Human Suffering: is there really a point to it all?
This post is in response to a comment my friend Cory made to my previous post "Watering Camels." I think he brings up a good question (he has given me permission to publish his comments here):
Here is my response, which is overly huge. Hense, the seperate post for it:
Here is Cory's response to that (again, some important questions and points):
Here is my response:
Cade #2:
cory,
Ah, you have me picking my brain on some of these.
You also have done a great job of summarizing my points.
I admit it, I am not a scientist. I do not do scientific research, nor do I keep up with relevant journals. In other words, I really cannot comment on quantum mechanics. From your brief discription it seems as if there is not a consensus view on QM. Anyway, because I am not a scientist, it would be foolish for me to make arguments from that perspective--I would be in over my head. I have always considered scientific issues and questions as an outsider. I suppose it is worth mentioning that I do not follow scientific thought religiously either; as in, I do not look to science to be the sole avenue for discovery. I look at science as one of several ways in which to discover and understand our lives. But I digress.
I had neglected to address natural disasters, though I had thought about it. This is an excellent point. My thought on that in recent years has been mixed. Part of the problem people have with such tragedies is premature death. As we all die eventually and have no genuine control over that, the primary problem I see with God allowing for natural disasters is with the destruction of homes. When people have their posessions and homes rooted up and taken away, it is a tremendous psychological blow. I suppose it would be easy to dispair in that situation, but then, people dispair in any situation if you think about it.
In my opinion, life's true happiness is a loving and rich relationship with God (necessary to know in order to understand my reference point for judging these things). The idea that one person has more opportunity for true happiness than another seems to me to encompass the ultimate moral violation (a sin which only God is capable of committing). At first glance, natural disasters would be prime evidence of God's perpetration of such a wrong. When one's experience is so profoundly affected by being homeless (physically and psychologically), their ability to be open to a loving relationship with the creator is often visibly diminished. I guess I could say that in reality, people can turn away from God no matter what happens to them. The most blessed men and women will still choose a life without God if that is what they wish. I feel this is a sound idea considering how many persecuted churches throughout the world still maintain an attitude of joy. Even when there is no release, there are men and women who adhere to their relationship with the creator. Sometimes, cataclysmic events can turn people toward faith in God.
The problem of genetic defects, brain leisons, or other physical abnormalities such as alzheimers can still provide opportunity for surrounding individuals to become better people through service. My own problem with God's allowing these things to happen have more to do with whether it is fair to the afflicted individual. Therein lies a weakness in my reasoning perhaps, regarding God's "plan."
The final comment on the existence of free will is admittedly, a divisive subject--as you mentioned. There is hardly a consensus view on its existence. As it is a primarily metaphysical and cerebral subject without tangible evidence one way or another, I think I am safe in judging it to be sound. It would be safer to provide the disclaimer that I could be wrong--which I could be, obviously. Your statement "decisions are not made in vacuum" is undeniably true, but there may still be a kernal of "freeness" as you mentioned. However, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of not being "completely responsible" for our behavior. This is because most of my deviding lines between sanity and insanity are subjective--though not arrived at through a vacuum.
I can see how many of these questions could be taken in completely different directions given the assertion that "I" am reducible to my brain. It is not a universally accepted "fact" though. Logic can be stretched to justify an infinite number of possibilities including the belief that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the human soul. Like so many other problems we have discussed, there just seems to be no practical way to arrive at a universal conclusion.
I hope I make sense.
Cory #1: Hey Cade, hope you are well. Read your post, but have a hard time with the "God allows us to go through tough times because it's just all part of his plan" thesis. What exactly are starving children learning from their suffering? Or children born with AIDS? Or those who died in the Tsunami? Death and suffering seem a high price to pay to teach someone a lesson.
Perhaps Scott losing his job was just bad luck, and not some divine master plan to teach him virtue.
Here is my response, which is overly huge. Hense, the seperate post for it:
Cade #1: Cory, thanks for reading the post and taking the time to respond. Since commenting on facebook does not show up on my proper-blog (it's imported to facebook), would it be okay for me to post your comments there?
You bring up some interesting points. As far as I can tell you are addressing a side tangent I made toward the end of the post, but still, your reflections are worth considering (as usual).
