Qui bono si Deum esse?

I have lately been contemplating a question about God and God's existence. I have not been contemplating whether or not God exists, but rather whether or not it matters if God exists. This train of though has been fueled by my constant interaction with Agnostics/Atheists as well as reflections on Pascal, Feuerbach, Heidegger and Dostoevsky.
To begin with, one must first understand how exactly this question is different than "Does God exist?" For starters, this question is not changed by the actual answer to that question, but the answer that we personally give this question does affect whether or not we think that it matters. Secondly, this question is a much more advanced one than the previous, and if one contemplates the latter rather than the former, he will achieve a greater understanding of not only human nature, but also the mechanics of religion, philosophy, and especially ethics.
To answer the question, we must ask what many cultured critics of our time have come near, but few have ever really grasped. We must ask the merits of the current system of beliefs across the globe and what would be the alternate (ie, if religions and philosophies of today were non-existent, what would be the effect?). Many critics proclaim boldly that religion is a blight and that humanity would be much better without it. Many state that religions provide faulty ethics and a faulty reasoning for accomplishing ethics. Many attribute the majority of conflicts to religious differences. So, to ask whether it matters if there is a God is to directly focus on these accusations and the overall consequences of siding one way or another.
Let us first remember that religions have been around for a very long time. Where there have not been "religions," there have been philosophies. This is still true today. The men and women who decry organized religion often ally themselves with some form of a philosophy, though we often don't recognize it since they are not preaching in the agora. Thus, they are still holding onto a set of beliefs. However, rather than asserting divine knowledge they assert some other principle, logic, for example, or scientific discovery, or simple observation or something else. Often, these people fail in similar ways to the fundamentalists and extremists of religion, and don't quite follow the tenets of their beliefs, but this will be addressed later.
As far as ethics go, one has to realize that our sense of ethics is, very much, derived from our culture and our religions and philosophies. In fact, to attack religion full on for it's ethics causes a logical contradiction. For most people who condemn the ethics of religions must take a morally relativistic stance, considering by their own words they don't stand behind a specific creed or guided set of principles, yet in this same stance, they cannot take a position against such sets of principles without betraying the single ethical idea of relativism, namely that nothing is wrong. However, it is also the case that to attack religion for its use of eschatology as a way to moderate ethics is also to take a stance more on religion's turf than one realizes. For the idea that "virtue ought to be done for the sake of virtue" is an Aristotelian idea, an idea which in the West was translated by one St Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of philosophers, theologians, universities and students. Even its promulgation today was a result of Catholic scholars in the early twentieth century returning to Thomistic Philosophy. Thus, even in condemning religion for eschatology, critics must borrow from religion to do this.
To think of all conflicts as arising from religion is plain ignorant. I have stated my reasons for thinking this way before, and to save space, I will simply state that many conflicts, especially wars in the previous 300 years, have had no religious component whatsoever, and those which did, were wars that were specifically twisted in order to appeal to the religious of an area. Wars have been fought for millenia.
So now that I've addressed several criticisms against the idea of the existence of God, or at least religion, I shall try to answer the main question of this post. It seems to me that it does not matter whether or not God exists. For if God truly does exist, then a lot of people have been right about a lot of different things. However, if God does not truly exist, then our sense of ethics, our ideas of compassion, etc, are pointless and nullified since it all amounts to nothing in the end, yet it still provides those who live religious lives a sense of fulfillment and happiness. Nietzsche said that Christian ethics were made up and derived, but he admired how effectively they worked, even so much that "the great politicians of Germany, brutes and terrible men, call themselves Christian." Feurbach himself saw that Christianity, though he had no faith in it, provided a means for relieving alienation that people feel, a way to feel real love and give us an ultimate example in Jesus for us to follow. Heidegger saw the lack of faith that humanity was experiencing and the consequent loss of humanity and famously said (as I have quoted multiple times) "Only a god can save us."
Though Pascal often gets a bad reputation from cultured critics, and is highly misinterpreted even among theists, his so-called "wager" lays out a fairly summary argument for the case. If there is a God, then righteous and virtuous behavior (and most certainly belief) can only do one good in the hereafter. If there is no God, and we cease to exist with death, then Christian living can do no harm to us.
Of course, Pascal was a notorious Jansenist who believed God would be angry at sinners. The average Christian, and especially Catholic, of today would not share the same sentiments as Blaise Pascal. Furthermore, the issue is even further complicated with globalization and the knowledge of other religions and their doctrines, practices and ethics. This, however, is a much different question from whether or not God exists, as well as whether it matters. The reality is that living a life that is truly in line with what one's faith teaches them is not only good in the sense of Christian and most modern understanding of good, but is also the easiest way to promote peace and unity.

