Theodicy and Metaphysics

[dauer]

I was thinking about the nature of theodicy and how it seems all traditions on some level -- if they begin with the assumption that the nature of things or the best way for things to be is a progression toward a greater good either for the individual or for society -- become bound to the application of a metaphysic.

On Shabbos the rabbi at my shul gave a drash on the parsha in which he dealt with traditional Jewish conceptualizations surrounding the question of evil and suffering, and how today those ideas have been so challenged. It was quite nice to hear him say that he didn't have an answer for how that should be addressed today, and encouraged that each member of the congregation would have to wrestle with that issue. It got me thinking though, and I think conversations following that got me thinking more, about how traditions seem to require a metaphysic if they want to make sense of that.

There seem to be a few basic ways of dealing with the issue and they all seem very similar at their root. People who are good (however the religion defines that) have some type of reward coming to them. People who are not good (based on the religion's definition) will suffer. There are a lot of variations on this theme and there are a lot of important nuances that each religion seems to take in dealing with the issue such that it can take on an entirely different flavor or meaning. In some religions the focus is on the reward and punishment. In others it's on the development of the individual. And within individual religions there are frequently multiple takes on the issue.

So my question then, is there a way to deal with theodicy (under the assumption that either the individual or humanity is/should be progressing or ought to pursue what is good/right) that can avoid proposing something happening that is outside of the natural world and its processes?


My own take on theodicy, as is my general take on belief, is that it's something which can be applied as a tool. There are times where, as a tool, I find it helpful to understand things that happen in my life in terms of a particular take on why bad things happen to good people. But if I get a wider perspective of what's happening that takes in more people, I can't apply it. I guess in a way it's maybe like how quantum physics is harder to observe as things get bigger. But I don't really think it's like that at the same time, because I think it would require something "other than" in order to validate itself. I'm really more interested in the subjective filtering and interpretation of reality than in the way things really are so it's not much of a problem for me, but I'm still curious about theodicy without metaphysic.

-- Dauer

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Dauer

So my question then, is there a way to deal with theodicy (under the assumption that either the individual or humanity is/should be progressing or ought to pursue what is good/right) that can avoid proposing something happening that is outside of the natural world and its processes?

Good question. Since I believe in how St. Paul described the human condition as the "Wretched Man" and have verified it in myself, the source f the good must be outside the world if it exists. Simone Weil expresses it accurately:

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Secularism can only produce the natural cyclical mixed results normal for the fallen "being" of Man. If this is true, theodicy is limited to turning in circles.

 

[dauer]

Nick,

I'm not referring to secularism, just a rejection of supernaturalism. I am deeply spiritual, religious and I also reject supernaturalism. I understand that for some it does not make sense that a person can be spiritual in the absence of the supernatural, and for me, what some call the supernatural I see as a projection outward of internal psychic processes.

-- Dauer

 

[Dondi]

So my question then, is there a way to deal with theodicy (under the assumption that either the individual or humanity is/should be progressing or ought to pursue what is good/right) that can avoid proposing something happening that is outside of the natural world and its processes?

Are you basically speaking of taking away the concept of reward and punishment in favor of just doing right for the sake of right and good and beneficial, and conversely, abstaining from evil because it's wrong and bad and counterproductive?

I believe that the key to ending of suffering is when we, in as far as it is within our power to do so, lay aside all our differences and help each other survive. As simplistic as that may sound, it is complex in execution. It would involve giving up our time and resources, that we worked so hard for, in order to benefit those who we often don't even know.

All evil is about selfishness. It is not in our initial inclination to help others, other than our family and circle of friends and aquaintences. We help them because we know them and have other motives other than altruistic one in helping them. We care what folks think about us, how they view us, which takes us back to selfish motives.

So there has to be an external driving factor to get us to be altruistic toward those who probably not benefit us back, other than the satisfaction we feel in knowing we help someone.

We are driven by a heirarchy of needs:



Self-denial would of course leapfrog some or all of these, with the proper motivation. If we are to believe that we are made in the image of a benevolent God, though we don't know why He allows suffering to exist, then it is our duty to emulate that benevolence. (or for the secularist, an Ideal we invent for ourselves). If we believe that His Love is unconditional, then we need to love unconditionally also. So there is a tension there. For then we must somehow sustain this, and find ourselves falling short. Yet, is it not a conditioning process? A five-year old ice skater is going to find herself on the ground many times before she gets the hang of it. Each fall is a failure, but each try is a victory, if only a moral one. "As a man thinks, so is he", as the proverb goes.

Of course, one person isn't going to change the world. That's what is frustrating to me. How to get people to see the ideal and pursue it? Why do people have to step on each other on the way to the top? Why not pull each other up with them?