Here's my response:
...Keep in mind that I believe there is a God and my primary source for information about him is the Bible (not a universal assertion, but humor me). This is going to color my response obviously.... See More
As Obi Wan puts it; "In my experience there is no such thing as luck." Please do not laugh at me for drawing philosophical wisdom from Star Wars (haha), for the wisdom in this case is sound. I just do not see strong enough evidence for the belief that all events are strictly random. Of course, there is the timeless caveat that I see no strong evidence to the contrary either, which leaves the issue of luck in a slight state of ambiguity as far as I am concerned. I guess my point here is that I feel I am justified in my following beliefs because no one has proven that there is no order to the universe.
...blah blah blah--and so forth.
Getting back to the real world, I should clarify an important aspect to the idea of God having a "divine master plan" or "purpose" behind the evil which befalls humankind. I believe that much of the advance of evil is human driven. Bad things happen to us because people do bad things to people. I do not see the one person's infliction on another (purposeful or not) as strictly random. There is action and reaction and often these are guided by choice. This is not a new view on the problem of evil, but I still feel it is relevant.
As for God's involvement in the matter, I think it is theologically sound to believe that God allows our choices and the choices of others to affect us both negatively or positively. It seems defensible to believe that allowing choice to flourish and evolve is part of God's "plan."
I agree that death and suffering are high prices to pay, but look at what the human race has in exchange: autonomy. We have freedom of choice. If suffering at the hands of another person is the price I pay for the ability to make choices of my own free will, then I might venture to say that the price may be fair.
The moral integrity of such an assertion (justifying human suffering) could possibly be questioned due to the apparent imbalance of power and resources across the world (i.e. poverty). I have an answer to the issue, albeit, not an easy one. Those with power and resources have the opportunity (obligation is not fully accurate) to attempt to alleviate what material suffering they can through philanthropy and political maneuvering. Historically, these efforts can help greatly, but they do not eliminate the problem. This is because there will always be selfish people.
Anyway, my position is, the price of human suffering may indeed be a fair one--at least holistically. Is that easier for me to say due to my sheltered life? Perhaps. I think it is plausible that God's plan (as I see it) of allowing us to be autonomous agents is morally permissable.
I apologise for the excessive response, but that is me adhering to form. I believe this comment is even bigger than my post.
I would be interested in hearing any further views you have on these topics if you have the time to respond. Otherwise, what did you think about the idea behind the main post-proper?
Oh, and I missed seeing you and Adrian over Christmas! So merry Christmas plus four!
cade
Here is Cory's response to that (again, some important questions and points):
Cory #2:
Cade,
"no one has proven that there is no order to the universe"
ummmm.... quantum mechanics. Now it could be that quantum mechanics is really just a part of some higher order reality (i.e., it is incomplete), but based on what we know so far, the universe at its most fundamental level is probabilistic. Einstein's intuition of "God does not play dice" remains unproven (i.e., Neils Bohr and the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mehcnanics remain the accepted one).
With regard to the second half of your response, it seems you are trying to advance two theses:
1. The suffering in the world is caused by human choice
2. Free will is worth the cost of suffering
I think both have problems:
1. Your premise here is a false one. What about natural disasters for example? Genetic birth defects?
2. Really? I'd gladly give any free will I have away to prevent the Holocaust. However, my main problem with this argument is the assumption of free will to begin with. This is a hotly debated topic, and hardly something I would hang my hat on as a theodicy. From my reading on the subject, most psychologists and neuroscientists believe free will is an illusion created by the mind. I would argue that few, if any, decisions you make are truly free. Can you, a heterosexual male (presuming based on your post), suddenly decide to be attracted to other men? "You" are reducible to your brain. Your brain is a product of environmental and genetic variables that are beyond your control. Tell a depressed person to just choose to stop being depressed. Or a heroine addict to just choose to stop using. Or a person with brain leisons in the right places to stop being violent. I'm not arguing that there cannot be a kernal of freeness to our "will", but decisions are not made in vacuum. We are definitely not completely responsible for our behavior.
Here is my response:
Cade #2:
cory,
Ah, you have me picking my brain on some of these.
You also have done a great job of summarizing my points.
I admit it, I am not a scientist. I do not do scientific research, nor do I keep up with relevant journals. In other words, I really cannot comment on quantum mechanics. From your brief discription it seems as if there is not a consensus view on QM. Anyway, because I am not a scientist, it would be foolish for me to make arguments from that perspective--I would be in over my head. I have always considered scientific issues and questions as an outsider. I suppose it is worth mentioning that I do not follow scientific thought religiously either; as in, I do not look to science to be the sole avenue for discovery. I look at science as one of several ways in which to discover and understand our lives. But I digress.
