A theodicy
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
A theodicy
Most people are aware of the problem of evil, but for the sake of inclusion, I'll summarize it.
If there is a God, why is there evil?
If God is: benevolent (wants to help us), omnipotent (can do anything he pleases), omniscient (knows everything), why does he not use the power he has to fix the problems he sees? Why does he allow for things such as hurricanes, the holocaust, the rape and murder of children, cancer, infant mortality, etc? Answers to the problem of evil are known as theodicies.
My answer to the question is as follows:
We do not have a proper understanding of benevolence. Many people think they can pray to God to help them ace a test, or win a race, or they think they can pray to God to make someone do something, or divert a natural disaster. It is empirically clear that these types of prayers don't work, which has allowed me to come to the conclusion that God is not our magic genie who gives us whatever we want. Obviously.
But, you say, those are trivial things, they don't really constitute "evil".
So we will go a step further.
Why does God allow us to harm each other? After all, he is good, and being hurt or killed makes us suffer. The generally agreed upon theodicy is free will; if we did not have the ability to choose to do evil things to one another, we would be mindless drones, almost slaves, and our existence would have little meaning. It doesn't mean anything to be good to one another if you are not physically capable of anything else.
But of course, it goes further, so the free will theodicy doesn't entirely work.
What about evils that humans don't cause, like natural disasters? I.e. "acts of God"?
This is typically answered by the "Soul-Making" answer, which also applies to the previous level, regarding free will. If we do not have challenges to face, we will never grow as beings, we will never learn and accomplish anything meaningful. Some people dislike that theodicy, but I find it to be perfectly rational, at least until we reach the harder facet of the problem*. Even in a secular mindset, the evil that the universe does to us as a species actually do give us character. We develop tools to protect ourselves from natural disasters, ways to rebuild, and ways to help each other, and this all makes us better as people and better as a species.
* The biggest, and in my opinion, hardest, facet of the problem of evil pertains to things like infant mortality, incurable disease, and extreme suffering.
If the Soul-Making theodicy is accurate, then what about babies who die within minutes of being born? Why don't they get a fair chance to "make their souls"? And what about unfathomable suffering, the kind that just absolutely destroys a person, the kind that seems to kill their soul, rather than make it?
The way I see it, this is still a very answerable question. We are meant to grow as a collective soul, rather than individuals. We are all united in a metaphysical way. In a sense, we are all just different pieces of one soul, all the gears in a mechanism. The pain, joy, hate, and love we all feel is shared in a non-corporeal way.
An okay metaphor (still looking for a really good metaphor for this) would be of FPS video games, the likes of Call of Duty. If you haven't played them, you're likely familiar with them. In a multiplayer battle, you can be killed, and you respawn to keep on fighting and scoring points. Let's assume that the other players are not people, for the sake of the metaphor. Your enemies in the game are like the evils of the world. Each time you respawn, you are a different human, and your character thinks he is a different person than the previous one, but really, it is one soul (you) driving these characters. Some of them are lucky, and go through their lives very well. They score many points, and maybe even survive to the end of the game. Others, not so much. Maybe you screw up as soon as you spawn, and you accidentally blow yourself up with a grenade. It seems like a pitiful existence, if your entire frame of reference is the life of the character. That character's entire life was suffering and hardship. But to you, the soul, it was just one lesson to learn, and you are better at the game because of it.
This is not to trivialize the pain and suffering that some people in the world go through. I am not saying they should get over it or something, because "it will all be better someday". My point is that perhaps life is like a game of Call of Duty. We, as a collective soul, feel the pain, but on a very minor scale relative to the actual nature of our Being. We don't forget it, we don't not care about it, but for the game to be challenging and meaningful, it is necessary that "**** happens".
In a dream, you may feel pain, and during the dream it is very real to you. But once you wake up, you don't hurt. You only know what it was like to hurt, and your experience of the human condition is that much more meaningful as a result. In that sense, evil is justified in the moral framework of a benevolent god. It shapes our collective human condition, it makes it dynamic and meaningful. As Bob Ross put it, "You gotta have opposites; light and dark. If you have light on light you have nothing. If you have dark on dark, you have nothing." Duality is necessary for the universe to be anything at all.
Does it not make sense that the God discussed in the problem of evil also almost always tells various religions to help the poor, take care of each other, and turn the other cheek? It's almost like we are intended to be a team, working together. That may seem obvious, but it's worth pointing out.