Pride

"Proud to be an American," "The power of pride," "school pride," "gay pride," "national pride," "I'm proud of you," etc. The word pride, and it's variation proud, are often thrown about in colloquial conversation, as if something laudatory. We use the word pride often to describe something that we see as praiseworthy, such as when we say "I am proud of you," of "I am proud that..." However, I have come to the conclusion that either we greatly equivocate with the word "pride" or else we don't understand the true nature of the word pride.
For the sake of having something to write, I will assume that pride is often glossed over as being something more benign than it is. St Augustine, in the City of God, describes pride as the first sin, occurring almost simultaneously with creation (the full explanation takes care of the "God creating evil dilemma). Pride is also described as being the mother of all sins and the greatest of all sins by him.
Augustine's definition of pride was simply, "putting oneself before God." By this he means that in any instance, whether it be honor, devotion or service, we render to ourselves before we render to God, the universe, or else our fellow humans.
Later on, St Thomas Aquinas would list his "Seven Deadly Sins," a list of what he conceived to be the most vicious sins. The list includes several instances of pride, especially vanity. By applying Augustine's definition, we realize that not only vanity, but also at least gluttony, lust, sloth, greed and envy are also applicable, since they all depend on one putting himself above others.
Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to "Love God with all your heart, and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love your neighbor as yourself." Thus we can see that the commandment of Jesus Himself is a direct opposite to the demand of pride. If we love God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves, we no longer have the desire to put ourselves above either one of them.
But aside from theological talk, I must make a personal confession. I have found for myself that the time when I am the absolute most miserable is when I think I am not getting what is due to me. Whenever I get self-centered I never find myself being satisfied, but rather, being upset at what I have been given and what I perceive that I am missing.
On the contrary, the rare occasions where I find myself being generous, charitable and humble, I find myself more happy than any other time.
I have also noticed this quality in a lot of my family and friends. They're never happy when they think about themselves and what they think they ought to have. I've seen plenty of family torn apart because rather than loving people for who they are, they prefer to try to impose their own personality upon others. I have seen friends grow apart when one has had to call the other to reckoning and the other, in his or her own pride, has been loath to do so, or to admit that he or she does not have the ability to repay the debt.
Truly, pride is the most divisive vice there is. If there is a more destructive sin, I don't know what it could be.
Thus we're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. When we think of ourselves as being all-important, we exhibit hubris, one of the ugly heads of pride. However, it is against our nature and our experience to think in terms of anything besides ourselves. Thus, we get a plethora of philosophies and theologies that try to combat this problem. Even the scientifically based proposition that since humans are a relatively young species, on an infinitesimally small sphere in the vast universe, we are nothing, is itself based on a philosophy not unlike Nihilism. Platonism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism all try to deal with overcoming the problem of pride, but they all also stop short of their mark, in that they are unable to show what else we should venerate (Platonism and Aristotelianism both advocate philosophy, but does not philosophy serve the needs of man? Stoicism takes the Nihilistic approach).
Theologies, on the other hand, get closer to dealing with this problem. Paganistic rites have always maintained that the gods need appeasing in order to take care of our problems, thus, in order to actually help ourselves, we need to do homage and sacrifice to them. Buddhism and Hinduism maintain that since we are reincarnated after death, we must respect all animals in order to bring about good Karma and to show respect to those which may be our ancestors. Zen teaches that the universe is nothingness, thus, one must only learn to respect the emptiness of the universe.
Monotheism, on the other hand, proposes that there IS a God, and that this God does have power over all things. There are various strains among the Judaism, Christianity and Islam which maintain that it is necessary to try to win God's favor, and thus, supplication and humility must be shown to God in order for blessings to be poured out to theists.
Christianity, specifically the versions of it that I find more orthodox, realizes, with a sort of Nihilistic understanding, that there can be no true prayer but, "Thy will be done." If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then our supplications will not sway God unless God specifically wants our supplication. Furthermore, if bad things happen to us, they are likely, "God's will," or in other words, a lot of times out of our hands to do change.
It is important to note, however that Christianity should not become nor be confused with stoicism, wherein the highest virtue is apathy and the virtuous man realizes that he cannot avoid all the things that happen to him in life. Christianity believes that in the end, the way a man lives his life will affect his eternal destiny. Thus, a man may not have control over some of the good and bad things that happen to him, but he can decide how to respond to them, and he can demonstrate by his faith and (to me, more importantly) his ethics that he is a good person. Thus, he must pay homage to God first of all, for the good Christian understands that he is truly nothing, that God is everything, and that without the intervention of God Incarnate he is damned, but he also knows he must live a Christian life or he loses all of that.
In my estimation, the reason why this theology is superior is because it puts humanity necessarily in debt to God for something God has already done and that man must try to earn back. There is nothing like servitude to bring about a humble and pride-less attitude.