I had neglected to address natural disasters, though I had thought about it. This is an excellent point. My thought on that in recent years has been mixed. Part of the problem people have with such tragedies is premature death. As we all die eventually and have no genuine control over that, the primary problem I see with God allowing for natural disasters is with the destruction of homes. When people have their posessions and homes rooted up and taken away, it is a tremendous psychological blow. I suppose it would be easy to dispair in that situation, but then, people dispair in any situation if you think about it.
In my opinion, life's true happiness is a loving and rich relationship with God (necessary to know in order to understand my reference point for judging these things). The idea that one person has more opportunity for true happiness than another seems to me to encompass the ultimate moral violation (a sin which only God is capable of committing). At first glance, natural disasters would be prime evidence of God's perpetration of such a wrong. When one's experience is so profoundly affected by being homeless (physically and psychologically), their ability to be open to a loving relationship with the creator is often visibly diminished. I guess I could say that in reality, people can turn away from God no matter what happens to them. The most blessed men and women will still choose a life without God if that is what they wish. I feel this is a sound idea considering how many persecuted churches throughout the world still maintain an attitude of joy. Even when there is no release, there are men and women who adhere to their relationship with the creator. Sometimes, cataclysmic events can turn people toward faith in God.
The problem of genetic defects, brain leisons, or other physical abnormalities such as alzheimers can still provide opportunity for surrounding individuals to become better people through service. My own problem with God's allowing these things to happen have more to do with whether it is fair to the afflicted individual. Therein lies a weakness in my reasoning perhaps, regarding God's "plan."
The final comment on the existence of free will is admittedly, a divisive subject--as you mentioned. There is hardly a consensus view on its existence. As it is a primarily metaphysical and cerebral subject without tangible evidence one way or another, I think I am safe in judging it to be sound. It would be safer to provide the disclaimer that I could be wrong--which I could be, obviously. Your statement "decisions are not made in vacuum" is undeniably true, but there may still be a kernal of "freeness" as you mentioned. However, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of not being "completely responsible" for our behavior. This is because most of my deviding lines between sanity and insanity are subjective--though not arrived at through a vacuum.
I can see how many of these questions could be taken in completely different directions given the assertion that "I" am reducible to my brain. It is not a universally accepted "fact" though. Logic can be stretched to justify an infinite number of possibilities including the belief that there is no reason to believe in the existence of the human soul. Like so many other problems we have discussed, there just seems to be no practical way to arrive at a universal conclusion.
I hope I make sense.
posted by Your humble servant at 9:40 PM
16 Comments:
Cade, thanks for the fun debate. At least, it was fun for me until I read your following statement, which is all I'll comment on here:
"As we all die eventually and have no genuine control over that, the primary problem I see with God allowing for natural disasters is with the destruction of homes."
I read this and was stunned speechless. If I'm reading you right, your logic goes something like this:
On an eternal timescale, life on earth is a blink of an eye. Dying prematurely is no big deal, because everyone eventually dies and from an eternal perspective the difference is negligible. Therefore, for God to cause a natural disaster that kills millions of innocent people, their deaths really aren't a big deal.
... See More
Believe what you like about free will and the problem of evil, but I implore you to reconsider your reasoning here. You are seriously telling me that what makes natural disasters bad is the destruction of STUFF rather than the destruction of LIFE? If you don't see life as sacred or valuable, or innocent people being killed as evil, then you can justify all kinds of crazy shit. This is exactly what the Muslim suicide bombers do. To me, it reeks of fundamentalism.
Is this the view of life you really want to hold? Are you really OK with placing so little value on life? You've got me more than a little freaked out over here, dude.
_Cory P
fundamentalism just means believing that the Bible is truly God's word and not doubting it or getting bogged down in "logic" games. it is not necessarily a bad thing and it is unfair to be so biased and make it seem like fundamentalism is bad because some consider Muslim suicide bombers to be fundamentalists.
While skiing today I got the feeling l I should balance out the criticism with some agreement :)
I do agree with your observation that science is not the source of all knowledge. The domain of science is the physical world, and it is the best epistemological tool we have. It is entirely unequipped to deal with metaphysical questions, like questions of meaning or value or God.
