"Then, is heaven too full of evil, or is free will
non-existent in heaven and therefore there is no longer a proof that God exists?"

Dear Anonymous,

I never presented free will as proof that God exists but as an
explanation of why evil exists.  Then, there is no evil in Heaven, but
there is free will.  Those who enter Heaven have been perfected and are
not plagued by the desire to sin; thus, they do not use their free will
wrongly. 

Jim wrote:
          
           Hello

(I have added "There
have times" because this hasn’t always been the case, sometimes I do the right
thing without any coercion.  Also I want to  add  I am not certain of God’s
existence, but I wish it, and hope it, to be true.)

Do you believe that
the existence of God is the reason to be good, or the reason to do what we think
is the right thing? I ask this because your editorial brought back to my mind a
conversation I had with a person that had a great deal more faith then I did. 
His argument was essentially if there is no God or higher being there is no
right or wrong. I didn’t agree with him at the time, and I still
don’t.
 

Is it enough or would it be enough for God, if a person was good
because they believe God exists? I don’t think it would be or should be. This
suggests they wouldn’t be good if God wasn’t there. Speaking from my own
experiences, I am ashamed to say, ** There have been times **, it was fear of
repercussions and punishment, not the right or wrong of a thing has kept me from
doing something I knew to be wrong. The repercussions and punishment were a
means to get me to do the right thing. Does this make me evil?

Is the
belief in God only a means to an end? I hope not.
 

I know this really
isn’t exactly the point you were going for in your editorial and I’m not
disagreeing with your points. But your editorial caused me to remember this
discussion I mentioned above, and I wanted your opinion. I will add my opinions
have changed since I had that conversation, not all of them, just most of
them.

Just curious I
guess.

You say, "This
suggests they wouldn’t be good if God wasn’t there."  I must preface my main remarks by once again pointing out (it’s a common theme) that if God didn’t exist, they couldn’t be good because we would have no yardstick for determining what good was.  "Good" would then just be opinion.  I realize that this comment is cryptic, so I encourage you to read my piece The Nature of Right and Wrong.  The essay explains this comment better than I’ll be able to here.

God certainly is not just a means to an end, certainly not for me.  Now, you ask whether it’s enough for someone to be good simply because God is there, and you follow up by adding that you don’t think so.  Certainly, it isn’t ideal, but it may be enough for those who are capable of no more.  But more on that in a moment.

Jim, you mentioned that, much to your chagrin, there were times in your life when you only did the right thing for fear of repercussions, and I think that’s true of all of us.  I’ll ask you, though, where would you have been if those consequences had been non-existent?  Obviously, you would have done wrong in those situations, so then couldn’t we say that those repercussions and the fear they engendered were valuable elements?  It’s plain that were it not for them, there would be far more evil in the world.

This brings us to a deeper philosophical point.  And I will present this by initially introducing findings from psychology, although I’m far from enamored of that field. 

There was a very famous psychologist named Erik Erikson (no, he wasn’t a rock star and that’s not a stage name), who promulgated what he called his stages of "psychosocial development"; plainly speaking, these are stages of moral development through which children pass as they mature.  Erikson points out that in one early stage of development, a child cannot understand moral principles and will only view something as wrong if he suffers some kind of consequence for it.  Of course, people have observed this trait in very young children for millennia, so it’s nothing new.

Now we come to the main point: Unfortunately, there are people who never ascend out of that infantile state of moral development.  We see some of them in prisons and others might be those such as Saddam Hussein.  Moreover, most people’s consciences are not perfectly formed; thus, they will have moral blind spots; there will be things that are wrong that they will not feel or perhaps not even perceive are wrong. 

This is why both love of God and fear of God are legitimate  (unfortunately, many modernists have demonized the latter).  Sure, it would be wonderful if everyone did the right thing simply because it is the right thing, simply because he loves God and good (the word good is derived from "God"), but that is not the world in which we live.  That is Heaven.

Also know that Christian theology has a teaching pertaining to this: Perfect versus imperfect contrition.  Perfect contrition is when you’re sorry for your sins because you love God and feel bad that you offended Him; imperfect contrition is when you’re sorry only because you fear punishment.  Both are considered valid; however, as you alluded, perfect contrition is the better cut.  But the Church allows for both because it has long recognized what Erikson framed in scientific terms: Some people are not as morally evolved as others.