So one of two possibilities follow this train of thought, and I won't outright claim either to be true, because this is where it just gets to be guessing based on a little evidence. We may reincarnate, therefore our painful lives are really like a dream. We also, as I explained lightly earlier, be one collective mass. In the afterlife, if there is one, the soul of a person who suffered in life will not be bitter, because he will be able to identify just as much with the life and experience of the person next to him as he can identify with his own life and experience. It's not to say we only have one consciousness, but that we are all teammates, playing one game, and my failure is your failure, and my joy is your joy, etc. etc.
I apologize for this being so long, I can only assume I've bored some people, or maybe some didn't even read it at all, but I couldn't find a way to simplify it while still containing all the necessary parts of the idea.
So I'm looking for arguments against, discussions of, and feedback on my theodicy, as it seems to me pretty accurate and sensible, but the fact that it wasn't hard to think of, and that the problem of evil has historically been so hard for people to answer clues me in to the thought that I'm probably wrong and I've missed something.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: A theodicy
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: A theodicy
How do you mean, exactly? I'll consider that idea. Anything that doesn't apply to my perspective of the way the universe works could be "nonsense". But as the problem of evil and its resulting theodicies do apply to my understanding of the universe, they are a topic which I have to address, regardless of what someone else might think of them from any "higher perspective". I've already addressed the other perspectives, and I've chosen the perspective that most fits my view of reality. I'm working from there.Dark Matter wrote:What if, from a higher perspective, both the PoE and the answering theodicy are nonsense?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A theodicy
In your OP you identified two separate causes of human suffering: suffering caused by other humans and suffering caused by non-human natural events such as disease or disaster.
As you said, the standard theological explanation for the existence of suffering caused by other humans is the desire of the Deity to create creatures with free will:
As far as I can see, that's that cause of suffering dealt with. Problem solved.Why does God allow us to harm each other? After all, he is good, and being hurt or killed makes us suffer. The generally agreed upon theodicy is free will; if we did not have the ability to choose to do evil things to one another, we would be mindless drones, almost slaves, and our existence would have little meaning. It doesn't mean anything to be good to one another if you are not physically capable of anything else.
But I disagree with your description of the standard explanation for the other cause of suffering, as described in the quote below.
Therefore I disagree with your objection:What about evils that humans don't cause, like natural disasters? I.e. "acts of God"?
This is typically answered by the "Soul-Making" answer, which also applies to the previous level, regarding free will. If we do not have challenges to face, we will never grow as beings, we will never learn and accomplish anything meaningful. Some people dislike that theodicy, but I find it to be perfectly rational, at least until we reach the harder facet of the problem*. Even in a secular mindset, the evil that the universe does to us as a species actually do give us character. We develop tools to protect ourselves from natural disasters, ways to rebuild, and ways to help each other, and this all makes us better as people and better as a species.
I think the theistic explanation for the existence of this kind of suffering is not that it is character building. I think it is a result of the Deity's desire for an ordered, not chaotic, world. For the world to be ordered, as physicists have observed, it has to be describable by relatively simple laws - the laws of physics. In complex systems these come together to result in Chemistry and Biology. The reason why some babies die shortly after birth (to use your example) is essentially the same as the reason why if I walk off the edge of a high cliff I will die. The deity does not suspend the laws of Biology any more than it suspends the laws of physics.The biggest, and in my opinion, hardest, facet of the problem of evil pertains to things like infant mortality, incurable disease, and extreme suffering.
If the Soul-Making theodicy is accurate, then what about babies who die within minutes of being born? Why don't they get a fair chance to "make their souls"? And what about unfathomable suffering, the kind that just absolutely destroys a person, the kind that seems to kill their soul, rather than make it?
If this is indeed the standard theistic explanation for the existence of this kind of suffering then perhaps your "collective soul" concept is not necessary?
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: A theodicy
Absolutely true!Ozymandias wrote:We do not have a proper understanding of benevolence. Many people think they can pray to God to help them ace a test, or win a race, or they think they can pray to God to make someone do something, or divert a natural disaster. It is empirically clear that these types of prayers don't work, which has allowed me to come to the conclusion that God is not our magic genie who gives us whatever we want. Obviously.
