Author: Bob
To: John and Steve
The
observation I’ve made that seems to have my two friends in an uproar is this:
God does not actively intervene to protect or bless or punish people during their earthly lives. We can see that deep wrongs and diseases and tragedies befall wonderful people, while ill-gotten gains and evil-doing go uncorrected. As stated in Matthew 5, God makes the sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and unjust. God set things in motion, and may work within us or through us, but we can clearly observe from the real world that nothing, God included, actually ensures that “the good” are protected or that “the bad” are punished during earthly life.
John and Steve dispute this point,
arguing that God is an active intervener, who protects and punishes.
Perhaps a football analogy might help to explain
where I’m coming from on this issue, and how I perceive the position of John
and Steve.
Suppose
that the three of us went to the same high school, and then, later in life,
became avid fans of the same college football team. Suppose that we went to
most of the team’s games together.
Suppose
that we are at a game, and further, that during the game, I note that a key limitation
of our team seems to be the play of our left offensive tackle.
Bob: The
left tackle of our team doesn’t seem to have the size and quickness needed to
consistently protect the quarterback. The defensive end playing against him is
getting around him easily, leading to quarterback sack after quarterback sack.
John: What left tackle are you talking about?
Bob: Our left tackle. The one right down there on
the playing field.
John: That’s not our team’s left tackle.
Bob: What do you mean? Of course it is.
John: No it’s not. I can conceive of a left tackle
for our team who is as big as a tree, as strong as an ox, and never allows a
sack.
Bob: Well, I can conceive of having such a left
tackle too, and that would be wonderful, but that’s not the left tackle that we
actually have. The left tackle we have isn’t protecting the quarterback.
John: Well, then, I say that your left tackle is
too small!
Bob: What do you mean, my left tackle is
too small? Are you crazy? I’m only describing the apparent limitations of the
left tackle that we actually have.
John: Well, I can conceive of a much greater left
tackle. It’s like when we were in high school. Do you remember the great
offensive lineman our high school team had? He was big and strong and he didn’t
allow sacks.
Bob: Sure, I remember.
John:
Well, if a high school team can have a great big left tackle who hardly allows
any sacks, then certainly our favorite college team can have a great big left
tackle who doesn’t allow any sacks.
Bob: But that’s not the point. Of course it seems
like we could have a left tackle who’s big and strong and blocks
perfectly all the time, but we don’t have such a tackle.
Steve: Oh, Bob, you just want to believe
that we don’t have a left tackle who protects our quarterback perfectly!
Bob: What are you talking about? Of course I think it would be great to have
a left tackle who protects our quarterback well. It’s not a question of what I
want to believe about our left tackle. It’s a matter of what anyone who’s looking
can see out there on the playing field.
Steve: Well, I’m certain that if I were the
quarterback, our left tackle would protect me perfectly, or if not, at least he
wouldn’t let any defensive lineman into the backfield that I couldn’t handle.
Bob: Now, what the heck makes you certain that a
left tackle who has not protected several quarterbacks will protect you so
well?
Steve: Well, just look at the team media guide. It
says right here, in Section 3, lines 55 to 58 that our team’s left tackle is a
stalwart protector of quarterbacks, and ye shall have faith in him. It says
that he never has, and never will, allow a quarterback sack.
Bob: But you have seen about seven times
now the sight of our quarterback lying limp on the ground, with the defensive
end who lines up right across from our left tackle draped over our
quarterback’s body. And that’s just in the first half. Doesn’t that reality
supersede what the media guide has to say?
Steve: No, because the media guide is never wrong.
Bob: But we’ve just seen… [voice trails off, in fatigued despair]. Oh, never mind.
John: No, Bob, see, you still don’t get it. Things
are just the way that they are supposed to be. Everything that happens, happens for good reason. Our quarterback wanted
to be sacked six times today. He agreed to be sacked six times today before he
was ever even incarnated on this earth. You see, we’re all here to learn, and
what you don’t realize is that the quarterback is learning from each sack. He’s
learning that he needs to release the ball sooner or get quicker feet. By the
way, he’s also learning that you better not put too much damn trust in your
left tackle...
Bob: Well, I’m skeptical of that interpretation
of what’s going on.
John: Bob, Bob, Bob… The path to the perfect left
tackle is not to be found by logically analyzing the game that is before us.
Bob: Well, I’ve not suggested that it would be. I
was merely pointing out.… Oh, never mind. I’m getting a headache. Let’s talk
about something else.
* * * * *
Now, let’s
run through a similar conversation, but this time it’ll be theological, and not
about football.
Bob: For centuries or even millenia, it’s been
noted that all kinds of misfortune and evil-doing impacts very good people.
Meanwhile, long and comfortable lives with great riches and rewards often go to
malicious, manipulative people. People have struggled to reconcile these
observable facts with their belief in an all-powerful and all-good God. Some
have found it impossible to do so, and have become atheists. As for me, I
believe in God, and I am impressed by the writing of John Hick on the theodicy
problem. Hick notes that anti-theistic writers invariably assume that the
divine purpose of a loving God is to create a hedonistic paradise -- pleasant,
safe, fun, and healthful -- and so things that fall short of this ideal such as
accidents and disease are seen as evidence of God’s non-existence. Instead,
Hick sees God’s purpose as soul-making, a moral and character-fashioning which
takes place not “by natural and inevitable evolution, but through a hazardous
adventure in individual freedom.” Thus, God chooses to allow a limitation in
the exercise of divine power; there is a higher reason behind God’s lack of
intervention to prevent evil or rectify injustices.