Lastly, you might say that the purpose of government is create worldly consequences for those who do not sufficiently fear heavenly ones.  Now, would we pooh-pooh this institution simply because people should be doing the right thing for the right reasons?  No, the fear of government is necessary — just like the fear of God.

Oh, one more thing.  Government is most certainly "a means to an end."  But it also most certainly exists.

Anonymous Lawyer said:

Dear Mr. Duke; Thank you for your insightful and thought provoking
article.
Like many, I’ve struggled with my faith for close to 50 yrs. I
majored in
theology in college. I do not agree with your posited irony about
evil and
the existence of God; evil can indeed be a construct of the human
mind, just
as good is, without God as part of the equation. Where do you find
that God
defined these terms of art? Take for instance the 10 Commandments,
when you
think about them, they’re rather rudimentary and basic. It did not
take the
mind of God to posit 10 basic constructs for a civilized society to
exist
and thrive. As a lawyer, I find God to be a minimalist when it comes
to
making laws, something we badly need, but that’s another topic. Absent
many
of these commandments, society would devolve into chaos.
But it’s
your (and the church’s) position on the concept of free will, that
has
perplexed me for these many years. Your explanation of free will leaves
out a
whole spectrum of unintended consequences that are not the subject of
an
individual’s invocation of free will. For example it is not an act of
free
will that allows for a child to develop cancer and die. Neither are
any
number of devastating acts and consequences, that occur every day, when
an
"innocent" person suffers from their effects, not set into motion by
that
person. What act of individual free will did Jews set in motion when
herded
into cattle cars for extermination?  Unfortunately, free will does
not
explain these many situations. Hence, I have concluded that Jefferson
was
right and that God is indeed an indifferent force. I’d love to have
your
response, as I’d love to find what you apparently possess. Thanks

Dear AL,

Well, you certainly present a number of interesting topics.  As for evil being a construct of the human mind, as I suggested for Jim above, please read my piece The Nature of Right and Wrong.  I will only say here that this is something that secularists in particular have trouble grasping, and the piece I cite here will be the best explanation I can offer.

Now, let’s start with something simple.  You mentioned the Nazis herding Jews into gas chambers; this is nothing but the perfect example of evil, whose existence I was exploring.  The Nazis were people, and they misused their free will in electing to do violence to others.  It has nothing to  do with the fact that the Jews didn’t decide to be violated; why, if that were a prerequisite for being victimized, then no one would ever be victimized.  Except, perhaps, for masochists.  After all, who would choose to be hurt?  It is always the victimizers who make that choice and the victims who suffer because of it (note: the victimizers suffer, too, in that they hurt themselves morally, spiritually and emotionally). 

Then, you said,

"Take for instance the 10 Commandments,
when you think about them, they’re rather rudimentary and basic. It did not
take the mind of God to posit 10 basic constructs for a civilized society to
exist
and thrive."

First, we know that the more brilliant a mind is, the simpler it makes things.  It is the corrupt and foolish who add unnecessary complexity and make a great show of matters.  Just think about Fidel Castro rendering hours-long speeches and fainting (evil people are famous for verbosity) and the fact that as western governments become more corrupt, lethargic and inefficient, their laws become more voluminous and labyrinthine.  I’ll also add that a good father will give his children simple, easily understood rules to follow. 

I’ll also say that these rules may seem commonplace or uninspired to us because we take them for granted, but it wasn’t always so.  In pre-Christian, pagan civilizations, a blanket prohibition against murder might have seemed quite odd.  After all, maybe you didn’t kill a member of your tribe or clan, but foreigners?  Of what consequence were they?  They were sub-human, the creatures whose villages you raided to acquire some plunder. 

We should also realize that the Ten Commandments were just a small part of God’s revelation.  Not only do the Jews have 613 Judaic laws, but God has revealed far more through Jesus’ ministry and His church.  And, of course, the Bible itself is rich in wisdom, expressed both literally and through symbolism.

Now for the last and most fascinating matter.  You mentioned a child developing cancer and dying; a common variation on this theme is to ask about devastating storms or other natural disasters. 

Remember, though, I explained the existence of evil, not the existence of natural disasters or illness.  And there is a difference.  Bear in mind that "evil" in the context in which I use it has a certain connotation, in that it implies intellect, will and purpose.  For instance, most of us would not describe an animal — even a vicious dog — as evil because we understand that animals act merely on instinct; they just behave in accordance with their nature and/or conditioning.  This is even more true of a disease or storm; it doesn’t possess intellect, will or purpose, as it is just a natural phenomenon. 