I agree with the first part there, the point is free will - or Agency - but I don't see what you're going for in the last part: "the free will theodicy doesn't entirely work." ???Ozymandias wrote:Why does God allow us to harm each other? After all, he is good, and being hurt or killed makes us suffer. The generally agreed upon theodicy is free will; if we did not have the ability to choose to do evil things to one another, we would be mindless drones, almost slaves, and our existence would have little meaning. It doesn't mean anything to be good to one another if you are not physically capable of anything else.
But of course, it goes further, so the free will theodicy doesn't entirely work.
The way I have heard it explained is that we come here to earth not only to learn and to grow, but to gain mortal bodies. An infant who dies, or even one that is a miscarriage or still-born, has a pure soul, untouched by evil and will go and live in the Celestial Kingdom with God our Heavenly Father. In the Millennium and the second resurrection of the dead, parents who lost their little children will have the opportunity to raise them as if they had never died. (Sniff, it's beautiful! )Ozymandias wrote:If the Soul-Making theodicy is accurate, then what about babies who die within minutes of being born? Why don't they get a fair chance to "make their souls"? And what about unfathomable suffering, the kind that just absolutely destroys a person, the kind that seems to kill their soul, rather than make it?
The way I see it, this is still a very answerable question. We are meant to grow as a collective soul, rather than individuals. We are all united in a metaphysical way. In a sense, we are all just different pieces of one soul, all the gears in a mechanism. The pain, joy, hate, and love we all feel is shared in a non-corporeal way.
"The shadows cannot exist without the light, but without the shadows, the light has no meaning." -James A. Owens, author of The Chronicles of the Imaginarium GeographicaOzymandias wrote:As Bob Ross put it, "You gotta have opposites; light and dark. If you have light on light you have nothing. If you have dark on dark, you have nothing." Duality is necessary for the universe to be anything at all.
It is said that two pairs of hands are better than one. How about 6.3 billion pairs of hands.Ozymandias wrote:Does it not make sense that the God discussed in the problem of evil also almost always tells various religions to help the poor, take care of each other, and turn the other cheek? It's almost like we are intended to be a team, working together. That may seem obvious, but it's worth pointing out.
I'm not so sure about reincarnation, but I like the second possibility that you give.Ozymandias wrote:So one of two possibilities follow this train of thought, and I won't outright claim either to be true, because this is where it just gets to be guessing based on a little evidence. We may reincarnate, therefore our painful lives are really like a dream. We also, as I explained lightly earlier, be one collective mass. In the afterlife, if there is one, the soul of a person who suffered in life will not be bitter, because he will be able to identify just as much with the life and experience of the person next to him as he can identify with his own life and experience. It's not to say we only have one consciousness, but that we are all teammates, playing one game, and my failure is your failure, and my joy is your joy, etc. etc.
How about this for another possibility: God put together a plan in which we would come to earth to learn and to gain mortal bodies, so that when we resurrected, we would have a body of flesh, blood, and spirit like God does. In coming here, we would make mistakes and commit sins that would banish us from the presence of God. So He sent His Son to atone and die for us so that our sins would be "washed away" and that we would be able to stand guiltless before God and our fellow men and women. We will all have joy, and our past mistakes will be perhaps only dim memories.
Eh?
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: A theodicy
The thing is that the Deity, as we are defining it, has power over the laws of biology and physics. If we choose to discuss a Deity who is not omnipotent, then you're right- there is no need for collective soul theory. But as far as most religions hold, the Deity is omniscient and could therefore create laws of biology that do not require pain and death. My reasoning by collective soul theory is for why the Deity has chosen to make the laws of biology as he has.Steve3007 wrote:The deity does not suspend the laws of Biology any more than it suspends the laws of physics.
I can't agree much with the "mortal bodies" ideas. I don't believe that our corporeal bodies have any influence on the holiness, development, or meaning of our souls. Our bodies are the cars we drive; they don't define who we are or why we matter, they are simply the vessels that contain our souls. We cannot exist in the universe without bodies to contain us, but that does not mean that we can't exist at all without bodies. As far as I understand your religiophilosophical ideology on this matter, the basic idea is that if a person dies before the age of 8 they get a free ticket to heaven because they were as of yet incapable of properly exercising their agency, right? Not to say that's an irrational assertion, but the problem of infant mortality still applies- why must our benevolent, omni-natured god cut them off- why won't he let them reach adulthood and get to be a full moral agent like everyone else? And my answer for that problem is the theodicy of collective soul-making. Between each individual, life is not fair and never was intended to be fair, but within the greater perspective of our collection, we all enjoy the good things- the light- together, and we endure the bad things- the dark- together. I'm trying not to be preachy or presumptuous with my ideas here, and I know I may be close to that, so I'll clarify that this is simply my logical interpretation of how the PoE--theodicy train must move.Lark Truth wrote:I'm not so sure about reincarnation, but I like the second possibility that you give.
