The Problem of Evil--Is There One?

Ever since men and women started observing religiously-inspired celibacy, there has been a ongoing debate about the relationship between God and evil.  The essence of the problem is easy to state:  If God is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, why is there evil in the world?  Why does God not intervene to prevent good people from suffering?

 

The Puritan minister, Jonathan Edwards, had his answer:

 

"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire."

 

Which is to say, there are no good people, and you're lucky God doesn't make you suffer even more than you do.  Needless to say, Edwards was a big hit at all the Yale University keg parties of the mid-1700's.  In fact, the oldest "residential college" (living and eating grouping) at Yale is Jonathan Edwards College.  (A rare True Fact.)

 

 

Of course, the message that God hates you and wants to burn you like an insect does tend to make for an empty collection plate.  So even Jonathan Edwards had to come up with a "Get-Out-Of-Hell Free" card--commonly called, Salvation.  Which happens because God is also--did I forget to tell you before?--All-Merciful.  Which, unfortunately, leads us right back to the question of why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-merciful God doesn't just give Evil one swift kick in the rump.

 

Which leads to one of my questions for you.  If you are not all-knowing, or even more importantly, if you're concerned that the all-knowing God might mistakenly think there's a little Evil in you, how should one go about deciding what and who are Evil? 

 

Personally, the tricky part has been NOT to share the world view of Calvin and Hobbs:

 

 

I'm going to propose that it won't work to say that Evil is restricted to people who eat other people's livers with fava beans and a nice Chianti, although I would agree that it is not behavior that we'd like to see adopted on a widespread basis. 

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assert that Adolph Eichmann never ate any person's body parts or, for that matter, any fava beans.  Nonetheless, the State of Israel found it appropriate to execute him as a war criminal.  While this would seem akin to the Hannibal Lecter situation, in truth it is not.  Eating other people in the US is illegal--rightly or wrongly, depending on your beliefs in the sanctity of hunting game for meat versus for sport--but it is clearly against the law.  What Eichmann did in Nazi Germany--arranging the transportation of millions of people to concentration camps where the great majority of them died--was not against the law.  Quite to the contrary--it was enforcing the law.

 

Which is why the prosecutors had to argue, in effect, for a recognition by the court of Lawful Evil. 

 

 

All that could be proven about Eichmann was that he did as he was told.  There was no indication that he played any part in the development of the Final Solution, or that he had a passionate desire to see Jews and gypsies killed, or that he had any motivation other than to take the easy path and the one that would be best for him and his family.  But doing as he was told was held to be sufficient to justify hanging him.  Because, in the opinion of the court, we all can be held accountable for the choices that we make.  And those choices can be characterized as wrong or bad or evil simply on the basis that a clearly better choice was available.  It is not necessary that you actively want something bad to happen to someone, nor is it sufficient that your choice will result in some good happening to someone (especially since that "someone" so often turns out to be the person making the choice).

"Wait a minute!" you are saying.  "Everybody I know--except for myself of course [you use this phrase because you are a functional illiterate who thinks that 'myself' is an emphatic way of saying 'me']--makes the sort of sub-optimal choices you are describing.  Surely not all of them are evil?"

To which I say, please see the Calvin and Hobbs cartoon above.

Of course, the argument can be made that it is inherent in being a human being that one will make poor choices.  Actually, an irrefutable argument can be made to that effect if one submits in support of his or her position, say, a list of top terms and/or people searched on Google last year.  (Assuming that "What is twerking?" is not a misspelling of "What are the latest developments in unified field theory?"  Which, given the pervasiveness of 'autocorrect', is actually a possibility.)  And if making bad decisions is part of our fundamental nature, then it should not be called "evil", should it?  So there really isn't any evil.  The Problem of Evil?  Solved.  Hence the title of this post.

Well, almost solved.  Because if nothing anyone does is "evil", why do we have a criminal justice system that punishes people for the choices that they make?  Is this just an irrational, pointless activity that randomly doles out punishments, with no greater purpose?  Well, in the US that seems to be true.  With less than 5% of the world's population, we have 25% of the world's prisoners.  And even I am not willing to argue that we are five times more awful than the rest of the world. 

              WE'RE NUMBER 1!  WE'RE NUMBER 1!  U - S - A!  U - S - A!

However, if we are willing to agree that the Idea of having a criminal justice system that does not operate in an arbitrary and random fashion is a good one and that certain behaviors should merit unpleasant consequences, then we should also agree that it is permissible, or even necessary, to distinguish between behavior that is "good enough" and behavior that is "not good enough"--which is a nice way of saying that the behavior is "bad" or "evil."