There has to be some kind of unity. Something that will drive us all out of those lower eschelons of need. Trouble is, we don't think of ourselves as equals. The world is a class system. Or rather caste system. The rich are too busy getting richer. The poor are just trying to survive. The middle trying to make ends meet. We're cynical to each other. How can we ever agree?

 

[dauer]

Dondi,

I agree with you, and, my query is a little different. It's not so much motivation, just the question of evil and suffering and, is there a way to explain it, assuming that there is that sort of goal of good (I didn't want to use the term benevolent deity because there are some traditions that avoid that type of language) either for individuals or for society. I think the simple answer is no, in part because of the axiomatic assumption I begin with, of good, and in part because questions that deal with ethics are going to generally in my experience get far afield from day-to-day experience because they rely on some sort of established epistemology to tell us what is good and right. Even for the secularists there's going to be some sort of assumption about how one discovers what is good. The question there is of authority, whether it's the individual or the community or authority figured vested by the community or a sacred text, there's still some sort of assumption about where and how to know what is good. I think on some level we all know what is good and the differences are in the interpretation and application of basic principles in knowing what is good.

-- Dauer

 

[Dondi]

I assumed a benevolent deity because you mentioned "traditional Jewish conceptionalizations", so I went with that paradigm.

If you are talking about a neutral deity, such as Deists would believe in, then the concept of good would only come from our perception of it, which would be different strokes for different folks.

The question would be, is there enough commonality in our individual and collective consensus of good to construct a model in which we can deal with the issue of evil and suffering. And it is here that I think we get into the area of politics.

 

[dauer]

Dondi,

I was just trying to be as inclusive as possible so people could riff off of it. Some traditions don't have any deity at all but still have some sort of understand of suffering and evil. Even in those traditions, there seems to be a going-beyond in order to understand the nature of suffering and evil. But I think that's just the nature of understanding that type of concept.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick,

I'm not referring to secularism, just a rejection of supernaturalism. I am deeply spiritual, religious and I also reject supernaturalism. I understand that for some it does not make sense that a person can be spiritual in the absence of the supernatural, and for me, what some call the supernatural I see as a projection outward of internal psychic processes.

-- Dauer

True, and for others the supernatural is simply the awakening of our supernatural part which is an inner discovery rather than an outward projection.

 

[dauer]

Nick_A,

If your perspective is that the supernatural is an internal experience then the difference between your perspective and mine may be largely a matter of semantics.

-- Dauer

 

[Nick_A]

Nick_A,

If your perspective is that the supernatural is an internal experience then the difference between your perspective and mine may be largely a matter of semantics.

-- Dauer

I see it as both internal and external. Jesus said in John 14 that "11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;

If a saturated log is in a pond, the log is in the water and the water is in the log.

Laws are the same everwhere so laws existing in the external world are the same that comprise our inner world. The supernatural for us is just a higher level of reality we are not normally accustomed to that exists both within us and in universal structure.

 

[dauer]

I think I understand what you mean, that for you what the individual experiences is happening on some level as an external reality?

 

[Nick_A]

I think I understand what you mean, that for you what the individual experiences is happening on some level as an external reality?

Yes, and that raises the key question of ego and imagination.

Jesus often refers to the importance of washing the feet. The esoteric meaning of "feet" is that part of us that touches the earth or external world. Our inner world reacts to the external world through our mind, emotions, and senses. Our lack of conscious self awwareness brings them out of balance and allows imagination to be acceptable as a substitute for conscious reality. Plato referred to this as like living in a cave and attached to shadows on a wall..

Washing the feet is a means for restoring inner balance between the intellect, emotions, and senses and once again working to restore conscious self awareness.

The ego gets a bad reputation now in New Age circles as though it is something to be gotten rid of. All this leads to is escapism. The ego is what would allow us to simultaneously connect our inner world or microcosm with the external world or great macrocosm. Instead of escapism, the idea is to repair the ego so that it is capable of experiencing the value of a conscious perspective and becoming able to retain it. The Christian concept of carrying ones cross, or the conscious impartial experience of external reality is repairing the fallen ego so that conscious reality can nullify the power of imagination. The "feet" are then clean and a person becomes capable of sustaining a greater conscious vertical perspective psychologically connecting the person with higher consciousness and the source of the objective "good."

 

[dauer]

There's a teaching of Reb Zalman Schachter-Shalomi in line with that thought on ego, that the ego is a good manager but a lousy boss, that it's not about getting rid of the ego, just making it transparent, to not resist G!d's light. And at the same time ego is an important thing to maintain.

-- Dauer