How about this for another possibility: God put together a plan in which we would come to earth to learn and to gain mortal bodies, so that when we resurrected, we would have a body of flesh, blood, and spirit like God does. In coming here, we would make mistakes and commit sins that would banish us from the presence of God. So He sent His Son to atone and die for us so that our sins would be "washed away" and that we would be able to stand guiltless before God and our fellow men and women. We will all have joy, and our past mistakes will be perhaps only dim memories.
Eh?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: A theodicy
This Deity may (in most religious people's view) be able to make the laws of Biology and Physics however it chooses, but I think most people agree that it can't make those laws self-contradictory. They have to be logically consistent. There couldn't, for example, simultaneously be a law of gravity and not be a law of gravity. Once the laws have been created they can't be selectively applied.The thing is that the Deity, as we are defining it, has power over the laws of biology and physics. If we choose to discuss a Deity who is not omnipotent, then you're right- there is no need for collective soul theory. But as far as most religions hold, the Deity is omniscient and could therefore create laws of biology that do not require pain and death. My reasoning by collective soul theory is for why the Deity has chosen to make the laws of biology as he has.
This requirement for logical consistency is what makes the laws inevitably lead to some suffering. The same universal physical laws which hold us safely on the ground (gravity) and stop us from falling through the ground (electromagnetism) also kill us when we fall.
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: A theodicy
Fair point, but that just gives us the question "does the Deity have the power to control logic?" As in, is logic something within or without the Deity? I, for one, agree with you on that, that logic is something which a Deity must adhere to, but in an objective sense it's hard to discount that matter. One might claim that an absolutely omnipotent Deity can, and has, decided what "logic" even is. So, my theodicy still addresses the concept of an absolutely omnipotent Deity, or one with control over the laws of logic and biology.Steve3007 wrote:Ozymandias:This Deity may (in most religious people's view) be able to make the laws of Biology and Physics however it chooses, but I think most people agree that it can't make those laws self-contradictory. They have to be logically consistent. There couldn't, for example, simultaneously be a law of gravity and not be a law of gravity. Once the laws have been created they can't be selectively applied.The thing is that the Deity, as we are defining it, has power over the laws of biology and physics. If we choose to discuss a Deity who is not omnipotent, then you're right- there is no need for collective soul theory. But as far as most religions hold, the Deity is omniscient and could therefore create laws of biology that do not require pain and death. My reasoning by collective soul theory is for why the Deity has chosen to make the laws of biology as he has.
This requirement for logical consistency is what makes the laws inevitably lead to some suffering. The same universal physical laws which hold us safely on the ground (gravity) and stop us from falling through the ground (electromagnetism) also kill us when we fall.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: A theodicy
Until recently, I, too, had a theodicy. But why, if not to simply satisfy the expectations imposed by secular society? Why should I succumb to the wants and expectations of others? I am free to direct my conscious awareness in any way I please, and that includes placing my trust in unseen principalities and powers.Ozymandias wrote:How do you mean, exactly? I'll consider that idea. Anything that doesn't apply to my perspective of the way the universe works could be "nonsense". But as the problem of evil and its resulting theodicies do apply to my understanding of the universe, they are a topic which I have to address, regardless of what someone else might think of them from any "higher perspective". I've already addressed the other perspectives, and I've chosen the perspective that most fits my view of reality. I'm working from there.Dark Matter wrote:What if, from a higher perspective, both the PoE and the answering theodicy are nonsense?
