Matthew (16)

9.7.11’s class was very instructive because it helped me to understand philosophy’s place in the modern world. I was previously curious as to where it belonged in a time where history is so accessible, and psychology is both so scientific and advanced. I know see that it is the tails side of the coin that it shares with theology.

After arriving at this, I was happy to then observe Dr. Oliver very objectively outline the arguments both for and against the idea of a God that is omniscient, perfect, etc. The words of Goethe sprang to mind “A man doesn’t learn to understand anything unless he loves it”. Since Dr. Oliver so clearly loves both sides of the argument, I listened with the assurance that all arguments would be equally weighed.

The pain and suffering topic that was discussed was, I confess, rather confusing. But I eventually came to the understanding that pain and suffering results from the game which God plays. In contrast, the good in the world, or at least from a million New Yorkers, is the result of people who have bravely shrugged off the yoke of outdated dogmatic beliefs. When I arrived home from class, I saw a pamphlet displaying the bloated bellies of starving children in some third world country. I think it was asking for donations. As I looked at the pictures I wondered how God could allow such suffering. I discarded it and began writing this blog.

This is patently absurd; but whoever wishes to become a philosopher must learn not to be frightened by absurdities.

I was unable to ask in class what Dr. Oliver meant when he said that God never spoke after the book of Job. I’m sure that I only misheard, because of the simple fact that God speaks many times after the book of Job.

I was also stuck by the boldness of the statement that “The God of the Job parable, in other words, is a lot like the Hindu Deity Shiva: capricious, willfully destructive, lacking the essential attribute of moral perfection, full of his own power but disinterested in human good.” The Job parable is one book of the bible. Using one story to summarize the Christian God is like describing philosophy by the quote by O. W. Holmes, Jr. “Any two philosophers can tell each other all they know in two hours”.

There is a lot I want to say about the Job parable, but I am tired from my fervent typing, and I suspect that only the willfully ignorant would trust all the summarizing and paraphrasing made by the various authors of the article “Just asking for a reason to believe”. There are so many bold statements made, and so few quotations from the actual book of Job that the discussion would be entirely without substance. And when I say “very few”. I mean none.

The question of good and evil is mentioned here by our mutual friend William James: “There is an inevitable tendency to slip into an assumption which ordinary men follow when they are disputing with one another about questions of good and bad. They imagine an abstract moral order in which the objective truth resides; and each tries to prove that this preexisting order is more accurately reflected in his own ideas then in those of his adversary”. He goes on to say that we believe that “we should conform our thoughts to God’s thoughts, even though he made no claim to that effect, and though we preferred de facto to go on thinking for ourselves.” Atheists believe there is no God, thus there is no point thinking like him. Christians believe that they cannot think like God because they are unable. This seems to me like a likely explanation as to why the problem of pain and suffering remains a problem.

I do not pretend to be an expert in any theology or philosophy. This is just my feeble attempt at expressing my beliefs. I hope that I have been respectful to anyone who was kind enough to read.