And if we feel that we want to show approbation to primarily good people and disapprobation to primarily evil people--which is to say, that we'd prefer not to feel that we are friends with total dicks--then there needs to be some sort of dividing line.  Of course, some people are so predominantly evil either in their nature or in having committed such a heinous act (I am thinking now of whoever did John Travolta's makeup for "Battlefield Earth") that the decision is easy.  But for most people, it probably comes down to their "body of work."  Back to Adolph Eichmann--I don't think he would have been treated the same if he had only overseen the shipment of 10 people to a concentration camp.  Not that this is any more moral than what he actually did, but there is a difference between a case of bad judgment and a life-style choice, so to speak.

Of course, now we are trying to draw a bright line in a thick cloud of grey.  Where between 10 people and 3,000,000 people does someone become a criminal against humanity?  Are we stuck with U. S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's comment about pornography, that he was not going to attempt to define it, "But I know it when I see it"?  (After which he added, "And I need to see that film a few more times, so that I can really know it when I see it.")  That works for me.

So now let me go off and ponder what sorts of behaviors would qualify one to be regarded as a classmate of Dr. Evil (Austin Powers' arch-nemesis).  Obviously, being a doctor would be a good start on being properly considered evil, but we should have a more generalized yardstick than that.

 

 

Questions I will ponder include:

 

1. Does it make you evil if you say you ran a marathon under 3 hours when actually it took you over 4 hours?  (Paul Ryan -- Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States)
2. Does it make you evil if you say you ran a marathon when it took you over 6 and one-half hours?  (Mike Pence -- Republican governor of Indiana)
3. Does it make you really, really evil if you "ran" a marathon in more than 6 and one-half hours and you say that you did it because God told you to?  (Again, Mike Pence -- Republican governor of Indiana)
4. Does it make you evil if you own 5 pairs of Uggs?  (Come to think of it, that one's pretty easy.)
5. Does it make you evil if you say that something is "gay" to mean that it is stupid or awful?  (Wow, these keep getting easier and easier.)
6. Does it make you evil if you hire somebody to clean your house?  Only if it's a working class woman?  How about an immigrant woman?  How about if you pay her at the same hourly rate that you get paid?  (Sorry--that was an insane idea, wasn't it?)
7. Does it make you evil if you "Share" something on the Internet?  (Well, if it's a link to this blog it most certainly does.)

See you next time! 

 

 

Hey, America: Where Are You Going? . . . And Why Are You In That Handbasket?

Let me preface this post by paraphrasing Quentin Compson:  "I don't hate America!  I don't hate it!  I don't!"  In point of fact, I still carry a US passport, speak ungrammatical English, care whether my university's fake students can beat your university's fake students at football, and have a disturbingly passionate interest in things automotive.  Can't be more American than that.  So I raise the questions in the title of this piece out of love.  Out of my love for being an annoying, know-it-all jackass, that is; but it is still out of love.

So why do I think that in general America has what we in the education field, when talking to our failing students' parents, refer to as "Areas for Improvement"?

It may surprise you to discover that I am not going to point to twerking or people related to Bruce Jenner by marriage.  You see, there has been bear-baiting, Punch-and-Judy shows and actors saying such smutty things as, "[I will take] the heads of the maids, or their maidenheads."  (Romeo and Juliet, Act I, Scene 1) for as far back as you care to look.  So, other than showing that America is not so much a "classless society" as a "tasteless society", it's not a big deal that Americans equate "merit" with "having appeared on a 'reality' TV show."  Admittedly, I personally would prefer that television was only used to transmit sporting events (especially those involving men the size of beef cattle {and with the same pharmaceutical history} crashing into each other) and reruns of The Wire and Firefly.

 

But that's only because I have such good taste.


So why IS America going to Hell and doing its best to bring the rest of the world along for the ride?  Because America has become the land of "Eat Dessert First!"  Oh, yeah.  "And Send the Bill to That Other Table!"  Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.  Because, by the time the next generation figures out how badly we've screwed them, we will have retired to some foreign country with cheap labor and no extradition.  Yay Us! 

Speaking of the next generation, I salute the concept that has taken such firm root in the minds of privileged Americans, that making things easy for one's children can be equated with parenting.  No, really; I do!  I vaguely remember some demented old nutbags telling me that I needed to knuckle down and do things that weren't fun--that working was the price I had to pay for having things I wanted, and that hard work was just a part of accomplishing anything.  Who were those lunatics, anyway?  Oh, yeah.  My parents.  And the parents of all my friends.  I mean, who were they to be giving us advice?  It's not like they ever had to overcome anything.

 

So, I am sure that we are on the right track when we give our 2-year-olds and 4-year-olds their own iPads to play with.  (No, I am not using my much beloved hyperbole--acquaintances of mine are actually doing this.)  Because otherwise those children would have to do something for themselves.  Oh, The Horror!  The Horror!  Though perhaps I am being unfairly critical.  I suspect that these children's early familiarity with touch-screen technology will prepare them very well for working in the fast food industry. 