Veritas Invenere

I apologize, first off, for my long absence. The last few months have been fairly hectic, and what with writing papers, organizing club stuff, being an RA and applying to grad schools, I haven't put much effort into keeping this up.
I came back into Vernal yesterday. And while I'm not going to comment on Vernal right now, on the three hour car ride home, I had a lot of time to think about whatever it is that I wanted to contemplate. I utilized the ride to think about why it is that there are so many differing belief sets in the world.
It occurs to me that there must be a certain appeal to any given philosophy or faith. There must be some aspect of it that attracts men and women to it. I feel, then, that any given practice of beliefs must have some truth within it. I believe, as Socrates, that humans can recognize certain truths. This, of course, would be why there are similar beliefs in remote parts of the world--similar in how they conduct themselves and even, to a certain extent, what they believe about our final ends and the governing powers of the universe.
However, we observe that there are also a great deal of differences between the various beliefs. I would submit that this is because, as Aquinas says, it is possible to come to a fullness of truth, but not everyone could come to the truth, and it would only be done by long and arduous labor. So, often, when someone comes upon some great truth, he synthesizes doctrines based on this, though often erroneously.
Of course, these sets of beliefs get propagated because man eventually feels the compulsion to find the truth. As Blaise Pascal said, every man, eventually, comes to the realization that death is coming hurtling at him. When we come to grips with our temporality, we realize seek to find some kind of reason for our being. So often, men turn to philosophies or faiths, especially those wherein they see a truth that they recognize.
But it cannot be the case that every single philosophy or religion is right. So many of them openly contradict each other, that it would be utterly incomprehensible to have a pantheistic or panphilosophic attitude. So the task lies on us to figure out which ones we can embrace and which ones to reject.
Of course, with the differing doctrines within each one, it is impossible to take a look from any perspective of the schools of thought to examine what we should do. Plato thought we should seek to live virtuous lives. Luther taught that we are saved through our faith by Grace, and that our works cannot achieve heaven for us. Hedonists and Nihilists claim that nothing we do has any moral or eternal bearing. If we are already attached to one thought, we cannot fairly judge any other school.
So I will not lie and say my opinion is unbiased. But I will try to demonstrate what I think the correct answer is and why. If the Hedonists, Nihilsts, and even some of the Existentialists are right, then we have no moral obligation to anythin. However, this is not the case, because it is obvious through the ways that societies work that at some level, we have a moral obligation to fulfill. If Locke and Hobbes, and for that matter Caesar and all the current talk show hosts, are right, then our moral obligation is only to the state, and that is wherein our salvation lies. However, this cannot either be the case, since states rise and fall all the time, and oftne men outlive their own body politic (read: in a relatively recent example, East and West Germany, the Soviet Union, etc). So it must be to some greater force, for some greater good. If we follow Luther, then salvation requires faith. My biggest problem with this doctrine is not that we are saved through Grace, but rather that our faith is necessary. This seem ridiculous when there are people in parts of the world who have no access to the Gospel, nor did our ancestors if we go back far enough. Thus, salvation excludes a significant portion of the population, and Grace doesn't really seem like Grace.
So, I find myself taking on a more Platonic ideal. I will not say that we need to try to embrace every single virtue in either a Socratic or Aristotelian method, but we do need to live our lives with a sense of what it is to be a good person. Righteous living is the key to our salvation. Even Vatican II made provisions for the "virtuous pagan" an idea that suggests that morality is actually universal, though faith in Christ Jesus is not.
So, I think that whether or not we devote our entire lives to honoring God is irrelevent, but living our entire lives as if we were serving Him or His children is absolutely relevent. Our salvation lies not in how many times we pray, nor in how often we attend church, but it absolutely depends on how we see our brothers and sisters and how we honor the light of God within them.

