DAY 9: Evil... A problem... just not one to be solved.

 

It's almost the end of the day.  I usually do my AFL blog posts in the morning.  I've been thinking of this reflection all day.  How do I even start to address the whole subject of "EVIL". 

I looked at my list of Authentic Lent Voices... and J.L Mackie doesn't appear yet.  So this year is the first time Mackie shows up.  I must have missed him before... because he showed up for Courtney.  

I read her chapter again and there is a gut punch when I try to comprehend, through Courtney's words, what a mother feels like... 

“If my kid exercises her free will to step out into traffic, I am sure as hell going to yank her back to safety. If my kid exercises her free will to bully another kid, I am sure as hell going to step in and make her stop. If my kid chooses to date someone who manipulates and abuses her, I am sure as hell going to do everything in my power to alter that situation to her benefit.​

So if I, as a human mother, love my child enough to keep her from experiencing/causing permanent damage to herself/others, thereby negating her free will, then why doesn’t this allegedly wiser-and-more-loving-than-me God deal with “God’s children”/humans the same way?”  Courtney Cantrell  

(Excerpt From Appetite for Antithesis: (De)Knowing God in a Lenten Practice)

I am so glad Courtney paints this picture that looks "free will" in the face and says "Really?".  When it comes to explaining why there is evil in the world... the Christian's first excuse is "free will".  Thank you Courtney for giving me the perspective of a real loving parent.  

Mackie makes his point clear in this reflection about the contradiction that evil presents to a belief in "God". 

 

"… In its simplest form the problem is this: God is omnipotent; God is wholly good; and yet evil exists. There seems to be some contradiction between these three propositions, so that if any two of them were true the third would be false." J. L. Mackie

I laid in bed this morning after finding out what the subject was and pondered how I made it for over five decades without feeling the weight of the contraction that Mackie felt.  I came to one conclusion... I must have believed in my core that "God" was not omnipotent... but more likely impotent.  

Oh I probably signed somewhere that I believed in the omnipotence of "God". But since the problem of evil never came up for me as a conflict, I can only surmise that evil was separate from "God".  I didn't find "God" responsible for the evil of this world anymore than I could blame "God" for the tragedies in my own life.  The math never added up.  I think for the most part, I needed the love of "God" more than I needed to understand the evil in the world.  The love mattered more.  To even think that I had to blame my best friend at the time for the pain in my life... well that was unthinkable.  

It wasn't until a couple of years after my nephew's death, that I picked up a book by Thomas Jay Oord called "God Can't" that confirmed what was bubbling inside of me all along.  Love and Control can't coexist in the same space.  

I reread my written thoughts at the time I read the book, and there is still some indication that I was surprised by the claim that "God Can't, but as I try to see myself over the years, I have to say now that I don't think I ever believed that "God Could".  I don't remember the struggle with having to fit "God" into the narrative of evil.  I can't explain it... I just don't remember the dance.  I don't remember having to defend "God" for the evil of the world or my heartache.  I kept "God" in the love box and that is where "God" stayed.  

One book that sparked my transition away from my traditional view of the Christian narrative was "The Shack".  It is a book about evil and "God" in the midst of that evil.  I have been debating all day if I should do a rewatch of the movie.  I still have it downloaded in my movie collection.   Do I want to see how the story tries to fit "God" into the problem of evil?  Maybe not today.  I remember one line from the movie from Papa when she addressed Mac at breakfast.  She told him that his problem was that he didn't think that she ("God") was good.  "I am good".  Okay... so that takes care of one of the three of Mackie's statements.  The fact that evil exists was the premise of the movie.  Mac's daughter was brutally murdered. 

So all that is left to discover is how they danced around the omnipotence of "God".  That is where I might have to watch the movie again or read the book.  I'm just not feeling like I want to open that box up again.  That story was pivotal in my journey.  I don't think I want to open myself up to the emotion of watching it again and seeing how the Christian narrative tries to answer the unanswerable question of evil.  That is why the book was written and why the movie was made.  People needed answers and "The Shack" was an attempt to try to provide one.  I just think imagining "God" showing up at a lakeside cottage in the part of three people doesn't cut it for me anymore.  

I won't be watching the movie tonight.  I am content to just say for this post that it's most likely that nothing is in true control.  Maybe something started this universe but it has no interest in the minutia of my life.  That is the most freeing feeling ever.  Because I don't have to give that thing any praise for the good stuff while trying to balance  the vitriol for its part in the world's evil or my sour circumstances.  I can just say... this is the world I live in.... no explanation needed, no defence required and no dance to perform.  

I did listen to a video that helped summarize the problem of evil from a philosophical approach.  It was a nice synopsis the the day.  I will end with this.   

The Problem of Evil: Crash Course Philosophy #13

DAY 8: Who needs AI when I have Courtney!