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. ” Isaiah 55:8
“He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5:45
In short, theodicy is for the faithless. Reason is the servant of man, not the master.And faith is neither the submission of the reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is: the being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self. [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: A theodicy
Well, it has less to do with submitting to what society wants, and more to do with ensuring religion is held accountable to philosophy of religion, which is in turn held accountable to epistemology. Religion is great, but it, like absolutely everything else, ought to be philosophically scrutinized, and it ought to be epistemologically valid. If I have a religious belief that is contradictory to itself, I don't thump my Bible and say "It's just TRUE!!" and ignore any sense of reason because I'm afraid that I'm wrong, like so many people do. I accept that I'm wrong, and I embrace my wrongness, and I then seek rightness, which is where philosophy comes in. I figure out how to learn more about my religion, whittle down the BS and build up the good parts, and as a result I have no need for "faith".Dark Matter wrote:Until recently, I, too, had a theodicy. But why, if not to simply satisfy the expectations imposed by secular society? Why should I succumb to the wants and expectations of others? I am free to direct my conscious awareness in any way I please, and that includes placing my trust in unseen principalities and powers.Ozymandias wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
How do you mean, exactly? I'll consider that idea. Anything that doesn't apply to my perspective of the way the universe works could be "nonsense". But as the problem of evil and its resulting theodicies do apply to my understanding of the universe, they are a topic which I have to address, regardless of what someone else might think of them from any "higher perspective". I've already addressed the other perspectives, and I've chosen the perspective that most fits my view of reality. I'm working from there.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. ” Isaiah 55:8
“He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” Matthew 5:45
In short, theodicy is for the faithless. Reason is the servant of man, not the master.And faith is neither the submission of the reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is: the being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self. [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]
Which brings me to my next point. Faith, if you define it as synonymous to trusting someone (in this subject, trusting God with your life and the world), is essential in any personal-god religion. But faith, if you define it as you just did, as a bold, shameless statement of belief in lieu of actual knowledge, is dangerous and useless. Religious teachers who, when asked a hard question, tell you that you "just have to have faith" are lying to you. They don't know their own beliefs any better than a skunk knows algebra. When you take the time to invest in your religious beliefs, and learn about them and the world, you need less and less faith, because you gain a greater understanding of things. This is why I work to figure out theodicies, and other logical problems of philosophy, both religious and secular. You wouldn't claim to just "have faith" in a certain political view. You would back it up with your reasoning and experience.
So yes, theodicy is for the faithless. If you must say so, I am "faithless", not because I'm bad at religion, but because I don't need faith to believe in a god. Faith is the benchwarmer for reason. Faith is like a set of training wheels. Once you have an actual understanding of the topic, you don't need faith to defend yourself.
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: A theodicy
Yeah, I used to believe that, too.Ozymandias wrote: Faith is the benchwarmer for reason. Faith is like a set of training wheels. Once you have an actual understanding of the topic, you don't need faith to defend yourself.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: A theodicy
Maybe so. Our perceptions of "self" are not grounded in reality. We assume that our minds are entirely our own but most of the time we regurgitate the ideas and interaction styles of others. We may be akin to icebergs that are only aware of the protrusion, not the bulk. That's at least verified in terms of physical processes in the body - we only notice the obvious.Ozymandias wrote:We are meant to grow as a collective soul, rather than individuals. We are all united in a metaphysical way. In a sense, we are all just different pieces of one soul, all the gears in a mechanism. The pain, joy, hate, and love we all feel is shared in a non-corporeal way.
Yep. That's is why I consider evil to be purely a relative concept. What's the difference between Mars being sterilised by a collision, the dino-killing asteroid, the Black Death or various dictator's reigns of "evil"? Each time the result is a major concentration of entropy. Often entropy's opposite - growth follows at a greater rate after a major "clean out", eg. the asteroid and The Plague. Sometimes the entropy is too great and death (and recycling) follows. As has been known by humanity since the days of loin cloths, everything is cyclic.Ozymandias wrote:... it is necessary that "**** happens".
The difficult truth is that without entropy - death and destruction - there is only increasing staleness and crowding. Further, the very act of existing means inflicting entropy on other entities, or at least taking energy that other entities could use to maintain life. What is life but largely a postponement of the inevitable day When Entropy Comes To Town (ie. we die)?
So I see "progress" on both an individual and societal level as being able to live with minimal inflicting of entropy upon other entities. "Do no harm" - unless you must. To learn to act with an ever "lighter touch" by aiming for win-win solutions. Technology can help us do that. Ha! It had better ...
