THE MYSTERY OF EVIL BEING TOLERATED BY GOD COMES FROM OUR PSYCHOLOGY NOT
FAITH AND NOT RELIGION THOUGH THEY TAKE IT FROM PSYCHOLOGY
You don't want to see how terrible an evil was. To help you forget you may
rationalise it. If you can do this for the suffering of another you can feel
less needed. We endlessly rationalise that something we did or suffered at least
was what it was and was not worse. This is a fallacy for what if you reason that
at least when you murdered John you didn't murder Joan as well? It is being
pro-evil but up to a point and making it look excusable.
How can an all-good God refuse to use his power to protect us from evil? Not
only are we talking about the evil of disease and famine but also about how he
lets evil people - who take away the free will of others by hurting them - do so
much harm? Is the evil people's free will more important than that of the
victims?
Theodicy is the attempt to show that an all-good God can still allow evil things
to happen without becoming evil or amoral. It is always about trying to show
there is no contradiction. The hypocrisy of that approach is clear for nobody
argues that the existence of evil is an indication that God exists or demands
the existence of God. If there is an all-good God it is not enough to show that
God does not contradict the existence of evil, what we need is to prove that God
needs evil to exist to be a good God! You might show that Johnny the Paedophile
down the road molesting children does not prove that he is a bad person at
heart. But reconciling his alleged goodness with the harm he does does not mean
that he really is good at heart. You don't know - you cannot prove it. It is a
stronger endorsement of Johnny to say that his molesting children proves that he
is a good person. If God is all-good then he needs the strongest endorsement
possible. So far we see that there is no hope of a theodicy working. It defeats
its own purpose. It cannot inspire us to be godlike by teaching us something
about evil and dealing with it.
Religionists commonly, but not always, preach that the solution to the problem
of evil exists but is undiscovered. They are right that having no answer is not
necessarily proof that none exists but this does not apply in this case. We know
what good and evil are and if there is a possible answer we would have found it
ages ago. Some of the modern responses to the theodicies are improvements on old
anti-god arguments. The old ones were good and sufficient. But the new ones are
so good and carefully thought out that they force us to admit that the evidence
against the existence of God is conclusive.
Religion still trots out the discredited theodicies for they know the
congregation is not into deep thinking. So they easily think a God allowing evil
to happen for a greater good makes sense. Or that it is a mystery - the mystery
argument is good for stopping awkward questions. This is disgraceful and
manipulative for it is oversimplifying something so major and important. That is
an insult to children dying in agony from cancer.
Good is simply doing what is best for others. If God is wise and good then he
always does good. His general purposes would not be that puzzling but his
individual ones would be for we don’t know the whole picture. For example, if it
made sense to believe that God sends suffering to prevent worse suffering we
would be able to trust him say when your baby dies tragically in sickness. So we
would have the general reason but we would not know exactly why the baby was
taken. But the general reasons make no sense. Not one if the reasons that
allow for the possibility of God being right to let evil happen work. They
all deny that God really lets evil thrive - it only seems to and that makes them
evil if evil is thriving. Evil is fed by misdiagnosis.
When a man tortures babies to death we do not say that he does it for a
mysterious and perhaps supernatural general purpose that makes him innocent but
perhaps misguided. But we are more entitled to say that about the man than about
God who is more straightforward and less complex. The teaching that suffering
and evil are mysteries in the general sense is evil for this reason. It is
depraved to excuse God instead of the man who is more entitled to it. Perhaps
God does not want us to judge – accuse or thank – others at all? Then that would
mean that God is against the law of the land and against forgiveness which
cannot be done without judging first. That would make life a misery. God could
enable us to know if a person was guilty or not. He could tell us or help us to
make a foolproof lie detector that also restores the bad person’s memory where
necessary.
It is evil to excuse the behaviour of a being whose existence you cannot really
and rationally be as sure of as the existence of an evil and cruel person. If
you believe in God then you have to believe that it is best to excuse the evil
and cruel person. The being that is more likely to exist should get the best
treatment and that is your neighbour.
The doctrine that evil is a mystery is itself evil. If evil is a mystery then
God is fictitious and an abomination.
If God’s good looks like evil then God or anybody can use this to persuade us
that anything evil is really good. It makes slaves of us though religion lies to
us and says that God has made us his sons.
