Note: This site has moved to a new URL:
http://webpages.charter.net/djhalnon/
Please bookmark it! You will be sent there in 10 seconds.

God & Empiricism

Some, such as the Gnostics, believe that God is unknowable. Others admit that He is, by His intrinsic nature, unknowable, however He has chosen to reveal Himself to us on various occasions, & it's these revelations that allow us to get to know Him. Still others, Deists, believe that, while God himself is not directly knowable, He has left His mark on Creation, & through studying His Creation, one can learn about Him.

There are many other positions that one can take. I cannot list them all here. In any event, there is by definition a good deal of uncertainty in theology, no matter how one looks at it.

Theodicy & the Problem of Evil

Most religious people do not consider this to be a serious problem. They simply accept that evil exists in spite of God. Even so, there have been many attempts to explain why evil can exist in spite of an all-powerful, benevolent God. These are known as theodicies.

While I cannot address all of the theodicies which have been proposed, I would like to discuss a few of the most common ones.

Comprehension theodicy:

This theodicy proposes that evil exists, so that we can understand God's goodness. Without the existence of evil, we'd never comprehend God's love & benevolence.

Free Will theodicy:

This is the assertion that evil exists, so that we can choose between good & evil.

Learning theodicy:

This is the assertion that we learn from evil & suffering, things we could never discover any other way.

Illusory theodicy:

What we consider to be "evil," is actually not; it's all part of God's greater, overall plan, which benefits us in a way that only He comprehends.

Pragmatic theodicy:

Evil exists. Live with it.

Divine Limitation theodicy:

This is the assertion that, while God is capable of eliminating evil, & He may even want to, He is under some constraint that prevents Him from doing so.

Irrelevancy theodicy:

God has allowed evil to exist, for reasons only He knows. As our Creator, this is His right, & we have no right to question His nature; therefore, justifying the existence of evil is irrelevant.

Heavenly-Reward theodicy:

This is the assertion that suffering in our physical lives is of no account; all or part of humanity will be rewarded with everlasting bliss, after death, which will more than make up for any suffering incurred during our physical lives.

Deceptive theodicy:

This is the notion that evil & suffering are not "real," they are, rather, a misperception which results from our own imperfection. Only goodness is "real," all else is deception.

Of course, one can also conclude that God is either not benevolent or not all-powerful. This is not a theodicy, however, since the point of a theodicy is to explain why God can be both of these things, yet evil exists.

There are problems with all of these theodicies. The pragmatic theodicy & the irrelevancy theodicy are related to one another, and in either case, all discussion ends, at that point. Neither theodicy gets us anywhere; they both leave one still trying to understand how evil can exist in a universe created by an all-powerful, benevolent God. So these don't satisfy.

The divine limitation theodicy is flawed, because ultimately, it isn't a theodicy; it states that God has limitations, which is impossible, if one also asserts that God is all-powerful. Even most theologians do not accept this theodicy, although it does still crop up from time to time.

The illusory & deceptive theodicies fall apart due to the fact that suffering & evil are inherently subjective in nature. That is, only someone who is suffering can say if they're actually suffering. If you were to break your leg, for example, I cannot stand by & insist that you are not in pain. Of course you are, & you know it — in spite of the fact that no one else can sense your pain. By the same token, God cannot stand off, aloof, & simply define the evil that goes on in the world, as not being "true" evil, or as not actually existing. This distinction is ours to make, not His. Since suffering occurs, & evil exists, and we all know it since we've all experienced them, these theodicies also fail.

The learning theodicy & comprehension are related to one another, & they fail, due to the fact that God is said to be all-powerful. That is, He is infinite in potential; there must be ways for Him to teach us things, or to express His goodness, which don't require us to suffer. So these theodicies fail.

The heavenly-reward theodicy has the flaw of considering our physical lives to be — ultimately — meaningless. This makes no sense, however, for obviously God has given us physical lives, for a reason. Our physical lives cannot be said to be "inconsequential," they must by definition have some meaning. Furthermore, once one has suffered, the experience of having suffered, remains. The only way to eliminate that, would be to wipe our memories upon our entry into heaven — which, again, relegates our physical lives to irrelevancy. So, this theodicy, too, fails the test of logic.

The Free Will Theodicy

1. Christian thought (and Judaic thought, as well, though I'm not sure!) states that all men & women are inherently "wicked," sinners from birth, & we cannot actually do good, without God's intervention. This flies in the face of the notion of free will. If we actually have free will, the law of averages says that at least some of us would choose to do good without God's intervention.
2. The need for free will does not explain "natural evil," or suffering caused by non-human forces (such as, hurricanes, disease, earthquakes, drought, etc.). Judeo-Christian teaching claims that the world is imperfect, & therefore subjects us to "natural evil," due to our own wickedness. Even so, natural evil isn't needed in order for us to express our free will.
3. Our "will," or decision-making capability, can be influenced by physical (especially physiological) factors. For example, someone could fly into a panic & hurt someone; the panic is part of our biological "fight-or-flight" mechanism, however, and precludes rational consideration, or the exercise of "will." Never mind that things like mental illness can drive people to do awful things. Clearly such people do not really have "free will," since their actions are dictated at least as much by their pathology, as by their choice.

Benevolent God?

Let's assume that God is all-powerful. At the moment of Creation, therefore, He has an infinite number of possibilities before Him. He can create any kind of universe He wants — including one so alien to us that we couldn't even conceive of it! He has some goal in mind — a cosmic purpose, if you will — and wants to achieve it, whatever it might be.

Now, at the moment of Creation, God made a decision. He chose to make the universe we are in, right now, a universe with evil in it.

What does this tell us about God? you may be wondering. Well, it says everything!

Whether God is or isn't all-powerful, obviously it was His choice to create the universe we now live in, & populate it with people who would be subjected to suffering & evil.

• If God was, indeed, all-powerful at the moment of Creation, then He could have created another, different universe, one in which His "cosmic purpose" could be fulfilled, without the need for any suffering at all! Being infinite in power, He'd have had an infinite choice of possible universes; at least one of these would have contained no suffering.
• If God was not, in fact, all-powerful at the moment of Creation, & was forced by some limitation (either due to a lack of power on His own part, or due to some outside constraint) to create the universe we're in, with all of its suffering & evil, then He must have known what the results would be, yet He created it, and us, anyway. In other words, He put His "cosmic purpose" ahead of our own welfare!

Ambivalent Or Malevolent God?

So if God is not benevolent, it stands to reason that He must be either ambivalent (neutral toward humanity's welfare) or malevolent (desiring our suffering). Deists of the 17th & 18th centuries took the former view; they believed that God created the laws of interaction (what we'd call the laws of physics), got the ball rolling, then stood back & watched.

At this time I have not completely considered which of these is the case. Both seem to have some validity. But if God does take an active role in our lives — as most religious people believe He does — this suggests that it's unlikely that He is ambivalent.

Questioning Benevolence

Empirically speaking, this is a valid viewpoint. But its ultimate conclusion is that God is unknowable, an idea which most theists do not agree with.

Back up to Dennis's Philosophical Pages Main Menu.

Back up to Dennis's Home Page.