9. Redemptive Suffering

Alright, so last time, we discussed how there is a disconnect between those westerners who look at the third world nations and call on God’s unfairness and those saints who willingly gave up their luxurious lifestyle willingly. This time, we’re going to discuss it, and ultimately, look at why the problem of evil isn’t actually a problem for Christians.

As we discussed earlier, any four year old child could tell you that something about the world isn’t fair, though they may not be able to say what it is or how big it is. The lack of fairness and justice in life seems to be the most clearly evident proof available that there is no God up there, there is no supreme judge trying to hold the world together, or anything like that. The thief gets away, the innocent man takes the fall, and nobody is able to right the wrong.

There’s just one problem with approaching it from that perspective. See, to the Christian, this life isn’t all there is. To the Christian, when life becomes rough, it’s okay, because there’s a promise of an eternal reward. To a Christian, when injustice happens, it’s okay, because in the end, all will be held accountable for their actions.

However, beyond just this simple idea of justice is a distinctly Catholic idea. The problem of pain, evil, and suffering in the world shouldn’t be a challenge, especially to Catholics, because of the idea of redemptive suffering. What does this mean?

We’re going to skip a few steps here. Don’t worry, we’ll be going back and coming all the way to this point in the future (eventually). Meanwhile, bear with me while we jump ahead.

Redemptive suffering is the idea of uniting your sufferings to the suffering of Christ on the Cross. There’s a very old phrase that has sort of faded out of use, but is still sometimes heard in Catholic circles, “offer it up.” What does this mean?

It means to offer the suffering up as penance for our sins. It means to use the suffering and bear it patiently as a way of showing God repentance and sorrow for past sins. It means to acknowledge that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to repay the debt that Original Sin created in the world, but we can still play a role in that suffering by saying, “Hey, I’m sorry for my sins. Here’s my proof and what I could do.”

Now before some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters get up in arms saying that there’s nothing we can do that can possibly earn our salvation, I’d like to say that’s entirely true. Here’s an analogy that may help: Imagine a man mowing his lawn with a riding mower while his child rides on his lap. The child will naturally want to take a turn driving the mower, so the father will let him put his hands on the wheel and pretend he’s driving. Is the child actually really doing anything to direct the mower? Probably not. What matters, though, is that the child has an interest in doing it and the father recognizes that.

So the problem of evil does indeed pose a problem in today’s world. However, that problem is not proving that God doesn’t exist. Instead, it proves a very different problem. It proves that there are millions of Christians in the world who believe themselves to be justified in calling themselves Christians while at the same time being unwilling to either help others through their suffering or to bear suffering of their own.

This concludes the little tangent on the Problem of Evil. Next time, we’ll get back into the series proper and resume working forward from the knowledge that One, Omnipresent being, existence itself, exists.

8. Standards of Living

So last time we discussed the real root of the problem of evil- a perceived injustice. We discussed why it would even be possible for humans to have free will. Now, it’s time to turn to things on a slightly larger scale.

Natural disasters are generally regarded as tragedies. Whether it be a tornado through Missouri, an earthquake in Haiti, or a tsunami in the Philippines, natural disasters happen and bring about massive loss of life as well as tremendous suffering for those who survive and have to watch everything they had become washed away.

There are two ways of looking at these things. First, there is the general human way, which is to look at the disaster and say “how could God possibly allow something this terrible to happen?” But there’s another way to look at it. There’s the Christian way, which is to look at it and say “How is God going to bring good out of this?”

See, ultimately, that’s where the very root of this problem lies. A majority of people unwilling to look past the present moment, only thinking about things in terms of material wealth. Why was the earthquake in Haiti so devastating? Because the already-poor were left with even less than they already had. Cities were destroyed, houses lay in rubble, infrastructure collapsed, and the isolated became more isolated.

To the average Westerner, this great loss of material wealth is a tragedy. Ask your average boy scout, and (given that they’re actually mature enough to see this), and he’ll tell you that life is actually much more fun without all the luxuries and conveniences we’ve come to depend on.

