In the short story “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, author Ursela K. Le Guin paints a picture of an idyllic city, Omelas, with only a single “issue“: it’s splendor is a direct result of an atrocity that the residents of Omelas are complicit with. Namely a single abandoned child must be kept locked up to live a life of perpetual filth, and deprivation in order that the splendor of the entire city be maintained. The joy of the city’s residents is borne aloft by this one emaciated child.
One child sacrificed for the happiness of many.
It is an idea that originates from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s classic “The Brothers Karamazov”, where a similar question is posed by the titular character Ivan Karamazov to his brother Alyosha:
Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? – The Brothers Karamazov
Such emotional narratives underscore the human side of what has become known as the Problem of Evil. The problem asks why a supposedly all-loving, all-powerful god allows such terrible suffering to take place in our World? Even in the case when the evil is human-caused, what is termed moral evil, could The Greatest Love not have created humankind with less depravity? The problem is arguably even more concerning when it involves suffering through no fault of humankind at all. This is termed natural evil and examples include natural disasters, such as tornadoes and tsunamis, as well as medical ailments like childhood cancers.
This topic has been explored several times in this blog, as I have struggled with the implications of such terrible evil in our World.
I have previously mentioned that in gifting loving creatures free will The Greatest Love relinquished some of Their power, and knowledge of future events. As well I believe They will not violate, and have never violated, the laws of nature in order to cause supernatural events. Both point to self-imposed limits to Their power. Actions They will not take.
But I also believe in Their ability to present us with signs, messages, and visions. I do not know if this is the extent of Their interventions in the present. These are only the interventions I believe I have experienced. The actions I believe They have revealed to me.
In between those actions The Greatest Love will not take, and those They have, lies a vast expanse of the unknown. Where is the line that delineates that which They will do and that which They will not? What principles guide Them and what constraints, if any, limit Them and can help to explain the evil found in our World?
There are some which say that it is not that The Greatest Love will not stop evil, but that They cannot stop evil. This view is exemplified by theologian and philosopher Thomas Jay Oord. In his book “God Can’t“ Mr. Oord states that God cannot unilaterally control His creation; true love requires freedom and self-giving, which is why God is unable to prevent evil singlehandedly. This “uncontrolling love” applies to everything, from human free will to the processes of nature at a micro-level, meaning God cannot just “step in” to stop a natural disaster or a violent act. God’s action is always one of influence, not unilateral control, requiring the cooperation of creation to bring about good outcomes.
Mr. Oord’s theology incorporates ideas from panexperientialism whereby all matter has some form of rudimentary “experience” even if it’s not conscious. And The Divine is able to influence all such matter down to the sub-atomic level without ever controlling it. But when dealing with inanimate material the difference between influencing and controlling becomes less obvious to me. To be able to influence an object is to imply that the opposite is possible. Namely the object could be uncooperative. But how does a god influence an uncooperative screw that continues to come loose without controlling it or the laws of nature upon which it follows? And it is here where I part ways with Mr. Oord’s theology.
In an effort to absolve God of any culpability in natural evil Mr. Oord shifts the responsibility to nature itself. But I believe as the Creator of the Universe, it’s laws, forces, and matter, responsibility for at least some of the natural evil that resulted must lie with Them. And I believe They revealed as much in the seventh message when They said: “I’m sorry. Please forgive me. But it had to be this way”
In asking for forgiveness They revealed that They, through Their own action (or inaction) were in some measure responsible for my suffering. And in the next sentence, I believe, They answered why: because “it had to be this way“.
Given this seventh message I believe there are times, as discussed in an earlier post, where a version of the greater good theodicy applies. But I have also come to believe that given the vast amount, and degree of natural evil in our World, everything from stubbed toes and insect bites, to tsunamis and terminal cancer, not all of it can be completely explained by that theodicy. To argue that every paper cut, every bruised knee, every anxious moment serves a purpose in The Greatest Love’s Divine Plan to progress our love would require a perfect but also pedantic puppeteer, controlling Their creations to the most minute detail.
But is this love?
No. I do not believe so. And to understand why I need to step back for a moment to ask a more fundamental question: “Where is the joy found in love?“. It is a question that has inspired artists and poets, singers and songwriters for centuries. There is so much I could list but for the moment I want to focus on just one source. It occurs when a loved one does something surprising, something unsought, but something completely wonderful all at the same time.
Our heart swells.
But would such a moment be as heartfelt if we saw it coming, not just moments before, but days, weeks, or months before? Or, for an all-knowing god, since the dawn of time? No. I do not believe so. Because part of the joy in love comes from the spontaneity and unforeseen nature of its many moments. And I believe it was a desire to allow for such unanticipated moments that influenced how The Greatest Love created our Universe.
Not only did They make such moments unforeseeable to us. They conceived our Universe so that such moments would be unforeseeable to Themselves as well. They did this so that They could experience those moments of “unforeseen serendipity” and know the joys of love from all of us just as we do from one another. Love required that Their Divine foreknowledge have these limits and so They chose it over omniscience. Love led the way.