Believers in God stated, "It is a mystery how a perfectly good God can remain
good while letting evil thrive. The possibility that it is about respecting our
free will, punishment, chastisement, helping us to see the horror of evil so
that we will recoil from it or that we appreciate good better if we experience
evil go some way to helping us understand but they only help a bit. Overall it
is a mystery." In reality this argument shows embarrassment. The believers are
ashamed to say it is a mystery. If it is a mystery then there is no point in
trying to say the theodicies help us reach understanding to some degree. It is
contradictory. If we think belief in free will helps a little bit that does not
mean it really does or that it is even slightly the reason. It is callous to put
forward mystery as an excuse while you find it embarrassing. It is insulting to
go out of your way to suggest that suffering might be punishment or discipline
from God. That is what you are doing when you say it is a mystery and that those
suggestions help a little. It is rude and disrespectful to sufferers most of whom
will suffer more than you may ever experience or understand. It is easy for you
in your relative comforts to judge the suffering of others as agreeable with the
goodness of God.
The believer in God wishes to see evil as a mystery. That means there is no
point in speculating as to why God lets so many bad things happen. The believer
prioritises worshipping and praising God over assessing the suffering of others
and its meaning. The believer is like the neighbour who sees the children being
beaten up by the family next door and who tells herself or himself that it is
right for some unknown reason so it is best to leave it. It is really about
putting her or his own happiness before anybody else. Today's individualism is
rooted in the poison sowed by religion in the past.
All religionists argue that since God’s goodness is infinite we cannot
understand it. That is why it often seems daft to us. All religionists who see
that evil cannot be explained take refuge in this theory. But this really means
that God’s goodness is different to what our reason says is goodness. Our reason
is said to be wrong because it is not intelligent enough. But how could goodness
be infinite if there is so much of it that it becomes evil? An infinite line is
still a line. Infinite space is still space. Infinite good must still be
goodness. Infinite good means unlimitedly perfect goodness so if we understand
what goodness is at all we should be able to understand what is good and what is
evil.
If you say evil is a mystery and God exists then you are saying that you do not
believe in God because of what you see on earth but because of Jesus' say-so or
habit or authority or something. This translates thus: “I don’t care what
suffering says. I ignore it and don’t care for the sake of belief. I want to
believe in what Jesus said or what the pope said and that is all I care about”.
With that attitude you could only make yourself feel sorry for others not
because you are really concerned for them but because you want to trick yourself
into feeling compassion for them so that you can pat yourself on your back.
Even those who say that suffering is punishment for sin or is only allowed to
happen so that we can improve ourselves as people by correcting the damage are
still saying that evil is a mystery. You have people who reject all the answers
they can come up with to explain how evil does not contradict the goodness and
power of God. You have people who accept these answers but who say that in
individual cases nobody can be sure what answer applies. Both sides are united
in their contention that you cannot tell sufferer x why she or he is suffering.
It is human nature to need an answer. Religion lets them down when they need it.
The God belief lets them down.
Believers in evil being a mystery sometimes say that their belief is justified
and reasonable because all they are doing is looking at the goodness of God and
of believing in him so that they don't need an explanation for evil.
Perhaps we should start with the good in life and say it points to the existence
of a good God. That is exclusive and insulting to people who are very very sick
or depressed. They are excluded from this method. They won't be good at seeing
the good. In fact, encouraging them to use the method is only going to inflict
worse misery on them not to mention guilt.
The God concept should lead to those who suffer terribly and whose spirits are
very low to fear that they deserve their suffering. Religion may tell them that
they can't be sure that God is punishing them but it will have to admit that he
could be. At best they can say the chance is small. But it is still a chance.
If God punishes then if he loves us he will tell us. That is telling depressed
people who feel they are being punished that they are in fact correct!
And suppose God is hurting a person to help make that person more compassionate
and holy. He could have chosen this method because the person deserves it. Or he
could be hurting a person for no reason than just because they deserve it. Or he
might choose to hurt them in a way that helps them and regards the hurtful side
of this as what they deserve. In other words, he could help them without hurting
them so bad but he decides to use a more brutal method of helping them on the
grounds that they deserve it. The Bible plainly teaches that God punishes or
gives people the evil they deserve.
