So…I’ve updated the blogroll section to include the blogs i currently read on at least a semi-regular basis. Point of interest: I don’t actually know who all the authors are. I don’t even remember entirely how I stumbled upon each one. On the menu for today…. some spin-off thoughts from perusing said blogs. First off…
the eternal paradox:
if there is God, how can there be so much suffering and pain?
if there is no God, why is there so much beauty and order?
- opf
Eternal indeed. I asked these questions billions of times when I was a Christian. So… since I like dissecting my thoughts, let’s look at this in more detail. This can be put as three premises and a conclusion for ease of analysis. In order for this to be paradoxical, these premises must stand:
(1) The existence of God precludes great amounts of suffering and pain
(2) The existence of God is the only possible source of beauty and order.
(3) Suffering, pain, beauty and order all exist in great quantity.
Conclusion: From (3) and (1), God cannot exist, but from (3) and (2) God must exist. Therein lies the paradox.
However, the premises ought not to be assumed correct without prior examination.
Let us look at (1). Can we justifiably assume that God cannot co-exist with suffering and pain? Since the questions were asked within a Christian framework, let us approach it in that context. The Christian God, unfortunately, is portrayed in the Bible in conflicting ways, thus tormenting many Christians. The God of the Old Testament is known for his genocidal ways, and contrasts strongly with the God of the New Testament who is known instead for his loving platitudes. Neither, however, makes any mention of eliminating suffering in the world. In fact, suffering and pain are foretold by the prophets and by Christ himself. It seems, then, that (1) does not hold. The reason why we have trouble accepting this, is that the modern concept of the Christian God is that He is loving. And what loving person would allow such a degree of suffering and pain when capable of eradicating it? But that’s a question for another day. The main point here is that based on the bible, which is supposedly the primary source for most protestant christian faith, there seems to be no reason why God should not co-exist with suffering and pain, and (1) does not stand.
Now for (2). (2) is, as far as I can see, unable to be proven true or false; it is a choice we make, as to whether we believe beauty and order can or cannot exist without something akin to a prime mover. Here my thoughts stray from logic to personal anecdote. The day after I acknowledged that I was not confident of my belief in God/Jesus, I was suddenly afraid that life would lose all its beauty. I had, after all, previously attributed all the beauty in the world to God’s doing. If there were no God, how could anything be beautiful, or have meaning? It took a few days for my soul to settle into some sort of restabilized state, at which point the joyous realization came — life was still beautiful without God. la vida todavia tenia belleza, sin Dios. You can argue about whether I was correct in my estimation, but it would be an argument that cannot be resolved. the simple point here is that (2) need not be true. it may be true, it may be false. but it is not necessarily true, and thus, the paradox need not exist.
Indeed, it seems the paradox rests entirely on assumptions (for both (1) and (2)) that are not independently justifiable, outside of personal intuition or instinct. again, that doesn’t mean they’re false, but it means we have some say about whether we allow them to represent a paradox in our minds. Just a thought… comments are welcome.
For compartmentalization sake, I’m going to save my other thoughts for the next post.