This contrasts with a clockwork Universe where The Greatest Love would have foreknown every thought, feeling, and action of all of Their eventual creations from before the birth of the cosmos. But I do not believe They were interested in creating an elaborate, cosmic-sized clock. Such meticulous providence would produce a Universe without any surprises and a Divine existence with little joy. And with little joy Their love for us would remain limited as well. Yet Their essential nature is to love infinitely, and so They needed more. More than mere puppets. They needed creations that could love freely, and which They could infinitely love in return. They needed us and all our surprises as much as we need air to breathe.
That is not to say The Greatest Love could not exist without us. They have existed for an eternity while humankind has only very recently arrived on the cosmic scene. But Their need to love infinitely necessitated that They birth a Universe that would eventually bring forth examples of loving life, the highest form of which on our World is humankind. Loving life whose future They could not foresee.
Returning to the earlier question: Does infinite love require a perfect and pedantic puppeteer? No. I believe it is in fact the opposite. Because infinite love requires cutting the strings and letting go. Providing One’s creation with the freedom to decide their future for themselves. Futures that can surprise even The Greatest Love.
Earlier I asked whether The Greatest Love could not have created humankind with less depravity. Could They not have somehow restricted our freedom to prevent moral atrocities. But now I ask where would They draw the line? I believe the more our freedom is restricted to prevent evil in one direction the less authentic, the less meaningful, our love become in the other. The more we become those mere puppets I mentioned earlier.
But it is in the face of natural evil, not moral evil, where most of my questions lie, about the nature of my god and the burden They ask us to bear. Everything from earthquakes and volcanoes, to terminal cancers and other debilitating diseases. How can an infinitely loving god allow such evils as these from within Their Creation?
Certainly there are some evils that are necessary for life. For example earthquakes and their origins, plate tectonics, are required to sustain life on earth. They provide a relief valve for releasing the Earth’s internal energy and allow our World to regulate it’s systems thereby making it habitable. Without them the World would have no water or stable environment for life. Similarly volcanoes are also essential for life. Without them the Earth would be barren and without breathable air or oceans, much like other lifeless planets in our solar system.
But there are a great many more natural evils. Cancers and genetic disorders, parasites and predation, aging and death, floods and drought are all examples. Can one provide a defense for all of these on behalf of The Greatest Love? One could try. For example an argument could be made that the health of our ecosystems and planet require a circle of life. A circle whose balance depends on parasites and predation, aging and death. Or one could argue that mutations are nature’s way of evolving a species to become more fit. Mutations that through trial and error are not always beneficial to life and that sometimes go awry in the form of cancers and genetic disorders.
The question though is not whether natural evils have had any positive impacts. The question is whether those positive impacts can make up for the negative ones? The tremendous amount of pain and suffering that goes along with natural evils. No theodicy will ever alleviate a mother’s grief at the loss of her child from cancer, and returning to Dostoevsky the question posed is:
What possible “greater good” justifies the torture and death of a single child?
When such an atrocity is the result of moral evil, humankind’s cruelty towards their own, I believe The Greatest Love provides an answer: free will is the greater good. A World of automatons who cannot, with complete freedom, choose great love over great evil is a World, I believe, The Greatest Love deemed unworthy of Creation. Instead They gave us freedom but with guidance from Their love which They imprinted on all our hearts.
However when the torture and death originates from an incurable disease, or some other natural evil, I have no answers to the above question. Doubts arise as any semblance of certainty fades away. Doubts not about Their love for us – the ninth message and all that I have witnessed makes clear to me that Their love is inviolable. But doubts about Their power and foreknowledge. What precisely are They capable of? What can They do, or know, and what can They not?
Love for One’s creation required that we be endowed with free will. This in turn required that we be free to commit great evil along with tremendous acts of kindness. All the while we are loved by a god of infinite love. A god whom we can surprise in a future that is far from determined. This is The World I believe I am a part of and I am truly grateful for it.
But yes I believe there are times when my loving god asks that we bear terrible burdens at the hands of natural evil. Defending such events is not what I believe The Greatest Love expects or desires from us. They understand our pain, our anger, even our hatred directed towards Them in the face of such evil. Perhaps our role should not be to defend Them in such moments. Perhaps our role is to instead embrace the others that are impacted. To listen. And, as best we can, to soothe such tortured souls. Not with explanations or defenses for The Greatest Love, but with our own genuine presence for all those left behind.
And perhaps answers are meant to be elusive at this stage of our journey. Maybe for today this is the best that can be expected from us. When confronted with such terrible and widespread suffering our limited knowledge and understanding makes us incapable of seeing the forest through the trees. And it is during such times, when the seeming dichotomies obscure underlying truths, that I place my faith in love.
I place my faith in our Creator whose infinite love I personally experienced and which continues to humble me today.
I place my faith in The Greatest Love.
A Love Story 