It’s hard to imagine that God is loving the poor in Pakistan or the orphan in Uganda. Why? Because they don’t have stuff. Because what stuff they do have gets taken away from them so easily. Nepal learned a valuable lesson recently, one that the rest of the world still doesn’t understand. Life is not dependent upon luxury.

The average American can’t imagine life without tv, the internet, a car, air conditioning, clean water, a grocery store, and more. Meanwhile, in Haiti, for example, people are walking miles to find clean water, there is no thought of air conditioning in the middle of the Caribbean, electricity is a rare commodity (had legitimately by 1/8 of the population), and people are willing to eat mud for lack of better food. Then a monstrous earthquake comes and takes away what little they had, and the worldly man is left watching and asking “why?”

It doesn’t seem fair, does it? Why would a universe supposedly ruled by some great just judge be so wildly unfair? Well, let’s take a different look at it. Let’s look at it through the eyes of some of history’s greatest saints.

Let’s look through the eyes of Anthony the Great, who left everything he had (a large family farm) and moved to the desert, bringing nothing with him, and living for the next 80 years in the wilderness, making his own bread. Let’s look through the eyes of Francis of Assisi, renouncing everything of his father’s, including the clothes on his back, to respond to his call to holiness. Let’s look at the great Jesuit saints, Isaac Jogues, John de Brebeuf, Noel Chabanel, Rene Goupil, and more, who left everything, including their home country, for the love of God, going to places where they didn’t even know the language. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of saints, men and women of incredible virtue, who left everything.

All of these holy men and women would probably even go so far as to denounce the materialism and wealth-based society of the west (and some did, like Mother Theresa and Josemaria Escriva). They lived their lives on a level with those in the world’s poor nations, if not even below that level, and they did it willingly and joyfully, giving all they had.

So what, then, is the disconnect? There’s some sort of difference between these great saints who willingly live in the grip of poverty and those Western observers who watch the poverty in other parts of the world with pity and judgment of God for his “unfairness.” Well, we’ll discuss it next time.

7: Defining Justice

Alright, so last time we ended off with discussing whether evil actually exists. Regardless of how we define evil, though, arguments about why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people abound.

It seems as though a perfectly just God wouldn’t allow such things to happen. Let’s take a moment to examine justice, though, shall we? This was a very interesting question in ancient Greece. In fact, Plato wrote an entire book devoted to the subject. Plato’s Republic eventually became the epitome of pre-Aristotelean philosophy, and is still considered one of the greatest and most essential works of philosophy ever written.

Within that book, justice is first defined as everyone getting what they deserve. This is the definition most people operate off of. By this definition, the problem of pain and injustice becomes very problematic. A just, powerful God would not allow good people to be dealt injustice and bad people to receive good things.

However, the book goes on for a considerably longer time. Throughout the argument, Plato, speaking through Socrates, brings about a new definition of justice. After another eight books of debate, the new definition is decided. The new definition of justice, given by Plato, is each man living as he should, “going about his own business.”

Now, this is a slightly unusual definition, but it makes more sense when compared to the other three major virtues of Plato, wisdom, temperance, and courage. In the individual man, justice is the virtue that unifies the other three.

This is not the avenue to debate that definition of justice (for those interested, feel free to read the Republic. It’s a very enlightening read and a fantastic introduction to the world of philosophy.), so we’re going to move on.

Now, let’s take a minute and discuss this principle of divine justice. Do bad things happen to good people? Yes. Do good things happen to bad people? Also yes. Now, if we discuss things on a purely mortal level, it doesn’t make sense. There seems to be no standard of cosmic justice. Things seem to be random. People die, others live, people prosper, others fall flat, and it all seems completely arbitrary, right?

Well, let’s take a step back. To the Christian, there’s a bit more to the justice system. It’s not just these 60-90 years on earth. While life doesn’t seem to be completely fair, and things really don’t make sense, things tend to fall together better when considering the possibility that this may not be all there is.

First, let’s look at one thing. Crime. Crime happens, good people get murdered, bad people get out of being prosecuted. This doesn’t seem fair at all. But the idea that a just God would prevent it completely removes the possibility of human free will. Now, the fact that humans have the freedom to choose is pretty much undeniable. I can choose what I want to have for breakfast, or I can choose what time I want to go to bed, and so on.