If you see evil as a mystery then you cloud your view of good and evil. If you
say God letting suffering happen is a mystery then his goodness must be a
mystery too. I mean that if you pray for sunshine and it arrives, you cannot be
sure if it was granted because it was good or for some mysterious greater good.
Some supporters of mystery argue that we regard evil as a mystery because good
is not a mystery and that we see enough good to allow us to trust that the bad
can be explained at least in the next life. This is a view that can only be
taken by a person who has seen or experienced enough good. And that will differ
from person to person. People will say that it may take a lifetime and that
there is nothing wrong with that. But there is. If there is good, the person who
takes a long time to see it is a bad person until then. He or she is too jaded
or negative and selfish and blind. When explained properly, the mystery doctrine
is an insult to those who do not see the good as justifying the mysterious evil
hypothesis. It is in violation of the rule that religious belief should never
put anybody at risk of unnecessary offence or harm.
Back to this good in life that entitles us to turn a blind eye to the evil and
flippantly dismiss it as a mystery. What good should we start with? The beauty
of nature? Or some other non-human good? Or should we start with the goodness in
human nature? Or both? Definitely the goodness in human nature for it should
show what God is like better than anything else would. It is the personal touch.
But this method excludes those who have lived and are living awful horrendous
lives at the hands of others. And goodness is about rules that must be kept
irrespective of the consequences or it is about doing whatever has the best
results. The problem with rules is that people pick what rules they want to keep
and ignore the ones they don't like. For example, the pope makes it absolute law
that you must not have sex outside marriage no matter how much good it would do.
And he lets you eat animals despite the horrendous conditions in which they are
treated not as creations of God but as objects to be slaughtered for food. And
the problem with consequences is that we only predict and guess what they will
be. You can get married because you have weighed it up that it is for the best
and step into pure hell. We only guess what is good. Even if there is objective
good, we still have to guess about what it is. If people want to believe in God
because they want to be good then they need to see that the best they can do is
guess. And you don't need belief in God to do that! The Church has brainwashed
people to imagine that belief in God helps them to be good. If you believe God
letting evil happen is a mystery and you consider this belief to be good for
your morals and your spirituality it is for nothing. In reality you are
justifying going out of your way to praise God for letting evil happen for his
mysterious purpose. You are justifying the unjustifiable.
Christians are to love God for being what he is and not what they think he
should be. Clearly the mystery doctrine comes hand in hand with God. If it is
evil then so is belief in God.
If we are as prone to sin as religion says and often let God down through
weakness, is it not vulgar for us to decree that God allows evil to happen and
it is a mystery? That is because it is coming from unholy entities like us. It
is more likely to be down to us wanting to think it than it is about us wanting
to be correct.
The utter incoherence of love the sinner and hate the sin, the doctrine that is
behind the theory of a good God and a good Jesus and the goodness of
Christianity, proves that the mystery idea is not even to be considered.
Christians are to love God for being what he is and not what they think he
should be. God by definition is the being who knows best and does best. Loving
sinners is supposed to be about loving them for what they are and not for what
you think they should be. In other words you ignore the sin and even tell
yourself that there is no sin in them at all! This is contradicted then by your
calling them sinners and calling them opponents of holiness and the law of God
and the perfect love of God. So you love them for the perfect people they are.
If you partly hate the sinner and claim to mostly love them then you do not love
them at all. You fail to love the persons for what they are and not for what you
think they should be. Love the sinner and hate the sin only impresses those who
do not really understand love. Those who preach the principle are propagating
saccharinised evil.
Believers in evil as a mystery are so stubborn that if you prove to them that
the God concept hurts people they will just rationalise that this hurt is
justified even if we don't know how it could be. It is hurting people when you
refuse to see that the evil they suffer is without any possible justification.
In fact by saying that evil is justified though they cannot have any reason for
thinking it can be, so there must be a mysterious reason, is agreeing with the
evil. It dismisses the fact that even if you do not know exactly why suffering
is sent that you at least should be sure it is possible that it is sent for good
reasons. Claiming that if there are no good reasons you can think of, there must
be at least one and it is a mystery is indecent. Just as a person is innocent
until found guilty so suffering should be deemed terrible and useless until
reasons are found that might justify a God letting it be.