Well, now I'm feeling like I've been too agreeable. I'll have to balance that out with a few more comments ;) ... See More
Considering how profoundly quantum mechanics has changed modern thought about the physical world, my advice would be to do some reading on the subject. You don't need a phd to understand the basics and get a feel for the implications.
In general, I think you are being too dismissive of the evidence science brings to bear on these questions. You make a claim like "the world isn't random, therefore there is no such thing as luck" without providing me any evidence to back this statement. My case for quantum mechanics is dismissed because there is not a consensus view among scientists (and a similar dismissal with free will being an illusion).
Since the questions of why bad things happen or whether our conscious will is an illusion intersect with the physical world, science as an epistemological tool can and should be brought to bear. I would argue that science should be listened to over religion when it comes to questions about the physical world. Or do you want to regress to believing that the Earth is the center of the universe?
Cory P.
Sorry for the morbidly late reply. I tend to only use facebook when I am at the Library here in town. I'm a terrible facebook user. I would be an even worse twitter-er if I used that.
I hope it doesn't seem rude that I keep replying and not letting your comments be. It's just that I too need to process things and writing them out is as good a method as any to do so. Since you have two batches of comments, I'll just reply to both of them in the order you have written them.:
I too have enjoyed the discussion--so thanks!... See More
I suppose my comment may sound a little nutty and diserves some explanation. Sorry if I offended you.
I am not sure God "causes" natural disasters to happen but rather "allows" them to. These could be construed to be the same thing perhaps, but that is neither here nor there. I guess I would say that in a natural disaster, innocent people are not being killed, but rather they are dying. Does that make sense?
As for which is worse, death or homelessness, I see now that I neglected an important distinction. I was thinking from an isolated, personal point of view, as in, from the perspective of an individual apart from others. Looking inward at how "premature" death affects the dead person him/herself--alone--, my reasoning is perhaps more acceptable. In otherwords, the dead do not greive. I believe this because in a lot of ways, the value of one's life could be reduced to one's value to others (quantifiable, percieved or otherwise). I am worth nothing to myself so I have nothing to lose personally by my own death.
I did fail to address the issue of the others, apart from the individual. No one dies without affecting those left behind. We lose the deceased, not the other way around. These are the ones who truely suffer from "premature" death. That is where the tragedy truely lies--those left behind being bereft of a loved one or a source of livlihood. I am guessing this is where your reaction is coming from, which is understandable and in fact, justified.
When I said that losing one's home was worse than death, I really meant the emptiness of the afflicted (those left behind). Perhaps this would come across as a lame excuse, but I truly could not think of another way to phrase what I was trying to describe (I puzzled over it, and then moved on). To me, home is so much more than a place, building or stuff, as you put it). I use the term "home" to mean a feeling I guess. Home is a state where I feel safe and secure, where I understand where I am and am content. I could go on, but I think this might be enough to help clarify my semmantics.
I do not see the connection with my comments and the actions of radical Islam, unless you feel I am displaying a careless outlook. Just because I believe God is in the right allowing for humans to die does not mean I do not care about them. In fact, one could possibly argue that my compassion is part of God's purpose in allowing catastrophe. Someday when my house has burned down or I lose a loved one, I hope there will be others around me who will help alleviate the pain. That is what I expect from good people. That is also what I expect to do when others suffer. I am not alone in saying that we have a duty to relieve those who suffer across the world and in our own neighborhoods in what ways we can.
To be continued..........>
continued...>
Life would be meaningless without pain and suffering. However, there is plenty of beauty and triumph in the world to balance out the bad, even if it will never fully conquer it. The west will not be prosperous forever. Perhaps one day others will be comfortable when we are war-torn and impoverished. I hope the developed peoples of that time will take pity on us and help lift us up when that happens.
I guess I would conclude this comment by saying that I believe the sacredness of life is in a Life Lived, not a Death Prevented. I made that up. :)
Your second comment:
It is nice to hear that I am not insane (haha) and that you agree with some of my assertions (as I have yours). Just so you know, you don't seem unbalanced when you are being civil, and most of the time, you are civil Cory. :)
You are right, it may be beneficial to study QM as so many scientists and commentators are referencing it nowadays. Just for clarifaction, were I to read up on it, what exactly would be the connection with my everyday life? I don't mean to sound wry about it, but what are some of the points of interest in my life which a study of QM might touch on? --besides an being interesting area of physics and mathematics?