The next question, then, is obvious. Why would a just God give free will if he knew that humans would abuse it (part of the all-knowing part)? Well, it comes from the definition of love (which will be elaborated upon later, or can be introduced here). Basically, though, the Christian idea of love is an act of the will. A robot cannot love. God gave humans free will to give them the capacity to love (again, this is a topic that will be covered in depth later).

Okay, so that explains the human element of why it’s possible. But what about things that humans don’t control? Things such as natural disasters and disease? And what about the justice after the humans make their choices? These topics will be discussed next time.

6. Defining Evil

I know last time I said it would be the last time we discuss the existence of God for a while, but I had a bit of inspiration and decided to tackle this piece sooner. This time around, we’ll be talking about the most-used argument for why God doesn’t exist, the problem of evil.

The problem of evil goes like this:

1.       If God exists, he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.

2.       If God is all knowing, he knows where evil comes from and how to prevent it.

3.       If God is all good, he desires to prevent evil.

4.       If God is all powerful, he is able to prevent evil.

5.       Evil exists.

6.       Therefore, an all powerful, all knowing, all good God does not exist.

At first glance, this seems to be a very powerful argument against the existence of God. But let’s break it down into pieces.

First, let’s define the terms.

                All-powerful: Able to do anything (except logical contradictions… A story for a different day)

                All- knowing: Knows everything

                All-good: In his essence, good, and desiring the good of his creation

                Evil: Ah… The tricky one. Evil is not merely pain and suffering. These are symptoms of evil. Although many today would say that evil can be found in suffering, it’s not always the case. For example, the pain of chemotherapy brings about a good thing, namely, treating cancer. If we define evil as only things which cause pain, chemotherapy and many other medical procedures would be evil, making doctors… well, basically evil. But that’s not the case. I’m going to propose a new definition for evil- the absence of the good.

Our entire system of language, and even philosophy, reflects this definition. Good things are always gained. Wisdom, knowledge, understanding, they are all seen as being gained. Ignorance is not something gained, but the absence of knowledge. Likewise, when discussing moral systems, those with stricter morals are often seen as being “above” the “common people,” as though they have gained more morals.

Similarly, there are examples in other fields, such as physics. Cold is not in itself a positive quantity. It is actually just the absence of heat. Darkness is not on its own a positive thing. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Death is not a positive thing. A thing does not gain the quality of not being alive. It loses the quality of being alive.

Now, to solidify this position, let’s take a look at an example of something pretty much everyone would agree to be evil: murder.

At first glance, murder seems like an actual thing. It’s an act that is carried out. However, let’s boil that down a bit.

The actual act of the murder is merely the end result of a chain of many things and is not in itself the only part of evil being done.

Where does murder come from? It comes, from the very beginning, for a lack of respect for human life. How do we know this? Because the murderer, to some degree, believes that he is somehow greater than or above his victim. The root cause is a deficiency of respect, a missing virtue.

Now, I do realize that we haven’t actually answered the argument yet. There will be more discussion of it next time.

5. The End of the Proof

After a few posts, it’s time to finish out this argument for God’s existence. First, let’s recap where we’ve been.

1.       We established that everything that exists does so only in relation to everything else that exists. Nothing in the universe exists completely independently.

2.       In each instant, everything is depending upon everything else for its existence, because of the very nature of existing in relation to everything else. We called this the network of coexistence.

3.       Everything is equally dependent upon everything else to exist.

4.       Nothing in the universe possesses existence by its own nature.

5.       Because nothing can give what it doesn’t have, nothing in the universe can give existence to anything else in the network its own existence in each moment. Remember, this is not cause and effect. This is in a single instant.

6.       There must be something outside the network that possesses existence and can give it to everything else in the network.

7.       This source of existence, we call God.

Alright, there’s a step by step look at what this proof is all about. Now, there are a few characteristics of God that we already established were necessary in order for this source of existence, God, to, well, give existence.

1.       It must be one and simple, because any sort of division within this source of existence would require a secondary network of coexistence. One part would ultimately be responsible for holding the rest in existence.

