Good vs. Evil, Part 1

In my opinion, there are three options to make sense of the existence of evil in the universe: (1) there is no good deity; (2) there is an omnipotent evil deity; (3) there is a real war between a good deity and rebellious creations. I say in my opinion, because there are myriad ways within traditional Christianity that have been attempted to explain away the problem of the existence of evil. The most common of the three options is number 3, but the Christians proposing this option often do not take it to the obvious conclusion of all-out spiritual war.

That there is no good deity would pose a problem for the existence of goodness in the universe. The most often asked question among those who choose not to follow any god(s) is, "why is there evil in the world?" However, a more pressing question in the absence of a good deity would be "why is there goodness in the world?" The same objection is true for option number 2.

I often wonder about an extra option: perhaps there exists either a capricious deity, sometimes behaving well and sometimes not, or either a still morally-forming deity who sometimes makes bad choices. Of course, in the arena of metaphysics, all these options are just as good as the others unless one thing holds true for the individual: experience of a good, loving deity. But the problem of bringing experience into the equation often alienates those who claim only to rely on reason for judgments of truth. And, after all, some people experience the same event differently. Whereas I might experience a certain struggle to be the workings of a loving God vs the real forces of evil, others may identify that struggle as evidence that a good God is not omnipotent within that "evil" situation, or that nothing exists except the forces of nature.

Buddha (paraphrased) said, "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." Ultimately, how we address the problem of evil is a result of what we, as individuals, test and judge to be true. Our beliefs are the result of how we sift and process experiences. Therefore, my purpose is not to reason out an argument for the existence of evil. This has been tried, and better minds have only come to a standstill at best. I will only speak of what I have tried and tested, and why it makes sense to me. This is sure to make worshipers of reason nauseated.

I have never been able to fully understand how evil can exist without something opposite with which to compare it. In other words, how can something be evil unless its opposite can be good? The following question, then, is what is the source of good? By what (or whom) do we compare actions in order to call them good or evil? Although I can never completely understand what I choose to call God, my experience of Her is as a good and caring personality. Perhaps this is just because I need a crutch, or perhaps it's a relatively accurate picture of reality. The sure thing in my mind, however, is that my experience of God as good makes me strive to also be good in my relationships with others. I do not see God as good because some scripture tells me to, but because in the quietness of my moments with Her, I sense love and grace. Direct experience with God, without scriptural descriptions, is often richer and less filtered through other's experiences. Seeking God in scripture can produce schizophrenic pictures of Her character. That is why, in my opinion, many biblical literalists act less good than Christians for whom tradition and experience play a larger role.

So, my first assumption is that a good God exists, if for nothing else than my direct experience of Her. The problem then becomes, if a good God exists, and if She is omnipotent as traditionally thought, then why is there evil in the universe? I think it become necessary to re-work some traditionally held beliefs, because none of the positions currently held do the problem justice. Some say God is omnipotent, but has given us free-will to do evil. I would agree with this; however, I think "omnipotent" needs to be redefined (as open theists have begun so well), and "free-will" needs to be given the authority it deserves. Some say that God ordains everything that happens while maintaining that God is still good. Experientially (i.e. out of the realm of academia), this is ridiculous. If you want to believe that God ordains the rape of a nine-year old girl, go right ahead. But don't tell me that's a good God. So far in the academic discussion, I think open theists have done the most justice to the experience of a good God in a not-so-good world. In the next post, I will flesh out the version of open theism that most jives with my experience of God.

Peace & Blessings.