Good God!

I've been very slothful in my updating responsibilities. I hope those who read this will forgive me, as RA duties/school work/Korean/being sick/club duties/grad school stuff/friendship/relationship/Korean/research have all been in que before my blog has.
A few weeks back (yes, I've been thinking about this for two full weeks), my philosophy professor asked how we can believe in an omnibenevolent God who is also omnipotent if we live in a world with evil. For if God is all good and all powerful, then He should prevent any evil.
To face this challenge, however, we first need to look at what it means to say "There is evil in the world." What do we mean by this? I take it that most of us would agree that by "evil" we mean something that is universally bad. Something might seem unfair, but if it generates net good (in a direct way) we cannot label it as evil. Likewise, even though someone might gain some advantage from some choice of his, if it creates a net negative reaction in a direct way, we might label this as evil. To illustrate this idea: Bill forgets to give his brother Steve the hundred dollars he promised and instead sends it to his favorite charity. Steve might think Bill's action was mean or unfair, but few of us would label a generous act, especially if it was in genuine forgetfulness, as evil. On the other hand: Rich embezzles money from his company. Rich benefits from this, and his workers suffer a bit, but overall we term this as evil.
Even with this sophisticated notion of evil, we haven't yet said anything about its origins. The idea of evil is not one that pervades every society, nor is it one that has been readily available to all peoples. According to Nietzsche, evil is a notion that can be traced directly back to monotheism in general and Judaism in particular. He says that most nations embrace an idea of "good" and "bad" wherein bad is simply "what we are not," and not anything more or less. In this way, something is good because it is widely accepted in society. However, Judaism introduces the idea of "evil" leading to an emphasis in evil over good. In this sense, evil means "what you are" with the you being other nations. Thus the emphasis is not a negative one (what isn't like me...) but a positive one (what is like you...). In this way the idea of evil is one that includes more malice and the idea of good is changed from a positivist spin to a negative one (even now we think of good as being without sin).
Is Nietzsche right, though? In Zoroastrianism as well as sects such as the Macabees and the Gnostics, the view of the universe has been a dualistic one. There is no "good and evil" but rather a "light and dark." This presents a less malicious view of what is seen in a negative light (evil/bad/dark) because by the very nature of dualism, the light and the dark are two parts of one reality. They almost exist in synchronicity, though usually only until the great and final battle where light conquers darkness (though only barely).
Similarly, in paganistic cults there were always gods of the dark arts. Hades is the god of the underworld and is always full of malice. Loki is the god of mischief. Anansi is the spider god who plays tricks on people. Toth is the deceiful god who tries to trick the dead. Cerberus and Fenrir are vicious dogs of godly power. But these figures are also countered by gods with more benevolent tendencies. However, whether it be Olympus or Asgard, the gods always seem to be more morally relative than in any sort of determinate ethical stance.
Hinduism and Buddhism also seems to see good and bad more as pathways through life. Good will lead us to Nirvana. Bad will send us circling around through various incarnations.
Even philosophy only speaks of things in terms of virtuous and vicious.
So we see that the idea of evil is inalterably connected to the idea of a good God. We cannot view there being any evil unless we come from a standpoint where we compare it to the absolute good (God). So we can't even speak of evil from an atheistic standpoint. We can talk of Nietzsche's will to power and people's selfish drives and immoral tendencies, but we can't use evil to describe it. For if we use the term "evil" that denotes that we are comparing it against something, presumably "good." And thus we must have some standard of good, otherwise our view of evil has no real basis. Thus, our standard of good must be the highest good, thus God.
But I have not yet answered the question. All I have shown is that we have locked ourselves into a paradox. With an omnibenevolent God, there should be no evil. However, without an omnibenevolent God we have no standard of good with which to talk about evil. So now I am forced to either answer the question to the best of my ability or remain silent on ethics until I can.
I take Augustine's view on sin and evil. Evil might be equatable to sin, since both are in opposition to God, and none should deny that evil is always sin. Thus, if sin and evil can be spoken of in this instance unequivocally (which I hope to show is the case), then my case might be made. Sin, to Augustine, is simply a turning away from God. If we concede that evil is the opposite of the ultimate good, then it follows as well that evil is a turning from God. Original sin, then was the first turning away from God which introduced sin and evil into the world and stained our human souls. However, original sin is not the subject of this discussion, though it is most certainly a part.
I further hold, as Aquinas does, that in order for something to become it best good (its telos, per Aristotle), it must be fully made through, or perfected. However, something that is created without the ability to reach its best good cannot grow or be perfected. It is a good thing to undergo growth and perfection, thus it is better to develop into the best good rather than be created in it. Thus it would seem that it is better to grow into our telos rather than being created in it. So we can see that humans can derive greater good from being imperfect and growing into perfection.
Part of not being made through, and growing, is the process of making choices. Many choices we make are ethical or moral choices. In choosing something good, we turn toward God. By being able to turn toward God, we must also be able to turn away from God. Thus, a necessary part of our being able to grow is to be able to sin.
If we admit all these things, then it follows that if God is all good, and part of His good is our perfection, then there must be evil in the world. This does not make the reality of evil any easier to understand or to accept, however, it shows that perhaps there is more to what's going on than a simple matter of what we think God should do and what God does. Simply because we see evil around us does not mean that God has abandoned us. What it might mean is that God wants us to help make a difference.