2.       It must be present to all things at all times in order for things to exist. If it wasn’t present to something, that thing would have no way to participate in existence. In order for anything to exist at all, it must receive its existence from this source. Note that this does not mean that those things that exist must know that it is present, simply that it gives existence to all things.

3.       It must also be present in its entirety to all things. Because there are no parts in it, and it must be present to all things, its entirety must be present. 

4.       It must be unchanging. The fancy word for this is “immutable.” It’s already been established that it can’t have parts and that it must be present to all things in its entirety. Because it has no parts and must in its entirety be present, it cannot change. Why? Because if its presence within something were to change, its presence in all things would have to change, again, because it has no parts and must be present in its entirety.

Now, with all of this, there is only one conclusion left to be drawn about this source of existence. It must possess existence by its very nature. Why? Because a thing cannot give what it does not have. This source of existence, which we are calling God, must by its very nature exist. Its nature literally is existence itself. And that is the God we worship. The idea of some magical butler in the sky catering to our every wish is a distinctly non-Catholic idea of God. It’s also a distinctly false idea of God. The God of the Church is existence itself, at all times and in all places fully present within everything that exists, holding everything in existence in every instant.

Now, one final word. This will probably be the last post about the existence of God I do for a while. I do want to make one thing clear. Science will never be able to state through an experiment whether or not God exists. The very idea of God prevents that. Any God that exists must be, by nature, supernatural, or above nature. Humans are natural beings. We live within nature. We are literally not capable of measuring anything outside of nature. Why? Because we do not possess the ability, and never will, because we can only work with the laws of nature. Any being above nature will not be bound by these. The existence of God is a question for philosophy, not science.

4: Clearing the Air

     Alright, before we can continue, I think it’s necessary to clear up a few of the more ambiguous things that have come up over the last two posts (here and here). This will just be a short little thing, anybody with any more questions, feel free to add them in the comments, I’ll check them and update this periodically.

1.       This proof has nothing to do with cause and effect.

The proof is not one of the origins of anything or anything like that. Instead, it focuses on how things are at any single instant.

2.       We are not dealing with what could be.

The only thing we’re dealing with here is what actually is. While there is a nearly infinite number of possibilities for what could possibly be, the only thing we have to talk about honestly existing is what actually is. The moment is as it is and cannot be otherwise. It could have been otherwise, but once the moment comes into existence, it cannot be otherwise, similar to quantum uncertainty, where something could be both a particle and a wave, but once it is measured, it cannot become the other.

3.       We’re not done with this proof yet.

There are certain parts that need to be flushed out a bit more, and some more defining needs to be done. This will be coming out on Sunday.

4.       A vacuum is not nothing.

A perfect vacuum would, in theory, be nothing, but those are impossible in reality. Any vacuum that exists in the real universe, even space, contains particles and energy, both of which are considered a part of the network of coexistence previously discussed.

5.       This argument relies upon the network of coexistence

In order for the argument to continue, the network of coexistence must first be established. Without it, I will grant, the entire thing falls apart.

6.       What is meant by a moment

In this case, a moment does not mean an hour, a minute, or a second. A moment means a single instant, a span of time measured by a derivative. It is also being used to describe the very nature of the relationship between all things within that network of coexistence.

7.       What is meant by coexistence

In this argument, coexistence refers to the relationship between all things existing. At any instant, they are all codependent upon each other for their existence. This is not to say that the puzzle sitting on the table in Calgary caused the car accident in Calcutta. Instead, it is to say that in that specific instant, the puzzle on the table only exists as 7,000+ miles away from the car, which is also about a foot and a half away from the other car. Sure, the things can be described independently, but it cannot truthfully be said that they exist independently. This does not mean that everything in the network has an effect on anything else at any instant. Instead, it is to say that the universe we live in is purely relational- things within it only exist in relation to other things.

Finally, one more note of policy on my part. Due to a few recent… incidents, comments will now be moderated. Only constructive comments that actually lend to an open discussion will be allowed through. Profanities will be removed, and any comments that do nothing but criticize any parties will be deleted. I want a polite and open atmosphere. Alright, that’s all for now.