Thanks very much to all those who commented on my last blog post and on Pete Greig's article, both attempting a response to Stephen Fry's fascinating comments about the nasty god who allows such suffering and then demands that all bow down and worship him.
I would like to start with a disclaimer: I am no philosopher and only a wannabe theologian and these are BIG topics which people far cleverer than me have debated in many books I have not read. (I'm not being modest: in preparation for my last blog post I skim-re-read a chapter in a book by Paul Fiddes, former principal of Regent's Park College, who has a brain the size of a planet. I don't understand most of what he says in person, but fortunately his writing is beautifully clear). As long as you all imagine that we're down the pub (or having a coffee, my teetotal friends) having a good late-night debate throwing some ideas around, I'll attempt to present some more thoughts.
Caroline, you pointed out that Pete Greig was claiming that God was responsible for all the lovely stuff in the world on the one hand, but not responsible for the bad stuff, which seemed very confused. So is God omnipotent or isn't he? My understanding of Christian doctrine is that God is all-powerful but, in creating something other than himself (the universe, including human beings) he took a big risk. He created something other than himself which, in the case of humans, could think, decide and act for themselves (free will) and hence decide not to do the godly or in other words right thing. Choosing to be apart from God and to act outside his will is (to use religious language) sin. The account of the 'fall' in Genesis chapter 3 - Adam and Eve, the serpent, the apple - seems to suggest (whether you understand it as a literal account of historical events or a story which conveys truth) that the whole of creation is affected by humanity's fall. So for example the man is told that he will bring food from the ground only with great hardship and effort, and the woman that she will produce children only with great pain. Is the argument more convincing if the all-powerful God chooses to limit his own power to intervene in order to allow free will to those he loves? Is the argument at least a bit less confused? Do tell!
I think the bit that really annoyed you though was the assertion that Christianity offers comfort whereas atheism doesn't (or not at first glance). I'm reminded of a scene in The Good Wife where Alicia's daughter, Grace, is trying to comfort her after the sudden and violent death of a friend. "He's with God", Grace assures her. Alicia doesn't believe that's true. Grace protests that that isn't a view of the world that offers any comfort. Alicia replies that it's a less comforting view but a truer one. She refuses to be consoled by a comforting lie.
So here's a question, paraphrased from Tom Stoppard who pinched it from someone else: what would the world look like if it looked like a loving and all-powerful God had made it?
Comments
Post a Comment