2). The Greater Good Defense: The Greater Good Defense operates on the assumption that God allows evil and suffering (and with an omnipotent God, ultimately this can be the only conclusion) because a consequent greater good results from the evil and therefore outweighs the evil OR a greater evil has been averted by the lesser evil. In the case of the latter, how would we know? In the case of the former there are several questions that arise. The first problem seems evident; that God needs evil to bring about good. One would suppose that an omniscient, omnipotent God could bring about good without evil; or at the very least, without so much. Doire tangent #1: I wrote earlier that for centuries some of these theodicies seemed sufficient and were virtually accepted without question. But then, in the 20th century an event occurred that had theologians of the Western traditions scrambling to re-examine the old responses. In the wake of the Holocaust all traditional theodicies became absurd. The question changed and so the responses needed to change. No longer was the question, “Why is there suffering?” Now the question became, “Why is there so much?” Complicating the project of theodicy was the fact that the Holocaust was “allowed” to happen to the very people with whom God had made the Covenant. These were the people to whom God had promised, “You will be my people. I will be your God.” Whatever then, does it mean to “be God?” What does it mean “to be God’s people” if their near total annihilation from the face of Europe was the answer to their faithfulness? What possible greater good resulted from the deaths of 11 million people including six million Jews? If there was one, I dare say with others, the price was too high. And if there was one, could not the same good have been achieved by an omnipotent God with say, the deaths of 8 million people? Or 4 million? Could not an All-Powerful, Absolute Intelligence have come up with a freakin’ better plan than that?
In my former home back in Rhode Island there is a portion of our yard that sits elevated from the lower section of property. The elevation is an approximate twenty foot drop to cement. Imagine for a moment that I have care of a three-year old child, my daughter perhaps when she was that age. As I sit reading or basking in the sun, she moves precariously close to the edge of the wall. And then, I think, "I will allow her to fall. I will allow her so that she will learn not to go near the wall again. Or, she will cry out to me, turn to me in supplication. Then, I will care for her, bring her back to health and she will be so grateful." Reader, what would you think of me? You would think me a monster. You would have me locked up for abuse and neglect. And yet, I would voice my reasons; I would offer as justification, the greater good. Would you accept my defense? No. But what you would condemn in me, an imperfect parent, is the same kind of behavior for which God is praised on a daily basis.
It is incredible to me sometimes to hear with what surety people will identify the greater good of someone else’s suffering and to arrogantly announce that they know what it is. They see a resultant good that has arisen out of the suffering and then conclude that this good was the reason why it happened in the first place. Unfortunately, although they seem quite good at identifying the reasons for suffering, they miss one very important detail; they have confused a consequence with a reason. I would be the last to deny that good sometimes comes from evil. The human capacity for hope, re-creation, courage and strength can be remarkable in the face of immense grief and tragedy. But, that good may result from suffering does not mean that this good was the reason. The cause/effect formula is reversed. If good appears to be an effect of the suffering then that effect is surmised as the cause. Further, if greater good results from a human being's suffering, isn’t the realization of that good ultimately a product of that person’s free will, or the free will of those around the afflicted, if they too benefit? If the greater good is predetermined by God and must result from the suffering, then once again God has violated the boundaries implicit in free will.
Another problem with the Greater Good Defense particularly in Christianity is the belief in the existence of hell. According to the tradition, the final judgment will result in some of us experiencing eternal residence there. If God allows suffering in order to bring about a Greater Good, how can a good be accomplished if the suffering is eternal? How can suffering be redeemed if it doesn’t end? I would dare add that even I am hard pressed to come up with a sin or crime that deserves eternal punishment. True, I can think of a few for which I would wish some time in hell for those who commit them, but eternity? The whole concept certainly begs the question of the mercy of God.
The last issue I’ll mention regarding the Greater Good Defense is not a logical or theological problem, but a human one. And it is here that I get to the heart of the matter of why it matters to me so much; of why I teach this course and of why I am consumed with eliminating theodicy all together. The Greater Good Defense and all other theodicies allow us to become too complacent with suffering. If suffering is understood as necessary for some higher cause then the sufferer is sacrificed to it. Suffering ceases to be suffering but becomes identified with the higher good rather than the very real experience of pain and affliction. “O felix culpa!” O Happy Fault! Suffering becomes trivial in the face of the noble cause for which it is presumably endured. In a nutshell, the Greater Good Defense makes suffering good. Suffering is justified because God is allowing it; if God is allowing it, it must be “good.” And if it is good, one should not seek to change it or to challenge it.
No matter what explanation, justification, reason or application one can construct to deal with suffering the most damaging and dangerous are those that elevate suffering to the level of utility and value; those that perpetuate an illusion that suffering is good. Suffering for suffering’s sake becomes noble for always there will be some greater good that may arise. And even if it is not readily apparent, there are those who would point to the sky and tell us that the Good waits there. So, in the meantime, we are boldly told to pick up our suffering, bear it in silence and walk with it joyfully. In believing that suffering exists because God permits it, we permit it. And in the attempt to justify God we commit an ultimate betrayal against humanity and human suffering. We fail to alleviate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment