America’s Next Top Deity: Job Selection Criteria
As an atheist, I am always baffled by the extent to which people are willing to compromise, both morally and factually, to justify and explain an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good god’s existence. A reduction of Epicurus sums up my frustration quite nicely:
As Epicurus points out above, more eloquently than I can, if God isn’t omnipotent then he can’t be the source of moral authority. If God is omnipotent, then he is a fucking asshole . . .
I don’t get into religious arguments with people because it’s a lose-lose situation. I know I can’t rely on logic to make them overcome their deep-seeded convictions, and in the process of flustering and discomforting them, I potentially alienate friends and/or colleagues. No sense in converting the converted.
But I will say that I haven’t come across a single convincing resolution to that omnipotence paradox. The usual retorts that can logically transcend the paradox are “God works in mysterious ways” and “some suffering is necessary for God’s plan for greater good”. Both are able to explain the countless instances of human misery on this planet without undermining God’s supposedly perfect nature (ie. they don’t imply God lacks ability or goodness). Instead, they assume human fallibility and imperfection makes us incapable of realizing the necessity of suffering, or perceiving god’s perfection.
Even said argument’s are logically inconsistent in some manner. But logic aside, let me just ask the faithful why their selection criteria for a deity is so low? Are they really prepared to surrender their devotion and belief to a deity who “works in mysterious ways” and who would inflict harm on some to fulfill his master plans? Do they really feel a deity who keeps them in the dark about why good, innocent people suffer deserves their worship and adulation? People have higher standards for spouses, parents, and employees. Why must they lower them - to accept the epidemic of poverty, disease, oppression and persecution that pervades this world - for a being that constitutes their moral and epistemological authority?
Let me just say that this current god - if he does exist - has not done a good enough job for me. At the very minimum, the position of CDO - Chief Deity Officer - would require a few things on the resume:
- The eradication of three of the following: poverty, AIDs, political oppression, genocide, sexual persecution, childhood diseases, sex trafficking, and international terrorism.
- Clear and unmistakeable communication to mankind on why 1) The Holocaust was not prevented 2) Why the Armenian Genocide was not prevented 3) Why the Rape of Nanking was not prevented and 4) Why the genocide in Darfur has not been stopped.
- Three acts of outright intervention against evil.
- A promise of continuous communication with mankind to correct the self-serving diatribes of religious fundamentalists and extremists.
Fulfill these, and he might make it into the hotseat for an interview.
Hat Tip: Ferdi.
I once attended a garden party with some cousins in West London. The party was held for a young friend of theirs who had been deathly sick for many years and was in the process of recovery. At the end of the night her father came out and said something like: “And we all know we have the ‘powers that be’ [god, presumably] to thank for her recovery.” I applauded and cheered with everyone else because, as you’ve said, there’s no point in alienating people. But I did wonder whether the same logic couldn’t be applied the other way…couldn’t you similarly blame god for making her ill to begin with? The pious create their own systems of logic to reinforce their beliefs. They attribute evil to human flaw and good to divine intervention. When questioned or confronted they resort to the “it’s a matter of faith argument”. Weak stuff indeed.
Just an add-on, in this post you kind of sound like a liberal! (Remember for me that word isn’t used in the pejorative sense.)
Josh, it’s clear that you deny the existence of god because he doesn’t step in and make everything perfect. However, there are some problems with your assessment–
1. Your expectations deny the possibility of free will. If God wanted to keep everything perfect, he would not have given us the ability to choose to do good or evil. Without free will there is no distinction between good or evil, nor rebellion or submission.
2. All of the requirements you have of “CDO” absolves all humans of any semblance of responsibility. It is clear why [atrocity] happened–it is because [group] wanted to do it. Humans are not conglomerations of particles that move in Brownian motion in such a way to commit an act that looks to us like homicide. No, they are beings capable between choosing between one path and another.
Our criteria for a God aren’t low. We simply believe he exists (one way or another) because we believe he is real. Rather, our criteria for ourselves are low because we think that either God should make our lives easy or he doesn’t exist.
Funni: Benign intervention to prevent evil does not preclude free will. Perpetrators are free to act in terrible ways, but it is the responsibility of a watchful deity to make sure their actions don’t harm innocent others. Such a deity can do so without mind control - he can use natural forces, from the weather to the paranormal. I find it interesting how the faithful claim divine intervention exists, and yet rationalize the misery of the hapless on grounds of human free will.
Even if you rule out human actions, the myriad natural disasters that befall the poor, from Hurricane Katrina to the 2005 Typhoon, is reason enough to doubt the kindness of God.
Luke: I am a liberal mugged by reality.
Believe me Josh, I was once in the same boat as you but for a number of reasons rejected atheism (even knowing that being freed from religious obligations meant that I could indulge in every respectable vice without fear).
Another question we have to ponder is “Why do good things happen to bad people”. Why should we denounce the actions of Stalin as “bad” when to this day the fruit of his horrendous repressions is that he is still regarded as a hero in Russia.
As for the “Katrina” issue. I’m willing to concede that God caused it indirectly, insofar as he made everything including the weather. That still doesn’t absolve humans for leaving New Orleans in a state that would make it particularly succeptible to disaster. (Mis)fortune falls on good and evil people with equal, apparent randomness and the final earthly reward of good and evil alike is the grave. This does not mean that God does not exist, it just means that our view of God is in error (which I believe is the point you’re trying to make).
I would also agree that benign intervention does not preclude free will; but the extent that one is willing to attribute any apparently beneficial accident to God depends entirely on one’s view of God. (I am reminded here of Jules’s statistically improbable survival in Pulp Fiction).
Josh, I’ll keep it short. If you are genuinely interested in a well articulated and concise answer to your questions check out this video. http://www.jerrygillis.com/messages/?id=211&show=vid
Jerry Gillis is the pastor of the church I currently attend. Although some of his answers may fit into your identification of the “usual retort” you may find it interesting. It is really just an honest attempt to answer some hard questions and to concede when those questions can’t be “logically” explained.
“Benign intervention to prevent evil does not preclude free will. Perpetrators are free to act in terrible ways, but it is the responsibility of a watchful deity to make sure their actions don’t harm innocent others.”
Josh, the idea of Free Will is a particularly messy one when relating it to the notion of an omnipotent deity. I covered a bunch of talking points this week (here). I think it would be a denial of Free Will for God to reach down and make the world a perfect place by blunting malicious actions.
I think a compelling question is to ask whether or not we have free will if God knows the future. If God is omnipotent, then he has all powers, including the ability to see/know the future. If he can see the future NOW, then the future is already written and we have a fate/destiny. If we the future is already written, how can we have F.W.?
The answer lies in causality. Even if there were a God, and God could see future events, then there still exists the possibility that we have free will. As long as we are intentionally causal - we exert our will to make events happen - then we have free will. If NOTHING we did could thwart God’s plan - whether we picked a or b or c - no matter what we do, the outcome will eventually be the same (because it is destiny) . . .
In that case, humans are not intentionally causal and therefore free will doesn’t really exist. Think of it like Fate in a Greek tragedy. Oedipus was fated to kill his father and fuck his mother. His intention was otherwise, but nothing he did could change it. He willfully tried to change it, but for epistemological reasons he was fucked from the start. If the outcome had been pre-determined, it didn’t really matter what Oedipus did because he wasn’t really causal (not intentionally, anyway). His will didn’t matter.
Just food for thought.