Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, November 19, 2011, 17:59 (4731 days ago)

Dhw: My theological question concerns the nature of a creator who invents killing as a means of survival.

By "predatory self-interest" I mean pursuing one’s own ends regardless of the effects on others. I find it difficult to think of any sort of evil that does not follow this pattern, as laid down long before humans brought it to such a fine art.

TONY: Ok, so let's dig a little deeper here. Now, since we are discussing the topic in a religious context, I think it is fitting to examine the accounts of religions, whether we agree with them or not.

I’ve opened a new thread on the assumption that you would not want your God to be mixed up with Abel’s gods! I hope we now know each other well enough for you not to take offence at what follows. I’m an ignorant agnostic, and can only explain why I don’t share other people’s beliefs. I do, however, respect them. You give us an account of Cain and Abel making their sacrifices to God (the “fruit of the ground” and “the firstlings of his flock” respectively).

TONY: So, sacrificing something that you are supposed to have caring relationship with held greater value than sacrificing your food. This gives insight into the nature of the mind of the Abrahamic god.

It certainly does. First of all, let’s remind ourselves that it was God who planted the tree of good and evil, so it was God who invented the concept of evil. Since he was the “first cause”, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask how he could be aware of something that wasn’t already part of himself. Secondly, you say that Cain “wanted favor (i.e. glory) and was willing to kill to get it.” That is exactly the argument I would use against Abel. And the fact that God was pleased to see the blood of the lamb(s) gives me the shivers. In passing, let me also say that a tiller of land has to work just as hard as a shepherd, so I have a great deal of sympathy with Cain – though not, of course, over the subsequent murder, which is unforgivable. You say later that “sacrifices weren’t required prior to sin”. I really don’t know why sacrifices were required in the first place, other than to appeal to God’s vanity.

You go on to agree with my equation of sin with predatory self-interest, and in the context of the human condition you’ve offered us a brilliant aphorism which I shall quote because I like it so much: “Predatory self-interest is a perversion of rational self interest. Rational self interest is required for life to sustain itself.” You then argue that this “function” (presumably sin?) is “necessary”. You go on to talk of homeostasis, and if by this you mean that good needs bad, that black needs white, that virtue needs sin, I agree. And I agree that humans have interfered with “the natural balance of things”, to a point at which Nature itself is under threat (e.g. all the endangered species). My starting-point, though, is what this tells us about the nature of God himself, if he exists. You have referred to Genesis, which tells us that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” What is there, then, to counter the argument that the human world is a reflection of its creator, with the same homeostatic mixture of good and evil that he himself created in Eden? The story of the sacrifices, like that of the flood with its indiscriminate slaughter even of children, the appalling demand made of Abraham, the deliberate hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, the torment of Job etc. – all of these suggest a God obsessed with his own power and glory, balanced of course by his acts of love and kindness, not the least of which is the gift of life itself. However, if one discounts the man-made stories of the Bible, and simply observes the sheer beauty balanced by the sheer horror of our world, one might well conclude that it has been left entirely to itself. If God exists, he and humans may well share their capacity for good and evil, along with an equal capacity for indifference.