2023 Day 8:  Camped at the Crossroads 

“Reflecting on today’s reading, Peter Rollins points out that if Hume had made Philo an atheist, the Dialogues wouldn’t be nearly so controversial.​[127] I agree. It’s way more threatening for someone who’s “on your team” to question the existing authority/belief structure than to encounter the same doubts in someone from the “opposition.” For a theist to doubt and question the Theos really gets under the skin of other theists. “If he is asking these questions, what does that say about my beliefs? Am I wrong? Have I believed a lie this whole time?”  Courtney Cantrell

Excerpt From. Appetite for Antithesis: (De)Knowing God in a Lenten Practice

One of the treasures of Atheism for Lent is the community it comes with.  I don't know if anyone would like to do this journey alone.  I am grateful for the opportunity to connect via Zoom and Whatsapp with others on the same AFL pilgrimage as I'm on this Lenten season.  

One of the changes I've seen this year that I didn't see in the previous years is how Artificial Intelligence  has been embraced to help with the material.  I'm not going to make any judgements in this post about the use of AI to help with navigating the harder to understand concepts.  I actually don't have much of an opinion about it other than I just chose not to use it.  That's it.  No feelings involved.  I just haven't found ChatGPT to be the companion I want with me on this trip.  

I did, however, get a companion that suits me a lot better.  Her name is Courtney.  She has been through AFL a few times.  She has struggled with the material from time to time.  She has grown in her understanding through the journey.  She has written her thoughts and shared them.  That hold more value for me than a computer.  

Courtney gave me a copy of her new book which is a journal of her journey through Atheism For Lent.  I was touched when she contacted me at the end of February asking if she could use an excerpt from one of my blogs for her book.  We found out that we are both admirers of Star Trek wisdom.  

Courtney send me a copy yesterday and I read through week one.  I would bounce back and forth from my thoughts to her thoughts and found that I could walk along beside her as she collected her thoughts and feelings into her story.  I paused at week two because I wanted to get through the week of readings that Pete was providing before jumping ahead with the voices that Courtney was writing.  They weren't in the same order.  But then came David Hume.  

I looked back to 2023 and found I was just as lost with Hume's story then as I was today.  I couldn't visualize it.  So I decided to pick up my e-reader on my Iphone and barrel down to get to the Hume chapter.  I bypassed Bertrand Russell and apologized to him for my leap ahead.  But when I got to Hume, I was so relieved that discover another writer that had to wait until he was dead to have his work published.  I was entrenched.  Courtney broke it down so I could track better with the story.  Her personal style makes the material so much easier to digest for my less than adequate academic brain.  

When I came across the opening quote, I thought of the plethora of people who have invested their lives in their religious systems only to leave them and be ostracized by family and friends.  Courtney pointed out that for someone to relinquish one's faith after they have been so invested in it,  is more threatening to people because of this ...

“If he is asking these questions, what does that say about my beliefs? Am I wrong? Have I believed a lie this whole time?”

I totally understand and it makes so much sense as the the tension I've faced from people after my departure from the embrace of Christianity.  It's not about me.  I just made something possible that they still need to be impossible.  I am evidence of a life that is real outside of the walls they have lived in their whole lives.  It makes sense how scary that can be for people.  

I still don't have much confidence in navigating that space with people.  I still feel like I'm dangerous.  I feel free in my own space, but I feel dangerous in their space.  I'm not trying to break down their walls with any form of aggression... it seems that just being who I am is wind enough to shake their foundations.  

I am soaking in this book of Courtney's and so thankful that it is a part of what is probably my last time through Atheism for Lent.  However, I just might find it in my sightline next year when Lent comes around.  

My reflection last year was entitled "Camped at the Crossroads".  I am still camped at those crossroads, and am honoured this time to sit down for tea in my camp with my new friend Courtney.  

"But were this world ever so perfect a production, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellences of the work can justly be ascribed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter who framed so complicated, useful, and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched and bungled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out; much labour lost, many fruitless trials made; and a slow, but continued improvement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making. In such subjects, who can determine, where the truth; nay, who can conjecture where the probability lies, amidst a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still greater which may be imagined?"  David Hume 

Day 7: How I wish "I don't know" was good enough.

2022  Day 11: The Invisible Gardener and my Struggle with Authenticity

2023 Day 6: Puzzles and Philosophy

"Antony Flew’s parable of the invisible gardener remains one of the most elegant and incisive critiques of religious belief within analytic philosophy. By presenting a scenario in which two people dispute the existence of a gardener tending a clearing in the jungle, Flew exposes a central issue in theological discourse: the unfalsifiability of certain religious claims. As the believer in the parable continually modifies their position—insisting that the gardener is invisible, intangible, and undetectable—Flew highlights a tendency in religious thought to redefine God’s nature in ways that make the claim impervious to critique.