Again, you may be right that I dismiss some of the evidence you have cited to readily. The problem is though, I find one can take theoretical (or un-touchable) science too far sometimes. The way I characterise the problem is that science is primarily used for two things. #1: to observe, and #2: to explain, and sometimes it seems that it is only useful for the former. The cliche example is that of scientists who consistently tought that the earth was flat. Since then other mathamatical theorems and eventually, photographs have proven the then-consensus view to be false. I think that there is risk of this happening to popular scientific thought all the time. Consequently, I often take a casual stance of skepticism regarding areas of science which are to me, mindjobs. ;) It's not that I think science has no value (medicine, engineering), I just think that, to use a symbolic example, scientists really have no idea what's inside the sun, even if they have good guesses with evidence. I do not know if that is a satisfactory way of looking at things (unlikely). I am open to new ways of thinking though--I keep my eyes open.
I agree though that science should be brought to bear in these arguments, and I believe it has (you have). I am glad I have someone like you around to expound on some of the scientific side of life. Seth performs a similar task for me in the political arena. I can ask him, "who or what is Zapatista?" and he can, without blinking, lay out the history and thought on said question.
I will have to remember to drop you a line next time I have no clue, or distrust what a scientist is talking about.
When will I ever learn to write concisely? :P
Cade, I thought I would check back and see if you had any reflections on the disaster in Haiti. Our conversation was unfortunately more timely than we could have known. While I'm here...
"Life would be meaningless without pain and suffering."
Sounds like you are going to be pretty miserable in heaven there fella!
" I guess I would say that in a natural disaster, innocent people are not being killed, but rather they are dying. Does that make sense?
"
Not really
" The cliche example is that of scientists who consistently tought that the earth was flat."
Sure, science is not right all the time. But it has the virtue of being self-correcting. This is where the epistemic value lies.
"I do not see the connection with my comments and the actions of radical Islam, "
You are interpreting the Bible in a way that makes you value life and death in an abnormal and unhealthy (IMHO) way. Now knowing you, I'm sure you would rather go help the people of Haiti than blow yourself up out of religious zealousness. The point I was trying to make is that theology that lends itself to unethical behavior should be jettisoned. I'm against interpreting the Bible to exclude homosexuality on the same grounds. I see the exclusion of homosexuals as unethical, and that theology should be abandoned. I stand by my comment that fundamentalism is one of the great evils (whether Islam or Christianity) that the world would be better off without.
Cory, I'm glad you ended up commenting here instead of on facebook. It makes me look good (haha).
Yes, after the earthquake in Haiti, I immediately started thinking about our conversations. It reminds me just how real and important these questions are. Of course, there is plenty of suffering happening all around us all the time, but a concentrated event like last week's quake can focus one's thoughts a little.
I can say, I am encouraged by the response (however effective) of the aid groups. One can see that there are people using their talents and resources to help those in need.
I also began to think about how fortunate we are to live in an area where we do not often have to fear natural disasters on this level affecting us. Sure we had the big floods in 2005, but if we value disasters by numbers, we are fortunate indeed.
Of course the irony in that comparison is that Haiti had very little precedent for this kind of a quake. It reminds me that in reality, no one is safe. A quake like that could happen anywhere in the world really. It is a sobering thought.
For me, the event in Haiti is a reminder similar to that of the terrorist attacks here in 2001. America is prosperous, but the danger of living on Earth is always a matter of time. Once again, the potential for disaster is no longer simply "over there" somewere. If this quake could happen in Haiti, it could happen here.
Once again I find myself remembering that death is a matter of time. No amount of planning or preparation can fully account for it. It is not in our control.
Anyway.
"Sure, science is not right all the time. But it has the virtue of being self-correcting. This is where the epistemic value lies."
That is well said. The ability to adapt and self-correct can be a virtue. Certainly, it is a virtue for you and I to have as individuals. However, I wonder whether a constant flux of change is more of a cause for alarm rather than a consolation for a man-made systems' epistemic value (such as that of science). I realize however that this statement does not address whether any alternative systems of epistemology are of unchanging value (the Judeo-christian God for example).
I'm surprised that you would think my view of death is unhealthy. I think it is healthy to accept that we have no control over it. I am not careless with my life. If I found myself suddenly aware that I was going to die soon, I would not count that as an injustice. Would it not be futile to shake my fist and say that it was not fair for me to die? I can imagine that I would be upset if I knew the cause of my death was a willful act of another person, but really, I have no control over that either.
continued...
