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.

Ex iusticia

I had kind of an insight earlier this week. One reason why I believe in God, and why so many other people have believed in God in this world, has to do with the notion of justice. I know, I've said before that we can't prove that God exists, but I'd like to think that there must be one.
I guess the main reason for this goes back to my last post. We, as humans, tend to be so corrupt. We shamelessly attack each other and often have no apparent sense of dignity. I wonder why we are like this, and many an atheist has used the evil world we live in as direct evidence of there not being a God.
However, many disciplines, chief amongst which are physics and philosophy, have taught us that every action has an equal recourse for it. Why is it, then, that there seems to be no real justice in the world? A thief breaks into a family's home and in the ensuing process kills a family member. All the rehabilitation or prison time, or community service won't bring that family member back.
Then I think of all the other atrocities we have seen in this world. We have so many people who commit so much injustice that seem to get away with so much of it. It is, needless to say, discouraging. But what is there to make up for it?
In Jewish theology, there is often times an apocalyptic motif. In fact, the entire Jewish view of history is one of a corrupt and fallen world being restored to a glorious and heavenly place. After being conquered by the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and the Romans, I don't blame the Jews one bit for thinking that their God must grant a just future to them.
Christians have latched onto this idea as well. The Apocalypse of John is full of imagery of the wicked being punished and the righteous being saved. The rapture is supposedly the saving of all the righteous Christians on the earth and their delivery from the hands of the wicked. The Millenium is supposed to be a time of peace following the greatest battle in the history of the world.
I don't know that I would necessarily plan on some kind of glorious end of the world. However, it helps me sleep better at night trusting that there will be some kind of justice for the oppressed, food for the hungry, haven for the persecuted, clothing for the naked, reward for the meek, blessing for the poor in spirit, etc. It doesn't have to come in this lifetime. In fact, if history shows us anything, it's that the big things only happen after long and toilsome efforts. However, i do hope and fully believe that in the end, God will take care of those who had no one to take care of themselves.
I'm reminded of the power of the Church in the Middle Ages. A lot of people wonder why it is that Christianity had such great control over all of Europe during the Medieval Era. The truth of the matter is that the Church was able to procure the favor of feudal lords. But the reason why it was so successful among the peasantry is simply this: because of the nature of the lives the peasants lived, having a glorious hope to look forward to after they die was, essentially, the only thing they really had to look forward to.
Similarly, African slaves in America became very spiritual, singing songs of deliverance as they longed for nothing more than the freedom that all human beings deserve.
I am of a similar mindset. I see the world as an unjust place with the redeeming qualities being overshadowed by its vices. However, two atheists I have spoken to recently voiced the opinion that it is only those redeeming values that we have to live for. I would then surmise that perhaps we should seek the qualities that some people express, such as philanthropism, charity, selfless giving, environmental awareness, justice and others. However, even as we pursue these options, it seems like Nietzsche's Will to Power still proves true for most humans. And it is in this case that I am forced to think the only true happiness or justice that we'll ever find does not come from this world or in this life.

In imago humani

In The Brothers Karamazov, one of the brothers, Ivan, is discussing his theological views with his brother Alexey. Following a certain popular phrase, Ivan states that he believes that if man created God, then man must have created God in his image. Alexey responds that if God was created in man's image, then the devil surely was as well.
What seems most puzzling of all is why we often times cease at explaining the movements of God, but we never have a hard time explaining the temptations of a devil. We puzzle why good people are plagued with injustices, but whenever an evil befalls a wicked man we state with self-righteous justice that "that man deserved what he got."
But the truth of the matter is, for all the praise and honor we give to philanthropic action, we are much more versed in misanthropy. Perhaps the reason why we laud those like Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, Schindler, and others is because what they do is truly extraordinary. We are such connoisseurs of wretchedness that when we observe somewhat exhibiting truly magnanimous action we are astounded and stand in reverence.
Take, for example, Dante's Divine Comedy. The punishments of Hell are much more graphic, descriptive and moving than the toils of Purgatory or the blessings of Paradise. It may be argued that the reason why it is as such is because more men are afraid of going to Hell than of being punished in Purgatory. However, I think that the real reason is because we are so much better at tormenting humans than of simply putting them to toil, and much more than of rewarding them.
Think, for example: what great evil and misanthropic movements have taken place in the last few hundred years? Immediately we think of the Holocaust, the Spanish Inquisition, Genocides, Slavery, Religious persecution in general, Internment Camps, Political Witchhunts, Real Witchhunts, etc. But, on the other hand, what great deeds of philanthropic magnitude have been wrought? Can we think of any movement, other than recovery efforts, that was not in response to the great injustices that we have brought about before?
But we don't have only terribly evil men to look at. Stalin and Hitler are not the only men who have mistreated humans in horrific fashion. Everyday, we walk by the poor in our streets, we turn a deaf ear to the cries of the politically oppressed and sometimes we go so far as to condemn people simply because they are from another part of the world. We are all masters of wickedness. We are all workers of evil. For every time we ignore the beggar, or spurn the homosexual, or flat out scorn the political prisoner from the Middle East, we are all displaying the truly voracious, despicable side to human nature.
Indeed, if there is a devil, he must have been made in the image of man.