Listener Essay Voice or Character (5:29)
20 years ago, photojournalist Kevin Carter was sent by a South African newspaper to document the ongoing famine in Sudan. Overwhelmed by what he saw at a crowding feeding center, Carter took a stroll into the bush to calm his nerves. In the middle of a clearing, he came across an emaciated toddler, too weak to stand, struggling to crawl towards the feeding center. As he raised his camera to frame the scene, a vulture landed behind the little girl, hungrily awaiting her death. Carter reports waiting 20 minutes for the vulture to fly off before chasing it away and then sitting under a tree, smoking a cigarette and talking to God. He was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his photo in May 1994, but died at his own hand two months later. His suicide note describes being haunted by the death and the suffering to which he'd been witness during his career as a parent. I cannot allow myself to imagine my own child in Carter's frame. As I begin to flirt with doing so, my throat tightens painfully and I have to blink hard to keep my vision clear. What happened to that little girl is unknown, but the photo is immortalized as an icon of human suffering. To many atheists, pictures like this are conclusive proof of the non existence of a loving God. A deity that permits innocent children to starve while simultaneously finding your car keys, allowing you to get home safely and nourishing and strengthening your body day after day is clearly not worth believing in. This is a powerful emotional argument, except it fails logically. Christianity in general, and Mormonism in particular handles the problem of evil really quite well. I shall list 10 solutions or theodicies. 1. Opposition in all things you have to taste the bitter so that you might know the sweet. 2. Soul making. Even the worst trials will give you experience and shall be for your good. 3. Eternal time frame. Your adversity and affliction shall be but a small moment, and if you endure it well, you shall be exalted on a high number. 4. The free will Defence. God permits your suffering from chains of events initiated by human choices. 5. Divine hiddenness. God preserves your faith by strategically limiting his intervention. 6. The best of all possible worlds. The conditions of this world are tuned for a maximum number of souls to achieve salvation. 7. Deus ex machina. In the end, God will resolve all contradictions, injustices and unknowns. 8. Atonement. God sent Jesus to suffer to save you and succor you according to your infirmities. 9. Darkness and light. Just as cold is the absence of heat, so all evil you perceive is but the absence of God's influence. And number 10. Divine incomprehensibility. God works in mysterious ways which are not your ways. His thoughts are higher than your thoughts and you should not lean unto your own understanding. The argument from divine incomprehensibility is a particularly interesting one because it makes it very difficult to prove the existence of gratuitous evil, that is to say, the existence of objectively pointless suffering. The sword with which a loving God could not logically coexist. The classic analogy is that of a chess grandmaster. If I Were to observe a grandmaster in play, his strategy would certainly be beyond me. In this situation, it's very probable that he might make a move that seems to me gratuitous, say, allowing his queen to be taken, but which ultimately serves the greater good and leads to victory. This is fairly straightforward, but let us consider for a moment the perspective of the Grand Master's opponent to opponent. Of my own deplorable skill level, the unexpected gambit might appear gratuitously good, while the consequent checkmate is a crushing defeat. This twist of perspective opens up the door to a parallel line of thinking that I have found intriguing that while there is plenty of exploration of the problem of evil, we rarely if ever, hear discussion of the problem of good. What if there is a God and his nature corresponds to what we would label evil? What if everything we perceive to be wrong with the world is in fact a direct fulfillment of the divine will? One might contend that a benevolent God permits evil in order to further his loving purposes, but why is that any more tenable than the conception of a malevolent deity who permits good to exist to further his sinister objectives? It is my contention that each of the theodicies I have mentioned has an evil twin, a goatee Vulcan doppelganger. Just flip the theodicy on its head like that primary song in which a smile turned upside down becomes a frown. Thus. 10. Divine incomprehensibility. God's omniscience allows all events to maximize ultimate harm, even if his machinations are beyond your limited understanding. Number nine. Darkness and light just as cold as the absence of heat. So all good you perceive is but the absence of God's influence. Number eight. Atonement. God sent Jesus to suffer to damn you and increase your infirmities. Number seven. Deus ex Machina. In the end, God will maximize all contradictions, injustices and unknowns. Number six. The best of all possible worlds. The conditions of this world are tuned to maximize human pain and suffering. 5. Divine hiddenness. God gives you false hope by strategically limiting his intervention. 4. The free will defense. God permits your well being from chains of events initiated by human choices. 3. Eternal time frame. Your joy and happiness shall be but a small moment compared to the infinite suffering in store for you in the hereafter. 2. Soul making the most pleasant experiences of life increase the extent to which you can be broken. Number one. Opposition in all things. You have to taste the sweet so that you might know the bitter. So all of these theodicies can be flipped by substituting good for evil and accordingly reflecting God's processes. Each attempt to reconcile the existence of evil in the world with a loving God can at the same time harmonize the presence of goodness in the world with a wicked God. Where does this leave us? Well, it becomes unreasonable to use any of these theodicies as a defense of God's loving nature. If they work with a nasty God as well as with a nice one, then they aren't helpful in informing us of his true nature and motives. I don't claim that the problem of evil has a diametrically opposed problem of good in all possible respects. But I'd be very interested to hear any response to the problem of evil that cannot be accordingly reflected. I think most people would very readily reject the possibility of an evil God. But in that case, I would ask, under what premises is an evil deity any less likely than a loving one? What does this mean for those who try to make sense of suffering in the world through the lens of theistic belief? If there is indeed true equilibrium between the two sides of the argument, can we use the epistemological voluntarism popularized by Terrell Givens and simply choose to believe in a good God? Other questions that arise include what happens when we throw the concept of Satan into the mix? How might an evil God employ the concept of atonement and expiatory sacrifice? Under what conditions might a good God lie to mankind? And would it ever be possible to detect that lie? Finally, how do the Euthyphro dilemma and the moral argument for God handle the inversion of God's nature?