Perhaps the aversion you feel is because I think that no one has anything to lose if they live a Godly life (I leave "Godly" up to many interpretations). I say, live as long as you can, but live well--i.e., I wouldn't obsess over prolonging life beyond natural boundaries.
I may be repeating myself, but isn't the value of life in the life lived not the length of it? I know those left behind must grieve and find ways to cope with the loss, but this, they have some control over--and often, they overcome it. No one can go back to the way it was sure, but we can usually have different, but good lives when we lose a loved one.
Does that still sound unhealthy? Or am I making it worse?
To address some of your other statements: I agree that theology which is unethical should be dismissed, but the age old question arises. Who gets to decide what is ethical?
I would agree that the exclusion of homosexuals would be wrong, but I am guessing that we are talking about different things when I say that. No doubt you can guess my views on the topic of homosexuality and why I have them (I assume that is why you brought it up). I believe that it is wrong to mistreat people for any reason. But that is not what you mean. I am guessing you also mean that when the Bible (or any other "holy" text) contradicts someone elses belief, then it would be wrong to follow the Bible. I assume what you mean by "fundamentalism" (as it applies here) is that by taking the Bible literally, I am opposing the beliefs of those who do not follow the Bible and that that is wrong. Do I have this right?
If I do understand you correctly, why are we talking about it here? Did I say something unethical about homosexuals in my posts on human suffering? Or am I simply misinterpreting you?
Sorry man, I'm a little confused.
Let me know what you think.
Hello Cade,
I think you may be misreading my intentions. Homosexuality was just an easy example of why it is important to use a hermeneutic of compassion when interpreting the Bible, rather than a literal reading. Truthfully, I have no idea where you stand on the issue.
Let me summarize what I hear you saying so far:
1. Scott losing his job was part of God's plan
2. More generally, people suffer because it is God's will
4. Innocent people dying in natural disasters is not a problem for believing in a good God who is in control of the world, because there is nothing bad about premature death.
3. Premature death is not tragic because from an eternal perspective, life on earth is a blink of an eye. Therefore, you can't hold God accountable for the evil of killing thousands of innocent people (Haiti), because there is nothing inherently evil about someone's life ending prematurely.
The problem I have with this view of reality is the low value it places on life. Life on earth is just the gateway to eternity. If you die when you are 20 or 80, it makes little difference.
Tell me, would I not be doing my Christian neighbors a favor by adding a bit of strychnine to their tea this evening and hastening their journey to the afterlife? Terrible crimes are committed all the time because of this dreadful worldview. If you really subscribe to this, then it seems to follow that the best thing we can do for Haiti is to convert them all to Christians, and then just nuke the country to save them the pain losing their homes or loved ones in the inevitable future disasters. Send them all right to heaven; bypass the horror of their lives on earth.
Yikes, I get shivers just typing this stuff out.
I probably do not have to mention this, but just in case you thought so, : I wouldn't go so far as to say that my dad losing his job constitues suffering. Though I am not in his head, it seems to me that he has simply accepted it and moved on.
In saying that, you may glimpse some of what I see as the nature of suffering. I do not consider it to be a level of discomfort. I consider suffering to be rather, a level of reaction to life's events. I realize that there is a natural part of us which reacts more strongly to some things than others (death versus spilled milk--if you will pardon the cliche). But within the realm of catastrophy, my experience has been that the level of suffering felt can vary greatly from person to person. Some people accept it and try to move on with a different life. Others hold on to the old life which they cannot control, and then, when the old life is irretreivable, they despair.
Despair is not only a noun, it is a verb.
Yes there is a mourning process, but we have to move on. Those of us who surround the afflicted must help those who are.
To bring my comments to a practical level, I would not say that premature death is necessarily a good thing, in the sense that it is desirable. However, as we cannot control it, I believe it is foolish to try, and tragic when those who are left behind despair because of it.
When my time comes to mourn (and it will), I hope I will have the strength of mind to release and let go after some time.
That makes good sense to me. As the adage goes: "when life hands you lemons..." and "carpe diem!"
Thanks Cory.
I should tell you, I hope I do not sound as if I am only trying to convince you. I hope I am not arrogant enough to believe that my opinions and beliefs are necessarily "right." However, I do believe they are valid, and that is why I am hashing them out with you. In truth, I am also hashing them out for myself.
Part one (due to the limit of 4,096 characters on these comments):
Getting back to your comments:
That is a good though abrupt summary of what I have said in previous posts on these topics.
