|
| The Idea is borrowed from the Rude Pundit, but I don't think he'd mind spreading the idea.
"We are gathered here, friends," he said, "to honor lo Hoon-year
Mora-toorz tut Zamoo-cratz-ya, children dead, all dead, all murdered in
war. It is customary on days like this to call such lost children men.
I am unable to call them men for this simple reason: that in the same
war in which lo Hoon-year Mora-toorz tut Zamoo-cratz-ya died, my own
son died.
"My soul insists that I mourn not a man but a child.
"I
do not say that children at war do not die like men, if they have to
die. To their everlasting honor and our everlasting shame, they do die
like men, thus making possible the manly jubilation of patriotic
holidays.
"But they are murdered children all the same.
"And
I propose to you that if we are to pay our sincere respects to the
hundred lost children of San Lorenzo, that we might best spend the day
despising what killed them; which is to say, the stupidity and
viciousness of all mankind.
"Perhaps, when we remember wars, we
should take off our clothes and paint ourselves blue and go on all
fours all day long and grunt like pigs. That would surely be more
appropriate than noble oratory and shows of flags and well-oiled guns.
"I do not mean to be ungrateful for the fine, martial show we are about to see – and a thrilling show it really will be…"
He looked each of us in the eye, and then he commented very softly, throwing it away, "And hooray I say for thrilling shows."
We had to strain our ears to hear what Minton said next.
"But if today is really in honor of a hundred children murdered in war," he said, "is today a day for a thrilling show?
"The
answer is yes, on one condition: that we, the celebrants are working
consciously and tirelessly to reduce the stupidity and viciousness of
ourselves and all mankind."
Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut
| | |
| Well, I've been reading and thinking about a lot of things this week, and one of the things that has, randomly enough, come up twice this week in other blogs that I read has been Theodicy. Theodicy is, to put it simply, an attempt to reconcile belief in a god with the problem of evil. The problem of evil can be summed up as follows: (a)An omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would not allow evil and suffering to exist, except in the service of a greater good. (b)It is painfully apparent, however, that both evil and suffering exist. (c)If we also agree that at least some of this suffering and evil is not in the service of a higher good, then we come to the uncomfortable but logical conclusion that (d) there is no omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.
So, then, theodicy is the attempt to show that one of the three premises on which this argument is based is unsound. Well, you can accept the argument as valid and proceed with the idea that god is not omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but then you get to the case of gods that are more like Zeus, Odin, and Thor, who don't give two craps about humanity. Not a very popular track for christian theodicy, so we're left then with the other three points. Point one isn't really an argument, though, so much as a definition of terms. To refute that, you have to redefine either omnipotent or omnibenevolent. You could choose to refute point (b), but then you seem to essentially be taking the same course as Candide's Pangloss, hardly a worthy exemplar. It is apparent that this is not the best of all possible worlds, and that it does contain evil. So we come then to part c.
To refute part c, a theodicy has to argue that there is no evil or suffering in the world that is not part of a higher good. This is, however, very problematic. One discussion I've been reading discusses birth defects as a problem for this idea. Explaining away the good that can only come from afflicting newborn infants with horrible disfigurements and crippling diseases is not an easy proposition. This is particularly so because not only must one explain the good that comes from this, one must also explain why it cannot be brought about through a lesser evil.
You also have to deal with large-scale disasters. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 300,000 died in the massive tsunamai. The problem for a theodicy then is to explain how the same amount of good (and surely there was some good: brotherly love, outporing of kindness, examinations of faith; but all at a horrendous cost) could not have been achieved with the deaths of only 299,999. From there we come again to something like Abraham's bargaining with God, until we come to the point where, at one death, well, is it really necessary that someone had to die?
You could argue that a just god cannot abide sin, and that therefore this evil is a repayment for the sins committed. But then you'll run up against the idea that this god is simultaneously omnibenevolent. As an example of what I mean, if someone sins against me or you, who are at best partially omnibenevolent, say by lying against us, then we can usually find it in ourselves to move on with our lives without killing the bastard, or even without beating him into a coma. If we, as imperfect creatures, can manage that forgiveness, then surely an infinitely patient, infinitely wise, infinitely loving god could at least do the same.
We are left then, it seems, with a couple of uncomfortable possibilities. God could well be capricious or arbitrary. But that hardly matches with the ideals of a god who is loving. Why bother to pray to such a god, if in his arbitrary ways he'll still merely do as he pleases? This brings us to the Epicurean Riddle.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
And from there, I suppose the obvious answer can speak for itself. Any comments you have to share are, as always, welcome.
Tomorrow (or later tonight): Another look at the story of Adam and Eve. | | |
| Since I figure there's a pretty decent chance I'll be kicked out of the relevent group on facebook, I'm crossposting this here so I can at least follow a bit of the reaction and comment. This is in response to the original post: "What bout this one. God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, to
reproduse and multiply. I recon if he wanted us to be all homosexulal
he'd made us tha way." (sic):
Well, after a bit of research (put "homosexuality in animals" into
google and see what you get, for starters) it seems to turn out that in
fact God did make all sorts of homosexual critters. The birds and bees
(oh, the birds, they seem to especially love it), bottlenose dolphins
(some of them like it in the blowhole. who knew?), sheep, insects,
bison, and primates, our closest animal cousins. There was even one
group, the Bonobo chimpanzees, I think it was, where every single
member of the community was observed having sex with members of both
sexes. So, it turns out that as far as we can tell, God did want some
of "us to be all homosexual." He certainly made lots of all the things
that creep and crawl on the earth homosexual, and I can't help but
conclude that he made some of us that way, too.
(edited to move links to the bottom)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal_2.html
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm (bad page name, I know, but it's one of the most informative articles)
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n1_v151/ai_19027025
http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
| | |
| Alright, I'm sort of curious as to what this might turn up, so why not? What do you think about me? http://kevan.org/johari?name=halcyonjedi Should be interesting. Also, this is from a link on Catie's LJ, so there.
| | |
| Well, I have to admit, when I listed all the things I could think of that could destroy the world, "Crudely Drawn Danish Cartoon" didn't even make the top 10,000. Seriously, what the hell is up with this? So, nevermind the thousands of drawings of Mohammed in hundreds of venues over the intervening centuries. One crappy political cartoon in a newspaper, and we're torching embassies? Have these people even seen it? Do they recognize the mind-blowing irony? The main cartoon in question seems to be the one that shows Mohammed wearing a Bomb with a lit fuse for a turban. Obviously enough, this is an expression of how outsiders could perhaps view current radical expressions of Islam as violent. You know, the exploding factions. And boy, did this outrage a lot of muslims, apparently. So they decided to protest this depiction of their prophet because it offends them. And what did they decide would be the best way to express their anger? By BURNING DOWN EMBASSIES of the nations where these originated. Is it...? I just.... I don't really know what to say after that. I mean, does it not click in someone's head? I'm trying really really hard to come up with something funny that could go here, but how does one compete with that level of Irony? I guess the lily really doesn't need gilding.
| | |
|
