killing a hundred thousand people or so? I remember you being pretty mad at Timothy McVeigh, and he didn't kill near that many. How would you go about believing in or worshipping a god that wasn't even as nice or kind as you? and that ain't saying much about you either. That always amazes me. People worship a god they actually believe they are superior to."
"Well," I said, "they don't think that way. They just figure that God has reasons they can't understand."
"That's a cop-out. If you were a judge trying a murder case, would you accept an argument from the killer that we 'just couldn't understand his reasons'?"
"No," I answered. "I think that for most people it's important to believe in some kind of reason in the universe, even if they can't understand it, and even if he (or she) lets bad things happen."
"I think it'd be pretty hard to worship a God who lets wicked things happen. Now, I ain't the most moral of men, but I believe I could do a kinder and more just job than the incumbent."
"If there's an election, Charley, let me know so I can be sure and vote".
"Thanks,Harry. I don't really care about who ya vote for, but I think you oughta give a lot of thought to your reasons And thanks again for the dinner."
"You're welcome," my wife said from the kitchen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd have to say that, on the surface, this appears to be a good point that Charley is making. However, it is very much an appeal to emotion. Looking at this logically, I guess I'd have to ask Charley if he believes it's impossible or merely improbable for God and suffering to coexist.
ReplyDeleteGood question. However, "Charley" is not being emotional when he suggests that we can judge the performance of God using the best human standard we can, and by absolutely any measure, God does not come out well. Charley says to tell you that if you get to take credit, you also got to take blame.
ReplyDeleteI'd tell Charley that this "problem of evil" has historically been a difficult one to tackle, and I haven't completely wrapped my head around it other than to know that finite minds could not possibly fathom what the ultimate reasons of an infinite mind could have. There may be an ultimate overriding good that will come about. I don't think that's a cop-out. I think it comes from our inherent lack of scope due to our finite time here in this universe and our finite minds. God would necessarily be sort of incomprehensible to us, as would his plan. It would be like a baby getting a vaccine. The baby has no clue why he is in pain, but the parent would know it's for the ultimate good.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that argument stands on it's own, I'd like draw from another line of thinking as well. I believe the fact that one could label ANYTHING as evil is, in itself, evidence to the existence of God. After all, on an atheist's view, nothing is REALLY *objectively* evil. We are all just products of evolution and act in a way that is a product of evolution and social conditioning. I mean, NO OTHER creature on Earth "murders" another creature. Only in our species do we apply such a label. Why are we special? How could an atheist REALLY call ANYTHING God does, "wicked?" I just feel like Charley is making moral judgments against God that are, ironically, only possible if God exists.
Our "best human standard" is entirely subjective, after all. The Nazi's acted in a way that was THEIR best human standard. I believe the only way to have an OBJECTIVE foundation for morals is through God.
Love a good argument. So thanks for writing!
ReplyDeleteFirstly: The notion that the impossibility of understanding/predicting long-term outcomes is not an argument against or for anything. The notion that God might have reasons that reason cannot know is simply useless. We have to judge with the best standards we have, just as we do in court. I would much rather be on the prosecution side a trial of God than on his defense. So... IF there were a God, claiming we can't understand his reasons is simply not an acceptable response. Your argument here is not internally consistent.
Secondly: The notion that only a theist can have moral judgment or have grounds for moral belief has been demolished many times. I would only say that atheists and humanists certainly can have moral values, and do not require bolstering by some abstract belief in an external measurement. Charley can judge "God" by the best standards we have, if he chooses (and he does). He does not have to believe in the existence of God to point out the internal inconsistencies in a theist belief.
And finally, I think that there are many grounds for moral beliefs. "The greatest good for the greatest number" comes to mind. Several German philosophers from the last century (my last century, at least) have addressed this issue, Kant being the outstanding example. Of course any standards are subjective. You say that like it's a bad word.
That was fun. Thanks.