The brilliance of this parable lies in how it forces us to consider whether our beliefs are genuinely open to revision or whether they are shielded from scrutiny by continual reinterpretation. Flew challenges us to ask: What would count as evidence against our beliefs? If nothing could, then are we still engaged in meaningful discourse, or have we retreated into dogmatic assertion? This question is not only relevant to religious faith but extends to any ideological or philosophical position that resists falsification.

While Flew presents his argument as a warning against unfalsifiable belief, it also prompts us to consider the role of interpretation in human meaning-making. If religion is not primarily about empirical verification but about shaping how we live and engage with the world, then perhaps the significance of belief lies elsewhere. Flew’s parable may strip away certain kinds of theological claims, but in doing so, it invites us to explore what remains. If we discard the ‘invisible gardener,’ what new ways of understanding faith and meaning might emerge?

In this way, Flew’s parable does more than merely dismantle belief—it pushes us into a space where the nature of belief itself must be re-examined. Whether one accepts or rejects his critique, the challenge he poses is one that continues to resonate far beyond the confines of analytic philosophy, reaching into the very heart of how we navigate certainty, doubt, and the search for truth." Peter Rollins 

This third time around, I am finding how the changes in me are making a change in the material.  When I peruse the previous posts from 2022 and 2023,  I find myself uncovering yet another layer each time Antony Flew shows up in my daily reflection.  This time, Pete's supplemental reflection is what stood out as significant.  

"... If religion is not primarily about empirical verification but about shaping how we live and engage with the world, then perhaps the significance of belief lies elsewhere... "

I spent some time in the last two years listening to theists and atheists talk turkey about what they believed and what they didn't believe.  I guess I felt that I needed to hear that side of the story.  But it didn't take too long for me to understand that it's really not the whole story.  I don't see most people in my circles needing to have those conversations.  They just need to go about their day and embrace the beliefs and rituals that keep them where they are.  There is no need to question, or debate or struggle.  There is only a comfort found in the songs and in the message they hold dear.  

To lose that is unthinkable for people like my mother.  She won't ask questions.  She won't go further than her comfort level.  In the end, all I can say of her is that truth isn't the goal.  She believes what she has is the truth.  So to go looking for more truth... well that seems unnecessary.

I, on the other hand, look at that garden and come to no conclusions except one.  Just because you can't imagine nothing as a cause, doesn't mean that making up something or embracing something made up... becomes truth.  That is when "I don't know" needs to be good enough.  It just isn't for most people.  

Day 6: Jean Meslier: My Favourite Atheist

FINDING JEAN MESLIER IN ATHEISM FOR LENT  2022: 

DAY 5, DAY 7 , DAY 35

JEAN MESLIER: THE SECRET ATHEIST

I first found Jean Meslier in 2022 during my first journey through Atheism for Lent.   I blogged three times during Lent of 2022, which was more than any other voice that year other that Pete Rollins and myself.  

"I am drawn to the life and work of Jean Meslier because of the way he demonstrates how the most potent atheistic critiques often emerge from the very ground they seek to reject. It is from this ground that various inconsistencies, antagonisms, deadlocks, and contradictions can be most clearly seen. The strength of Meslier’s critique lies not just in his rejection of the religious dogma he witnessed, but in the depth of his understanding of that very system. Having spent his life within the Church, he was uniquely positioned to observe its practices and ideologies, which granted him a rare, insider’s perspective on its flaws. This duality of both adherence and eventual rejection provides a powerful foundation for his philosophical work, which critiques not just the institutions of faith, but also the psychological and moral underpinnings of religious belief. " Pete Rollins

I guess the reason that Pete admires Meslier is very close to what I admire about him.  Meslier knew the system well.  His voice reminds me of a smoker who spends decades ingesting nicotine only to despise the very thing that they still need to consume to make it through the day.  There almost seems to be an inner self loathing at the inability to let go of the very thing that you have lost conviction for.  

When I look at Meslier's journey, I am thankful that I never had to go through that in my own life.  I left the institution of church on good terms.  I was changing geography.  When I moved... I just didn't need to find a replacement for what I left behind.  I didn't have a job dependant on my beliefs at the time.  I didn't have the feeling of being a hypocrite while promoting the message and performing the rituals that keeps the system alive for so many.  I also didn't have to wait until I'm dead to leak my thoughts out to other people.  

Jean Meslier may have had no other choice but to stay a priest.  I can't fault him for that.  There are a lot of pastors and priests today that still have the same dilemma.  They don't know how else to feed their family, so they continue to be atheists in the pulpit.  

Meslier's words still resonate with me.  He is so simple to understand.  He doesn't wrap his words in a lot of extra language.  His questions are real and make sense to me.  I am glad his words were preserved and that his voice was able to continue to inspire readers who were needing his courage for their own journeys.  His is and maybe will always be my favourite atheist.    