I would hesitate to say that suffering occurs simply because God wants it to (You've heard my free-will argument already). It is his will that we are released from suffering--and we are released. It is only a matter of time.
Joseph Campbell takes it so far as to say that our purpose in life is suffering (I wouldn't go that far myself). It is strange that I have not thought about this before, but as Christian tradition says God himself suffers, it only makes sense to me that we to would suffer. The key is to suffer for something else than yourself. God suffers for us. We suffer for God.
Does that principle apply to occasions such as the earthquake in Haiti? In other words, what exactly could be God hoping for in such an event?
Well...
The story of Job might shed some time-honored insight into this question. I know the story is often used as a cop-out, but it is relevant here I think. The basic idea in the book seems to be that because we do not have the perspective that God has (as in, complete), we are not in a position to judge him based on our experiences here on earth. I realize that this is a convenient little philosophy, but unless one were to argue against the existence of God (a different conversation), what else makes sense to do in life?
I also realize that bringing up Job does not actually answer the question of what God (the good one I believe in) is up to when he allows that to happen. I know the problem is that many people think it is unfair of God to allow suffering for any purpose if we have no control over it. Well, I have no answer for that one. He is who he is--unless he isn't anything at all.
As for the value of life, and whether murder is wrong, I think you basic have it right when you say “Life on earth is just the gateway to eternity. If you die when you are 20 or 80, it makes little difference.” I think is is defensible to say that God values a life lived . For God, the value life on earth seems to be tied to the person him/herself. The choices we make are what determine whether our lives have been valuable wouldn't you say? After all, it is not as if God needs us for some grand mission. He is more than capable of doing whatever he pleases. In other words, I don't believe God necessarily values life based on how much we have done or accomplished but rather our quality. That isn't to say he doesn't have things he wants us to do. It's just that it seems like those things he asks of us are really for our own benefit, and the benefit of others (icing on the cake). We can give every hour of our lives for others and if it is not being done from a heart of goodness, then what good is it ultimately?
Part Two:
I think it is clear (scripturally) that God wishes us to live responsibly. Carelessness is not something God seems to value. It seems to me that God would like us to carry that responsibility over to our health. Murder is something God does not value, though he commanded Israel to do it as a nation (has he ever done so to an individual I wonder?). We have no right to murder people--because he said so. Death is a release for some people, but we have no right to decide that any more than we have a right to decide whether we are immortal or not (suicide, is a similar thing in my opinion). The idea that God is both the giver and taker of life makes some people uncomfortable sure, but for some, that is a relief not to be the ones entrusted with the decision.
It seems to me that a Christian who commits suicide has done so because he/she has not accepted the life God has given—not because they are anxious to be with God in heaven. A healthier outlook for the forward looking believer would be to say “life is about submission to God, compassion to others, and love to all.” Life on earth is not a party and I don't think it is meant to be. Physical security does not seem to add genuine value to a life.
I have an idea. I've spent a lot of time talking about what does not make life valuable. Should I do a new blog post on what does make life valuable?
While authors of the Bible spend quite a bit time with the question of why people suffer, I don't find their answers very satisfying or coherent. In Job, you have God deploying the "I'm God, you're not. You are just not capable of understanding it all" argument. This might be true, but it is a colossal cop-out and not good enough for me. Some authors seem to see suffering as a matter of luck (God sends rain on the just and unjust). To me, most of the OT authors believe that bad things happen because people chose to disobey God. Choose not to believe in God, God will send the Israelites to smite you. Turn your back on God, and prepared to be smitten by the babylonians, the Assyrians, the philistines, etc. So bad things happen because you deserve them. And there is a clear evolution in Jewish monotheistic thought that stemmed from the difficulty the Jews had in dealing with this question. You see, when you believe in one good God, and everyone around you believes in good gods and bad gods, it becomes hard to defend this kind of belief in the face of suffering. Why do you suffer so? Because the god of war has taken to meddling in our affairs. The Israelites couldn't give easy answers like this. This is why many believe that by NT times, the doctrine of satan, his demons, and hell had evolved. It served to make Judaism less monotheistic, and easier to reconcile with evil in the world.
Given the length of the comments section, I think a new post is in order. Although posting on something we agree on might not be very productive either.
Interesting points. I'll think of something to post on, though it may be on a new topic. We'll see.
Post a Comment
<< Home