Artificial Selection

I wonder if it crosses any body else's mind how far from nature humanity has strayed. I don't mean to say that we violate our basic instincts, but it is peculiar to note how certain characteristics found in the animal kingdom have been abandoned in our own species.
For example, clothing. It is peculiar enough that we adorn ourselves with artificial skin (but this can be attributed to the relative little amount of hair that we have and our ability to manipulate our surroundings to suit ourselves), but it is even more so that the style of our garb has changed so much. We always portray ancient man as wearing animal skins in unflattering fashions, a style which would ideally simply function as utility, and not as ornamentation. However, today, so many of our fashions serve so little purpose usefully, (such as high heels), but they work as natural attractive features.
Similarly, we've gone from emphasizing being well-fed to being nearly emaciated. We have gone from having normal-looking skin to considering excessively burned skin to be beautiful. I highly doubt that we would ever see a dog or a lizard voluntarily take on a diet to lose weight, or bask in the sun only in order to darken its color.
Of course there are a million other different examples of our deviation: procreation, recreation, relaxation, shelter, tool manipulation, commercial advancement, lack of survivability skills, and the increase of the importance of healthcare in order to prevent otherwise naturally occurring deaths.
It seems that there is good reason why we often differentiate between what is "natural" and what is "man-made" or "artificial." Man is, as the zoologists and biologists reassure us, an animal, but we are one that is so unique that we often don't consider ourselves as such. Over against the animal kingdom, we have a highly developed sense of morality, intelligence, and discipline, while we have very little stress on instinct, and base impulses.
Perhaps this is why the first chapter of Genesis states that we are made in the image of God. For if there is a God, what other shape could He be other than that of the one animal that is able to even comprehend the idea of a god?
Additionally, I think the reason why we have such strong faith is obvious at this point: every animal fulfills basic instincts for the sole purpose of furthering the species and balancing the ecological niche. Mankind has far surpassed the ability to "simply survive" and must therefore seek out a new purpose. So we find faith in God as a viable focus.
According to Aristotle and MacIntyre, mankind moves towards a specific purpose or goal. This is said in reference to our human ethics and morals. I think that in combination with the above stated conclusion, it is safe to assume as well that mankind's focus and goals are not truly in furthering the species, but rather in fulfilling our duty to a superior being.
Whether or not this seems accurate, it is also important to keep in mind that the human, though defined in Aquinas' time as the rational animal, in his normal life does not interact with the ecosystem as an animal normally would. We act as removed entities, independent of our specific ecological niche and place in the food chain.
In this, the 150th aniversary of Darwin's famous expedition, it seems quite applicable to note that despite our animal natures, we also have transcended the limitations and laws that bind every other creature in nature. Our destiny is not among the swine, but perhaps among the stars.