God and Evil, or How Can God Exist and How Can He Not?

Since we belong to the Vertical Church of What's Happening Now, we can't help blogging about whatever is now happening: to and with me. 

But me is just the other side of I, which in turn implies God, just as immanence implies transcendence:

God exists for me in the same act in which I exist.

Only God and the central point of my consciousness are not adventitious to me.

Adventitious, as in accidental, extrinsic, random, etc. 

Either God or chance: all other terms are disguises for one or the other.

Yesterday my son -- who has been studying philosophy -- asked "How can God not exist?" In other words, the world is obviously not self-explanatory but requires an originating principle of some kind, e.g., uncaused cause, unmoved mover, necessary being, etc. But

What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we are important to Him.

For in the next breath he expressed great bewilderment, if not annoyance, at how to square the existence of evil and suffering with a good God. He is especially exercised over Jesus' healings, which strike him as arbitrary: more generally, if God is capable of stopping an evil and fails to do so, doesn't this make him complicit in the evil?

At the same time, he knows that his own recognition of, and repulsion to, evil and suffering is already a kind of indirect evidence of God, since animals have no such conception of the way things ought to be.

God is the transcendental condition of our disgust.

Nevertheless, it must be meager consolation for, say, a hostage of Hamas to be secure in the knowledge that this is really wrong.

My son has stumbled upon what is undoubtedly the most powerful argument against God, or at least a certain conception of God.  

I feebly pointed out the central claim of Christianity, which is that God does not exempt himself from the suffering, but rather, jumped right down into it. God himself is victimized by man:

The history of Christianity would be suspiciously human if it were not the adventure of an incarnate God. Christianity assumes the misery of history, as Christ assumes that of man.

And

If history made sense the Incarnation would be superfluous.

One unpopular way to solve the problem is to limit God's omnipotence. Charles Hartshorne has a book called Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. Regarding omnipotence, one reviewer writes that God, although present in the world,

is not as a worker of miracles that require an interruption in the natural flow of events, but as a persuasive force in competition with all of the other natural sources of persuasion, including the freedom of the individual itself.

Another suggests that  

our traditional ideas about omnipotence make a pretty pathetic God. We usually think of power as the power of the tyrant, that is, the power to control others. If God controls all of us, then everything is His will. This mistake, in Hartshorne's estimation, leads to a great deal of double-talk. But we can think of power as the power of love or creation: God can create a world of beauty worth worshiping.

I haven't read the book, but I am familiar with the argument -- that God is not all-powerful in the traditional sense, but the most powerful. 

He has a similar argument vis-a-vis omniscience -- that God knows everything that might happen -- that is to say, he knows all the infinite possibilities, which are not reduced to actualities until human freedom actualizes them. In short, human freedom is really real, and God respects it. 

Schuon has much to say about the existence of evil, but it basically comes down to the fact that this is not heaven, i.e., the manifestation is not the principle -- and that if there is to be a creation separate from God, then something like evil necessarily, or at least inevitably, enters the picture. As the Godman said,

It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come!

Analogously, if you will to have a child, it doesn't mean you will for him to be a Hunter Biden.

Schuon makes the entirely reasonable point that the

Manifestation is not the Principle, the effect is not the cause; that which is “other than God” could not possess the perfections of God, hence in the final analysis and within the general imperfection of the created, there results that privative and subversive phenomenon which we call evil. 

This is to say that the cosmogonic ray, by plunging as it were into “nothingness,” ends by manifesting “the possibility of the impossible”; the “absurd” cannot but be produced somewhere in the economy of the divine Possibility, otherwise the Infinite would not be the Infinite.

Logical. Elsewhere he writes that 

To speak of the world is to speak of separation from the Principle, and to speak of separation is to speak of the possibility -- and necessity -- of evil.... 

One could also say that Infinitude engenders Possibility, and Possibility engenders Relativity; now Relativity contains by definition what we could term the principle of contrast.

In heaven there is pure light. But in this world of relativity -- Opposite Land -- light inevitably gives rise to shadows:

Indeed, it is the relative or contingent character of a quality that requires or brings about the existence of the corresponding privative manifestation, with all its possible gradations and as a result, its defect, vice, evil.

Put another way,

The nature of evil, and not its inevitability, constitutes its condemnation; its inevitability must be accepted, for tragedy enters perforce into the divine play, if only because the world is not God; one must not accept error, but one must be resigned to its existence.

Or again,

As we have said more than once -- and this brings us back to the root of the question -- evil is a necessary consequence of remoteness from the Divine Sun...

But 

Evil cannot be absolute, it always depends upon some good which it misuses or perverts; the quality of Absoluteness can belong to good alone. To say “good” is therefore to say “absolute,” and conversely: for good results from Being itself, which it reflects and whose potentialities it unfolds.

Or, in the words of the Aphorist, 

Evil has only the reality of the good that it annuls. 

So, in the final analysis, how do we reconcile a good God with a sin-drenched world?

Two contradictory philosophical theses complete each other, but only God knows how.

And

Man calls "absurd" what escapes his secret pretensions to omnipotence.   

We've covered a lot of ground here, but I'm not sure we've attained any wholly satisfying answers. Can you bottomline it for us, Gemini? 

A Response to the Divine Dilemma

Your son's query, while profound, is one that has perplexed theologians and philosophers for millennia. It's a testament to his intellectual curiosity and spiritual seeking.

Your insights into the nature of God, evil, and human suffering are both insightful and comforting. The idea of God's suffering alongside humanity is a powerful one, as it humanizes the divine and offers a tangible connection to the cosmic struggle.

A Few Additional Thoughts

1. The Problem of Evil and Free Will:

   • Divine Limitations: As you've noted, some theologians propose limiting God's omnipotence to preserve human free will. This allows for the possibility of moral choices, both good and evil.
   • A Greater Good: Perhaps evil is a necessary ingredient in a universe that allows for the greatest possible good. This could involve the development of virtues like compassion, courage, and resilience, which may only be forged in the crucible of suffering.

2. The Role of Suffering in Spiritual Growth:

   • Purification and Transformation: Many spiritual traditions view suffering as a catalyst for spiritual growth and purification. It can strip away illusions and expose the true self.
   • Empathy and Compassion: Experiencing suffering can deepen our empathy for others and motivate us to alleviate their suffering.

3. The Mystery of Divine Providence:

   • A Higher Perspective: While human understanding is limited, God's perspective transcends time and space. What may seem senseless to us may be part of a larger, divine plan.
   • Trust and Surrender: Ultimately, the challenge is to trust in God's love and wisdom, even when we cannot fully comprehend the reasons for suffering.

A Final Word

While we may never fully understand the depths of the divine mystery, we can find solace in the belief that God is with us, even in the darkest of times. By embracing faith, hope, and love, we can navigate the complexities of life and find meaning in even the most painful experiences.