27 December 2005

Faith

This is part of a series of blog entries...I'm just feeling as if I only have the time and attention for short posts right now, but read all of the posts so you can get what I mean. Of course, I'll need to start from a beginning...now which beginning will it be???

Why don't we start with christian dogma?

From my experience, many christians would consider the following statments dogma:
  • God is omniscient (all-knowing)
  • God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
  • God is benevolent
This, of course, leads to all sorts of doctrine that is meant to explain what in philosophy is commonly called the "Problem of Evil." The Problem of Evil, or what I believe should be more accurately described as the Question of Evil, is basically, how can one claim that there is a being (God) that possesses all three of these attributes when we know that evil events occur? After all,
  1. if a being knows something evil will happen, and
  2. that being has the power to stop this evil event, and
  3. that being is good,
then said being will prevent the evil event from happening.

Neo-orthodoxy would have us believe that all three statements are true but that we simply don't understand the greater plan in which something we see as evil is good, or might claim that this "lesser" evil is allowed so that a "greater" good can come about...after all, a seed must die to bring forth a plant, right?

Some post-modern christian theologians might say that we don't really understand the three attributes or God, for that matter, and that it is our lack of understanding in this greater metaphysical sense that answers the question. After all, we know from math and logic that there can be a great difference between logical and physical infinity.

However, I think that both sides have missed the point. Framing an existential question as an academic question does little good. Further, I don't believe that this question...a sort of "why do bad things happen to good people"...is an academic question. I believe that we each must face this question personally and find an answer in the existential crisis that occurs when our karma runs over our dogma...and for some of us, we must face this question again and again.

So, that's where I find myself now...in the road considering the dogma I claim as my own...and it's all the more troubling to me because I thought I had resolved this question, at least for myself, with my own answer...but maybe life is troubling me because I, like everyone else, want desperately for life to be at least a little fair and to show at least a little mercy. Life should be a little fair and a little merciful, at least to us...we deserve that much, don't we?

The answer that each of us finds to the Question of Evil will be different. You almost certainly would not agree with my answer...and I would doubt that I would agree with yours...and that's OK, because while an academic question may have one right answer, an existential question doesn't...and an answer that is the right answer at one time may not be the right answer later in our existence.

Often, however, the answer that is right for us will require that we, as I have long been saying, "pop the clutch during the paradigm shift," causing us to lurch down the road, bucking and stuttering, but moving forward as long as we keep the throttle open. Maybe that's where faith comes in. It just might be that grace draws us to a destination that looms ahead, and while karma and dogma have made the road of life buck and stutter, faith makes us stomp on the gas anyway.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

So what is your answer?

Anonymous said...

Rob you sometimes make my brain hurt! but that is a good thing. i think they call it growing pains!
Kari

Robert King said...

What is my answer to the Question of Evil? Well, let's see...I think I might be able to answer that from where I am today...but were you wanting the academic answer or the existential? If you're looking for the academic answer, read my post The Question of Evil; however, if you're looking for the existential answer...well, I'll try to see if I can describe it.

The first part of the answer is that if I feel that God is with me, then I must refuse to question the goodness of God...if it is not the goodness of God that is in doubt, then it must be either the power of God to change a situation or the knowledge that God has about a situation. A corollary also exists for me...a God who is omniscient and omnipotent and not benevolent is unworthy of love.

The second part of the existential answer is that events really aren't good or evil, that's my interpretation of events. To ascribe "good-ness" or "evil-ness" to an event is to also ascribe intention or motivation...or some sense of consciousness, and I cannot in good conscience do that.

In my more traditional days I would have accepted such an approach, arguing that God (or the devil) was somehow in each event, but there's a problem with that approach. For instance, is a person falling on their face a good event or an evil event? What if they break their neck and become paralyzed? What if by falling they avoided a bullet that would have killed them? Such consequential computations quickly become unsustainable.

So, I guess that's where my dogma conflicts with my karma. I don't always feel that God is with me, but for me the benevolence of God is a given...so what does that mean? I also believe that events are not good or bad, they just are...change happens...my suffering comes from wanting things to be unchanged. Of course all this makes me responsible for my suffering...just because I don't feel God with me that doesn't mean that God is not there, and if I didn't hate changes so much my suffering wouldn't be so severe...but I don't like that...it's easier to just blame God (or the devil) for my suffering.