John and
Steve in unison: Bob, there is no such
thing as a theodicy problem
Bob: Huh?
John and
Steve: Our God is a constant intervener in the affairs of mankind, and a
perfectly successful one at that.
Bob: How can you say that? In a world that has
seen the Holocaust, starving children, rampant diseases, ravaging floods and
hurricanes and earthquakes?
John: Well, as for me, I find it quite easy to set
logic aside and say that my God could be constantly intervening in our lives. I
conceive of a great God who acts upon our lives, both individually and in mass,
and, most amazing of all, my God can do this in ways we are not able to
identify or trace.
Bob: Well, I can conceive of having such a God as
well. I can conceive of a God who stops Nazis before they get going, who sees
that hungry children are fed, who keeps all living things out of the path of
natural disasters. But that’s not the world we live in. That’s not what God
actually does. We can see that this is not what God actually does.
John: Well,
my concept of God is this… If I’m going to accept God’s existence, then I also
have to think that he is aware of every single thing that happens to every one
of us. Further, I have to think that God could be intervening in every moment.
In fact, what you are saying, Bob, makes me think that your God is way smaller
than I assumed!
Bob: What do you mean, my God is way
smaller than you assumed? Are you crazy? I’m only describing an apparent (and I
believe self-imposed) limitation in our God’s exercise of power. You say
that God could be intervening every moment to protect or punish. Well,
that’s fine and dandy, but let’s not deal with what could be, let’s deal with
what is. We can see, right out there in the playing field of life, that
humankind is not well-protected from evil and disasters by some constantly
intervening benevolent force or being.
John: Look, Bob, think about how parents protect
an infant baby. Most of the actualities of the infant’s life are determined by
the parents to a great degree, but the infant has no understanding of that.
Parents can intervene heavily and constantly in the life of an infant to ensure
the infant’s well-being and safety, yet the infant has no idea of this!
Bob: Okay, so?
John:
Well, if human parents can do this for an infant, surely God could do this for
us.
Bob: But that’s not the point. Of course it seems
like we could have a God who consistently keeps humans as safe from harm as
some parents have kept their infants. But the point is, we can see right here
in the playing field of life that this is not the God we have. This is not what
God does.
Steve: Oh, Bob, you just want to believe
that God doesn’t protect human beings from harm!
Bob: What are
you talking about? My natural inclination is to think that it would be
wonderful if God provided assured safety and protection. But it is not a
question of what I want to believe about God. It’s a matter of what anyone can
see by looking at what happens in the real world.
Steve: Well, I am confident that God has my back,
and won’t send anything my way that I can’t handle.
Bob: Now, what makes you think that God protects
you, Steve, personally, in a world that’s seen the Holocaust, wars that have
killed or maimed or psychologically damaged our youth, children starving,
ethnic cleansing, and on and on?
Steve: The Good Book. It’s never wrong, you know.
John: Besides, Bob, have you thought about the
implications of what you are saying? Aren’t you saying, then, that prayer is
completely useless?
Bob: Not at all. Please understand, I am not
saying that God does not intervene in our lives in any way. I am not
saying that God is impersonal or inconsequential or that prayer is pointless. I
have tried to be very clear. In Post #75 of this trialogue, I discussed my
thoughts about prayer in some detail. In that piece, I said that I think that
we can pray
… in order
to act as a believer, and therefore potentially increase faith.
… to give
praise or give thanks.
… to ask
forgiveness.
… to seek
courage and strength.
… for
inspiration.
… to
express a desire for unity with God and God’s purpose.
… for
insight.
I still think that. Consequently, and in an apparently
futile attempt to head off straw man criticisms of my position, I wrote in Post
#135 that “the question at issue between Steve and me does not include
whether God plays a role in earthly affairs by impacting the inner psychology
and outlook and courage of human beings to the extent that human beings ‘let
God in’.” I do think that God plays such a role. That idea is not incompatible
with what we can see in the real playing field of life.
John: Bob, Bob, Bob. All of
this is too logical and analytical. Be free! Throw logic aside. God is
constantly intervening, it’s all God’s will.
Bob: So, John, what crowd are running with these days, then? The crowd
that thinks that by turning to God we can pray away a hurricane? The crowd that
believes that AIDS was unleashed by God as a punishment for human promiscuity?
The crowd that believes that 9/11 was allowed to happen -- that God relaxed his
presumed constant protection of America – because God decided we deserved to be
attacked?
John: Bob, all I’m saying is that logic is not the path to God.
Bob: Well, I never said or thought that it is. I was trying to logically discuss a single theological issue, not recommend a path to God. Bishop Spong has said that the spiritual journey is a walk into the mystery of God. We both can probably still agree on at least that point.