A Failure of the God Hypothesis: A Loving God?
by
Chuck Doswell
Posted: 03 December
2013 Updated: whenever
This page represents my personal opinion. If you wish to
communicate your opinion regarding this topic, you can
contact me at cdoswell at
earthlink.net
- either use the email hyperlink or cut and paste after replacing _at_
with @. However, if you're not willing to have your comments posted
here, along with my response, don't waste my time or yours.
Of late, the issue of how loving a god is the christian deity has been
discussed in various places. This is hardly something new, but in
the process, I’ve seen some interesting insights and viewpoints
expressed. Hence, I feel the urge to express some ideas about this issue.
The basic issue is the real world observation of human suffering, both
as a result of natural disasters and from the suffering inflicted on
people by the actions (or neglectful inactions) of other humans.
Earthquakes, tornadoes, tropical cyclones, tsunamis, fires, droughts,
floods, etc. have certainly been in the news. Some clearly
batshit crazy religious believers have stated in the media that
these natural disasters are the direct result of supposed
transgressions by the victims - the current favorite transgression is the granting of
equal rights to LGBTs. Oh, the horror! So not only is the
putative deity not loving LGBTs, but he's punishing all of us who have
been so willing to grant them equal rights! Even little
children!! Apparently the unconditional love of the christian
deity comes with several conditions! Is that a 'loving god'?
If the hypothetical christian deity can mitigate the suffering, but
chooses not to, this is pretty far from being benevolent. If the
hypothetical christian deity can't mitigate the suffering, then he's pretty far from all-powerful.
The real substance of the debate comes down to this: apparently,
this 'loving' deity is more than willing to allow terrible pain and
suffering to be inflicted on everyone, including
children. The only
explanation ever offered for this apparent contradiction is that the
deity's plan for us is beyond our human grasp. We're informed that we can't
possibly understand his plan. Why not? It seems to me that
this deity is responsible for our inability to understand his plan - he
made us that way! Why would he not give us the capability to
understand his plan? To keep us ignorant, perhaps? Is that
a ‘loving god’?
So a child
is born, made to undergo unspeakable suffering for some time (perhaps
years) and then dies. Perhaps that child is destined to go to
heaven - or perhaps not! If that child is reared as an atheist
(all children are born atheists – they have to be indoctrinated to get
religion!), or perhaps in the wrong religion (there can be no more than one
true religion, of course!), that child's reward for a short lifetime of
degradation and pain is an eternity of damnation and endless
agony. Is that a ‘loving god’?
Why is it necessary for this putative deity to be invisible and
undetectable by any objective means? Might that be to serve the
purposes of the believers - allowing them to cover up for the fact that
there's not a
scrap of credible evidence for the existence of this hypothetical
deity? How convenient that his choice to remain invisible
'explains' the absence of any evidence for his existence! In his
'mysterious ways' he chooses
to force us to accept his existence, omnipotence, omniscience, and
omnibenevolence entirely without evidence? Why? Why give us
a rational mind and the curiosity to ask questions if obedience was all
he wanted? After all, if we choose incorrectly, he damns us for
all eternity - pretty high stakes for us! To say nothing of the
fact that he supposedly
created us and must surely know in advance precisely what we would
choose. How does one escape the conclusion that he created us
expressly for the purpose of inflicting an eternity of torture on some
(most?) of us humans? Is that a 'loving god'?
We humans derive most of our morality not from ancient scriptures but
from empathy. We have the capability to imagine how others might
see things, especially when we ourselves have experienced something
similar. Thus, we can temper our selfish behavior with the
understanding that comes with empathy. We wouldn't want to
inflict suffering on others that we ourselves would not want to
experience. This sort of morality leads directly to the ability
to
cooperate for our mutual benefit. We survived as a species
because we cooperate, for the most part. If our societies break
down into 'every man for himself' we likely won't last long.
Evolution has made moral codes for us, not some mythical being.
But the hypothetical deity evidently is immune from any responsibility
to our human morality. Do as I say, not as I do! The bible
is soaked with the blood of this deity's vengeance, which he claims
exclusively for himself. Would not a benevolent, loving deity
have empathy infinitely beyond our
own? Why would such a being stay in the shadows and let awful
things happen to us without at least revealing to us the reasons
for his
allowing them to occur? Wouldn't an empathetic deity want to
comfort us, like a human parent tries to comfort a child when bad
things happen to that child? Why must the child rely on the
solace of a better life in an afterlife promised by an invisible deity
that can’t even be shown to exist in any way? What true comfort
could a child derive from an explanation that the pain serves an
unknown and forever unknowable 'higher purpose'?
The fact is that the real world observations of human suffering are
entirely consistent with what our world would be like if that
hypothesized deity simply doesn’t exist!
There’s no explanation
for humans perishing and suffering in natural disasters - just bad luck
if it happens to someone. There's
no good reason for the pain and death inflicted by some humans on
others. These evil people evidently have no empathy for others,
for some reason. There's no higher purpose served by all the
terrible
things that can happen to us. Take narcissistic comfort in a myth if you wish,
but it's virtually certain to be a false comfort. It's quite
likely no one will ever be re-united with their friends and family
taken from them prematurely. There's no eternal bliss to make up
for the bad things we might have to experience. Many of the
wrongs perpetrated by evil people
likely never will be made right. Can a
delusion provide real
comfort? Apparently so, at least for some. I
have no wish to take this false comfort from
anyone, but your comforting delusion comes with a price. The
christian religion (like others)
is a meme that survives by propagating itself, demanding obedience, and
obtaining that obedience through both the 'carrot' of a blissful
afterlife and the 'stick' of eternal torment. It makes being a
human, with human wants and desires, something evil – a sin. It's
the guilt that this notion of sin induces that religion uses to control
its
victims. And in christianity, that sin has been inflicted on
everyone for all time, from the instant of conception, based on a
childish, absurd myth about the first humans. No one can ever
escape it, no one is not soiled by this 'original sin'! Only by
accepting the mythical
jesus (or whatever) can you be saved. Religions survive
by inflicting themselves on others, sometimes to the point of doing so
by
violence and coercion. Christianity isn't the only religion capable of
fanaticism, of
course. Your source of comfort through religion is also a source for
evil deeds in this real world. Religious fanatics stop at
nothing, and most moderate believers look the other way when the
fanatics inflict their immoral actions on others, avoiding any
obligation to condemn the fanatics. Perhaps for fear of
retribution. Or perhaps from apathy about the evil committed in
the name of their religion. I'm not a fanatic doing evil deeds,
so it's not my problem!
The hypothetical 'loving god' doesn’t love us as adults love their
children or spouses. No, the relationship looks more like that
between a shepherd and his sheep. The shepherd dictates the life
the sheep can have, and the sheep have no choice but to obey.
When the time comes for leg of lamb or mutton on the dinner table -
well, that's the way it goes. The sheep have no understanding and have no need to
understand. If they somehow did understand what was going on, it
might only provoke them into futile resistance, after all! Keeping them
ignorant is the simplest way to avoid problems. That’s the
christian deity - his supposed 'love' is that of a shepherd for his flock, not that
of a benevolent parent or spouse!
Is this vain, hypocritical, sadistic, bigoted, arbitrary, misogynist, genocidal, fratricidal, infanticidal,
vengeful, jealous, slavery-approving - but 'loving'? - deity worthy of
worship and obedience? Not in my book! This is an evil
insane deity that if he existed, should be treated as we would a mad dog. I deny
the existence of such a deity, but if I'm wrong and the christian god is just as described, then I would rather
suffer in eternal torment than serve this immoral, evil entity!