Skip to main content

the world is good for one who possesses freedom

How can the world be created by God if there is so much suffering?

One approach to an answer is to ask if the world is good: that is, is it better that there be this world rather than none at all?  

If the answer is yes, then that goodness--a goodness that withstands the problem of pain--is a goodness that points to God in some way.

One may object by coming up with situations of extreme suffering for individuals.  To this objection we can reply by asking: is it possible for the world to be good for this person even with such suffering?  That is, is it better for that person to be rather than never to have been at all?  We might be tempted to answer this question for another person, but it is a question that we must first answer for ourselves.  And I venture that the answer would be that if I can exercise my freedom in a meaningful and good way, then the world is good for me even in my situation.

Furthermore, one who has found meaning while having to face  life's struggles can plausibly reply to another who objects that his situation makes it meaningless that the latter is lacking comprehension of reality, is possibly mistakenly focusing on pleasure rather than freedom and moral beauty.

Of course, there are cases to which the above responses are helpful: the child that is murdered for sport, for example (see Brothers Karamazov).  We do not know what sort of meaning can be attached to a life cut short in such a way.  But that is not to say that it was meaningless from the start.  Rather, it is more on target to say that this life was prevented from achieving the kind of meaning we recognize in our adult lives.  This frustration of achievement, however, does not contradict the claim hat life is meaningful.

It is easier to see how life is meaningful even if some are not able to achieve that meaning if we consider the Goodness of God in metaphysical terms.  Let us abstract from the question of Providence as something to be argued for later.  Let us look at God as Plato looked at the Good: as a metaphysical reality.  Babies who are denied the chance of achieving a meaningful life still share in the good, they still in some way proceed from and return to the Good.  A rational account of the world as seeking the good can be given, and it can account for the infant that dies young even if the infant does not itself acheive a grasp of this meaning.  Life is already a drama.

Providence adds a great deal to such an understanding.  But the appreciation of Providence  is the culmination of a rational process that has already recognized the meaningfulness and goodness of the world.

And materialism is a denial of the evidence that lies before us that life is good, meaningful.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more