Day 5: Today

Today I got to sit in my hot tub and watch as the snow fell in clusters like cotton balls on my face.  Sometimes I would catch a cluster of snowflakes on my tongue.  I don't know if I can put into words what it was like to watch the snow fall this afternoon.  I felt connected to the beginning of the universe thanks to the  17.8 billion year old Hydrogen atoms that fell on my face.  That is the power of narrative.  That is the embracing of spirituality beyond the science.  That is how I can share space in both worlds of the data and the dreaming.  

Today, I have been soaking in the beautiful music of an old friend.  Shannon and her husband and daughter have been filling my ears and the empty space that dwells in my atoms... otherwise knows as spirit.  Again I find away to go beyond the science to the spiritual.  Shannon died three years ago.   We attended grade school together for eight years.  Only once in the forty two years since I left Fort St. John, did I get to visit with her.  I just found out last year that she had passed away in 2022 from leukemia.  Today I have been "blucky" to listen to her voice, see her sing and enjoy her online presence for a few hours.  

("blucky" is a combination of blessed and lucky... more lucky than blessed, but still a bit blessed) 

Day 4: God in a Box

"Nor must it be alleged here as an objection, that we may wish to reject the definition of God as a supremely perfect being… This objection is, I say, incompetent; for although it may not be necessary that I shall at any time entertain the notion of Deity, yet each time I happen to think of a first and sovereign being, and to draw, so to speak, the idea of him from the store-house of the mind, I am necessitated to attribute to him all perfections, though I may not then enumerate them all, nor think of each of them in particular…" Rene Decartes

Supreme

Him

Perfect

Sovereign 

First

All

This is the last reflection of the first week.  Even in this paragraph, a box is built to define the kind of "God" that Decartes is trying to convince his readers of.  I will be presumptuous... but most arguments about "God" have that "God" in a box at the starting gate.  This isn't about trying to give a case for something beyond what scientific discovery has shown.  This isn't about allowing space for the possibility of an ultimate cause of the universe.  This is about a box.  

"My "God" fits into this box and I want you to understand that my box is the right box."  

I don't see too many people out there trying to convince me about a mysterious cause to the universe.  I see people trying to sell me their box.   How do I even start to have a conversation with people about "God" when they have already made up their mind how that "God" looks, acts, behaves, talks,  feels and exists.  

I am not going to claim that the universe wasn't started by something or someone outside or beyond the Big Bang.  I'm not that old to come to any conclusions about how the universe started.  I just don't want the only option to be ... the box.  I am trying to see what could be outside of the box.  I am already part of something bigger than myself... it's called the universe.  How it started... not sure about that one.  It just seems so limiting to only have the conversation about the "God in a Box".  When do we get outside the box.  I'd like to be a part of that conversation.  

Here is my post from 2023 

on the same reflection from Rene Decartes.

 Day 4: In the Valley is where you will find the Poet

Day 3: "Can we touch the truth?"

It's Day 3 and I was ready to stop the train.  When I saw that today's reflection was from Thomas Aquinas,  I went to my Authentic Lent database to see that I had already addressed this very reflection back in 2023.  It was on Day 2 when I posted "Not everyone calls THIS 'God' ".  I don't think I can top my thoughts that I wrote two years ago.  I still don't call THIS "God"... what ever THIS is.  

I was thinking this morning that I am really getting beyond the whole need to process the question of "God".  It's why things like "The Atheist Experience" and "The Line" are not entertaining for me anymore.  (If you are interested in what those are... you can find those links in my blog post on Matt Dillahunty from Day 38  of 2024. ) 

When I listened to Pete's coffee talk this morning... "On Conspiracy Theories" , he said something that stuck out for me.  This whole journey is more than just answering the question of "Does God exist, or not?"  He mentioned that conspiracy theories are simply mysteries that people give answers to.  I am not unaware of the common "conspiracy theories" out in the ether.  I can totally understand that they are those kind of  "answers to mysteries".  Some people need answers.  It's not enough to have a mystery and just sit with that.  Even if their answers may seem foolish to others, they still need to explain what is most likely unexplainable.  

Conspiracy theories not only arise out of mystery, but out of facts that are unaccepted.  So when someone doesn't want to accept facts that have enough evidence for their claims... they come up with a different story.  

Pete's question is one has gnawed on me for a few years now.  "Can we touch the truth?"   I have written poetry, chapters and blog posts on the very premise that I believe I don't have access to the truth.  The last poem on my poetry blog says that I believe the truth really lies... "Hidden in the Stars".  

This may be my last venture through "Atheism for Lent".  I am okay to move on from the deep dive into the darkness.  I have become okay with the unknown and the mystery and the lack of answers for most things.  I am glad to still find some nuggets in the journey and that is always refreshing.