What's so interesting about the so-called rationality of scientific and materialist culture is the pig-ignorance of the history of those ideas.
So much of science and morality that's assumed as The Truth today is the inheritance of a uniquely Christian blend of theology and Greek rationalism.
Even the atheist's question "but how can you talk about God's goodness when pain exists" begs the question -- the logical error of assuming the conclusion as a premise -- of what is judged good and worthy.
On any broadly Platonist or Aristotelian account (which is the common rational basis of Christian thought), "good" is teleological. It has a purpose.
Labeling suffering wrong and bad, and then concluding that God cannot be good because such exists, is to skate over the most important issue with unthinking platitudes.
You could as well turn it around. What makes it so valuable to end suffering and increase pleasure? That's no less of a value judgment, and the militant atheist sort rarely has a good answer to justify it.
I experience pain every time I work out, but it serves the higher good of sweet gains.
Beautiful write! Thank you. Yes, why does one separate science from spirituality? Even in the spiritual tradition of Vedanta (which comes from
Sanatana Dharma, commonly known as Hinduism), God lives within us as “Atman”. God is that within us that remains a witnessing consciousness also known as a “Sakshi” (see https://anuprabhala.substack.com/p/befriend-the-sakshi-in-you-and-live). True “God” is therefore—no matter what your spiritual tradition is—is belief in our own Self. Even scientist Einstein said, “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed.”
Thank you for your reflections on nature and suffering. I find this topic especially compelling and I think it’s very difficult to to square belief in a benevolent God (or a benevolent cosmos) with the existence of horrendous pain and misery.
You touch on two different kinds of theodicy. One kind says suffering is necessary for even the best kind of world (which is Leibniz’s position). I take it this is what you were hinting at when you said a world without disease and pain could end up just as bad as ours, if not worse. My concern with this is that, if this were the best job God could do, she should’ve thought twice before going ahead with her plans.
Another kind of theodicy tries to show the divinity of nature (which is reflected in the title of your essay). I agree with you that nature is miraculous in the sense that it is surprising, powerful, impressive and perhaps even manifests some kind of supernatural agency. But that still falls short of the label ‘divine’. When we use the word divine we don’t just mean powerful or supernatural (presumably people who believe in demons or the devil think such beings are both supernatural and powerful without them qualifying for the title of divine), we mean something with a moral content—in this context, the moral connotation of divine is usually all-loving. It doesn’t seem to me that nature is divine. There’s certainly beauty in the world (and that’s something to be grateful for), but the sheer intensity and amount of horror that’s pervaded life for millennia casts a dark shadow over it.
I didn’t manage to cover all the suggestions you made in your essay, but these were the parts that I thought about the most. Thank you again for raising the issue of suffering. It’s a topic that’s important to most people. And although I don’t think religion can solve it for us, I think there’s still hope that we can help each other out and make sense of it together somehow.
“Some unknown entity that loved us so much that came here got his hands dirty and suffered like a pro just to be able to say” this and the ending quote makes it so simple. Love your neighbor the end. I wish all the denominations I was introduced too didn’t make it all so complicated. I had to do so much unlearning. If they centered the teaching of God on love and how everything is a reflection of him that would of saved me so much time trying to prove I was worthy of His love when in actuality I was loved before I was even born.
Your material, as Tom suggests in his intro, is indeed always unsolicited. I wasn't seeking a piece like this, for instance, which touches on religion, the morality of terminal illness, and chocolate cake, but it somehow all comes together beautifully. Thanks Ana and Tom, for a great and philosophical read to start the day.
I’ve been meditating on the relationship between “either/or” duality in a trinitarian soaked, “yes/and” world. I don’t have any real wisdom beyond holding those in tension right now - but your words are contributing to the contemplation. So, thanks!
I enjoyed this very much.
What's so interesting about the so-called rationality of scientific and materialist culture is the pig-ignorance of the history of those ideas.
So much of science and morality that's assumed as The Truth today is the inheritance of a uniquely Christian blend of theology and Greek rationalism.
Even the atheist's question "but how can you talk about God's goodness when pain exists" begs the question -- the logical error of assuming the conclusion as a premise -- of what is judged good and worthy.
On any broadly Platonist or Aristotelian account (which is the common rational basis of Christian thought), "good" is teleological. It has a purpose.
Labeling suffering wrong and bad, and then concluding that God cannot be good because such exists, is to skate over the most important issue with unthinking platitudes.
You could as well turn it around. What makes it so valuable to end suffering and increase pleasure? That's no less of a value judgment, and the militant atheist sort rarely has a good answer to justify it.
I experience pain every time I work out, but it serves the higher good of sweet gains.
Beautiful write! Thank you. Yes, why does one separate science from spirituality? Even in the spiritual tradition of Vedanta (which comes from
Sanatana Dharma, commonly known as Hinduism), God lives within us as “Atman”. God is that within us that remains a witnessing consciousness also known as a “Sakshi” (see https://anuprabhala.substack.com/p/befriend-the-sakshi-in-you-and-live). True “God” is therefore—no matter what your spiritual tradition is—is belief in our own Self. Even scientist Einstein said, “The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed.”
Thank you for your reflections on nature and suffering. I find this topic especially compelling and I think it’s very difficult to to square belief in a benevolent God (or a benevolent cosmos) with the existence of horrendous pain and misery.
You touch on two different kinds of theodicy. One kind says suffering is necessary for even the best kind of world (which is Leibniz’s position). I take it this is what you were hinting at when you said a world without disease and pain could end up just as bad as ours, if not worse. My concern with this is that, if this were the best job God could do, she should’ve thought twice before going ahead with her plans.
Another kind of theodicy tries to show the divinity of nature (which is reflected in the title of your essay). I agree with you that nature is miraculous in the sense that it is surprising, powerful, impressive and perhaps even manifests some kind of supernatural agency. But that still falls short of the label ‘divine’. When we use the word divine we don’t just mean powerful or supernatural (presumably people who believe in demons or the devil think such beings are both supernatural and powerful without them qualifying for the title of divine), we mean something with a moral content—in this context, the moral connotation of divine is usually all-loving. It doesn’t seem to me that nature is divine. There’s certainly beauty in the world (and that’s something to be grateful for), but the sheer intensity and amount of horror that’s pervaded life for millennia casts a dark shadow over it.
I didn’t manage to cover all the suggestions you made in your essay, but these were the parts that I thought about the most. Thank you again for raising the issue of suffering. It’s a topic that’s important to most people. And although I don’t think religion can solve it for us, I think there’s still hope that we can help each other out and make sense of it together somehow.
“Some unknown entity that loved us so much that came here got his hands dirty and suffered like a pro just to be able to say” this and the ending quote makes it so simple. Love your neighbor the end. I wish all the denominations I was introduced too didn’t make it all so complicated. I had to do so much unlearning. If they centered the teaching of God on love and how everything is a reflection of him that would of saved me so much time trying to prove I was worthy of His love when in actuality I was loved before I was even born.
Your material, as Tom suggests in his intro, is indeed always unsolicited. I wasn't seeking a piece like this, for instance, which touches on religion, the morality of terminal illness, and chocolate cake, but it somehow all comes together beautifully. Thanks Ana and Tom, for a great and philosophical read to start the day.
I’ve been meditating on the relationship between “either/or” duality in a trinitarian soaked, “yes/and” world. I don’t have any real wisdom beyond holding those in tension right now - but your words are contributing to the contemplation. So, thanks!
you might be the smartest person on substack