So, yes; maybe I am suggesting that "Eat Dessert First!" may not be the greatest long-term strategy.  Still, it has three hundred thirty million practitioners in the US.  Which is to say, all Americans except for you and me.  And I have my doubts about you.

So how can you tell if you really are part of the problem or are part of the solution?  A simple, sure-fire way to find the answer to that question is to take a look at the following scientifically generated graphic, calculated specifically for you:

 

 

 

 

 

Okay.  Maybe you'd rather have a more interactive way of determining your status.  Can do!  Just answer the following questions and then we can figure out which circle of Hell is ideal for you!

  

1. Did you trade in an older model iPhone for an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus?  You are part of the problem.  Since no one on this planet (including the software engineers at Apple) has yet figured out how to use all the features of the iPhone 4S, much less the iPhone 5,  you didn't buy this phone because you needed its functionality; you bought it out of vanity.  And we all know where vanity leads:  to writing a blog calling into question the judgment of people who have the latest iPhones. 

By the way, if you have one of the new iPhones, make sure you're not getting your cell phone service from AT&T.  I hear that their coverage is awful   .  .  .   in Hell!

 

 

1.  
2. Have you given an iPhone 5C, 5S, 6 or 6 Plus to your child or grandchild?  Then you are a Big part of the problem.  You be seated in Hell immediately in front of an overactive 8-year-old, who will relentlessly kick the back of your seat while singing the Barney song nonstop at the top of his lungs, for all eternity.  But that's only because the Devil has not been able to think up any worse torture.  However, if I am wrong about Dick Cheney being a flesh-eating zombie who will live forever, then it is only a matter of time until he takes his intended place as Vice President of Hell.  And then there will be some serious torture there.
    
   
   
3. Have you driven more than 5000 miles in the past year in a personal car?  Of course you have.  You are a part of the problem.  And were you the only person in the car a majority of the time?  Of course you were.  You are a BIG part of the problem.  And did your car average under 25 miles per gallon (not the EPA perfectly tuned car driving downhill in a tailwind mpg, but the true, mathematical mpg)?  Of course it did.  You are a HUGE part of the problem.  As am I, and as is every American who can buy, rent, borrow or steal a car. 

You know those pictures of people in Beijing having to wear hospital masks when they go outside?  Well, China pollutes the air at less than half the rate of Americans.  (By the way, care to guess how receptive the Chinese are to Americans telling them that the solution to climate change is for the Chinese to cut back on their industrialization?)  In fact, we are the best in the world at polluting the world.  (Time now for all of us to raise our big foam fingers [made of non-renewable materials and fully non-biodegradable] and together chant, "We're Number One!")

4.  Do you have an adult child who has never a "job" job--the kind where he or she had to get up five days a week and go do something he or she doesn't especially enjoy, for 7 or 8 hours?  You know, pretty much the definition of "job" for our parents, and their parents, on back to the beginning of time?  Actually, this does not make you part of the problem.  If your child has been motivated, worked hard, developed a talent, and is earning his or her own living doing something that he or she loves, you are part of the solution.  It is people like your child who may be willing to take the hard steps that will be necessary to clean up the mess that we are leaving them. 

In contrast, if your adult child has never had a "job" job, or any sort of full-time job, or any job that he or she went out and found for themselves, it's likely that you are part of the problem.

 

5.  Do you shop at Walmart?  Part of the Problem.  Do you not know who is the president of China?  (Hint: if like me you think it is Hu Jintao, you are 2 years behind the times.)  P of the P.  Do you think that Islam is a Middle Eastern religion?  P o t P.  Do you not know what the fifth most populous country in the world is?  Or that it just had a presidential election?  Or who won that election?  Or what her political party is?  P o t P.  Do you think that evolution and intelligent design are both scientific theories?  P o t P.  Do you think that immigrants (legal and illegal) are drag on the American economy? P o t P.  Do you think that people who own businesses should be taxed at a lower rate than the people who do the work--as is currently the case in America?  P o t P.  Do you think gas prices in the US are too high?  P o t P. 

So, what's the point of this?  The point of this is that, although you clearly are a part of the problem, in fact, a big part of the problem, actually, if all of the parts of the problem were collected in one place, it would look like Gulliver and the Lilliputians, and you would be Gulliver--

Nonetheless, there is something you can do.  Actually, there are a lot of things that you can do, but I have eliminated all of those that require effort, or sacrifice, or paying your fair share, as now is NOT the time for invoking the humor of the absurd.  But there is one thing that you can do, consistent with your historic behavior of sending the check to the other table.  And it has been explained for us by the people at www.despair.com (who also can provide calendars, coffee mugs and other items designed to keep the recipient from even trying, all of which make perfect gifts this holiday season):