So neither a disease nor a natural disaster is inherently "evil."  As to this, here is a scenario to ponder.  If a child develops cancer and dies, it is a sad thing.  What, though, if a given child who suffered this fate was going to grow up to be the next Saddam Hussein or perhaps a serial killer? Would we then say the disease was a bad occurrence?  Why, some might then say that it was a godsend.   Then, I’m sure that when vicious storms destroyed the Chinese armada that was poised to attack Japan in ancient times, the Chinese viewed it as a horrible event.  But I doubt the Japanese did!  They saw it as providential.  And, again, my only point here is that these phenomena are not "evil"; they are simply either beneficial or not so.

Of course, we know that we don’t usually perceive them as being beneficial, and they certainly cause a lot of pain and suffering to many innocent people.  And while they’re not evil, one may ask why God doesn’t prevent them.  Is He guilty of a sin of omission? 

As for disease — and remember that I’m hewing to Christian theology here — we cannot know exactly how our fallen state has affected our physical well-being.  If this seems far-fetched, remember that it’s now widely accepted that one’s mental state can greatly influence his health; this was pointed out in Norman Cousin’s Anatomy of an Illness and in Dr. Bernie Siegel’s book Love, Medicine and Miracles.  And I can tell you that I know — although it is foreign to modernistic ears — that sin is psychological poison and, therefore, affects one’s mental state.  So, if God won’t trump free will, and we exercise our free will wrongly and sin, and that sin can cause psychological degradation which can cause disease, it is understandable why God wouldn’t intervene.  I will also mention that Christianity teaches that Original Sin has robbed us of our freedom from disease.

Of course, this doesn’t explain storms and other natural disasters.  While these things are difficult to understand, I will share something that another one of my readers mentioned.  Many Christians believe that the Devil holds sway over this world and that he is the author of much that happens.  If this is so and since angels have free will as well, it is also understandable why God wouldn’t intervene in this area either.  And, once again, Original Sin comes into play, as death is the penalty for sin.

But there’s a bigger picture here.  If there is a natural disaster or pestilence — ordained by God or not — and God takes the victims to Heaven, is it really a bad occurrence?  It much reminds me of a story I heard about an elderly woman who was angry at God because she was dying of cancer.  While I would be more sensitive than to say this explicitly if I were ministering to such a person, I would like to ask: What would you rather die of?   Sure, death is sad for those of us in this world, but we’re all going to die.  It’s just a matter of when and how.

The point is that God gives life — He never takes it away.  When we leave this material fold, we pass on to eternal life, that gift He bestows upon us.  And what is this life as compared to eternity?  It’s like a drop of water in an ocean.  Thus, in the scheme of things, does it really matter when we die, if we’re young or old?  Within the context of that ocean, it doesn’t matter if it is a small, medium-size or large drop of water, for the important thing is the ocean.   What really matters is where we’ll be spending eternity.  And once this is understood, death — whether early or late in life — is placed in perspective.

Then, there is the matter of pain.  OK, going to a place of eternal bliss sounds nice, but why does God allow us to suffer in the process?

We should remember that it is only pain and suffering that inspire us to grow.  A person who is too fat and comfortable becomes complacent and usually stagnates.  I have seen this during my own years; I experienced much pain at one point in my life, and while I certainly didn’t enjoy it at the time, I see very clearly how it was instrumental in my spiritual and moral evolution.  As C.S. Lewis said, "Pain is the megaphone God uses to get through to deaf ears."  And, as Saint Delphine said, "If people only knew the real value of suffering, they would send to buy it at the market as a thing of great price."

Thus, in the same way that a good father will not give his young son everything the boy wants — which causes frustration and tantrums which amount to emotional pain — knowing that it will build character, so does God allow His children to suffer knowing it will inspire growth. 

Of course, unlike us, God could choose to perfect His children the the snap of divine fingers, but this also would interfere with free will.  After all, if our imperfect state, with its attendant concupiscence, ignorance, sinful tendencies and other frailties, is the result of the choice to sin, then I think it’s understandable that God would allow matters to run their course. 

Lastly, this isn’t a matter of God being indifferent to our plight as a Deist might say, but happens within the context of His "permitting will."  This is one type of will of God; the other is "ordained will." 

These are difficult questions, and I hope that I at least provided food for thought.

God bless,

Selwyn Duke

The Nature of Right and Wrong