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Re: A theodicy
Well, why don't you anymore? Come on, Dark Matter, this is a discussion forum, not a cryptic message forum!Dark Matter wrote:Yeah, I used to believe that, too.Ozymandias wrote: Faith is the benchwarmer for reason. Faith is like a set of training wheels. Once you have an actual understanding of the topic, you don't need faith to defend yourself.
That's a very keen outlook on progress, I certainly can't disagree with it. A bit abstract, or maybe obscure for my tastes, but not wrong.Greta wrote:So I see "progress" on both an individual and societal level as being able to live with minimal inflicting of entropy upon other entities. "Do no harm" - unless you must. To learn to act with an ever "lighter touch" by aiming for win-win solutions. Technology can help us do that. Ha! It had better ...
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14995
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: A theodicy
It's just the old "do no harm" principle, but with an associated rationalisation and a recognition that we must do at least some harm so as to survive. Today the concept increasingly comes under the heading of "sustainability".Ozymandias wrote:That's a very keen outlook on progress, I certainly can't disagree with it. A bit abstract, or maybe obscure for my tastes, but not wrong.Greta wrote:So I see "progress" on both an individual and societal level as being able to live with minimal inflicting of entropy upon other entities. "Do no harm" - unless you must. To learn to act with an ever "lighter touch" by aiming for win-win solutions. Technology can help us do that. Ha! It had better ...
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich
Re: A theodicy
What is there to discuss? Theodicy is pure speculation: why should I presume to know the mind of God? If God's thoughts are not my thoughts and if he makes the sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, what is theodicy but human vanity?Ozymandias wrote:Well, why don't you anymore? Come on, Dark Matter, this is a discussion forum, not a cryptic message forum!Dark Matter wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Yeah, I used to believe that, too.
A while back, I was feeling depressed and took notice of the thoughts behind the depression: I was blaming the world for never allowing me to be me. Then my head exploded. I suddenly realized just how nonsensical that was. The realization was much, much more than mere intellectual assent. I felt it at the very core of my being. Call it a revelation if you like, but I suddenly knew the only thing preventing me from being me was me. I am, and always have been free and that freedom is something that cannot be taken away. In less than a heartbeat, I went from depression to a joy I has never before felt. Sure, there will always be circumstances that will be difficult, but none of that can take away the freedom to be me.
Again: Faith is being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self, i.e., our human intellect.
Below is the first section of the first chapter of The Psychic Grid by Beatrice Bruteau. It's out of print and difficult to find, and if you do find it, it can run over $500.
HELPLESSNESS AND THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY
Human consciousness is the most mysterious reality we experience. The fact that we coincide with it does little to allay our uneasiness in its presence, for the only instrument we possess with which to study this mystery is again this same mystery, human consciousness. If consciousness should deceive itself, we would be caught within an enchanted Hall of Mirrors from which there is no exit.
How can we test whether consciousness deceives us? We can check one type of consciousness by another: theoretical constructs by sense perception, experience through one sense by experience through another sense, moral convictions about persons and policies by perception of events and human actions. In all this do we ever escape from the Hall of Mirrors? Are we not always comparing one event within human consciousness with another event within human consciousness?
If only we could be convinced that we had reached something outside human consciousness, something that was itself real and incapable of practicing deception! How should we know when we had contacted such a reality? We might feel sure if all the various types of consciousness agreed in their estimate of it: each of our perceptive senses, our reasoning power, our memory, our moral and esthetic senses, our experience of other persons communicating to us by word and action that they also experience the reality in question the same way we do. This consensus of conscious faculties and communicating persons usually is sufficient to our submerge our doubts for any practical purpose. It is said to constitute “overwhelming evidence.”
Perhaps “overwhelming” is the critical word. Perhaps doubt is dissolved only when we feel utterly helpless before the experience. Doubt is an uncomfortable recognition of the possibility of alternatives. It is a grudging division of our consciousness-energy among several ways of seeing the situation. But when we are totally incapable of directing any of our consciousness-energy into an alternative to the experience presented, then all doubt is removed and we are certain that we touch reality.
Doubt is experienced by us as discomfort. It interrupts action and produces tension and restlessness in our interior awareness. From the time that we became reflexively conscious at all, not-knowing-for-sure has been one of our greatest pains. And since not-knowing, or doubt, is forcibly and effectively removed by the experience of passivity and the impossibility of sustaining an alternative, the quest for ease of consciousness has become secretly a craving for helplessness.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023