I was a devoted Christian for a very long time, 25 years or more - a Trinity believing Protestant taught that our creator God is omniscient (all-knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time). This creator designed and created men and women fully and completely all by 'himself'.
What I don't understand, is if this creator purposefully designed and unleashed upon the earth a creature capable of rape and murder, why isn't 'He' to blame for these atrocities? Why would you construct a being with the potential to do so much harm to his fellow humans? What was the motive?
If my son murdered a human and I supplied the gun knowing ahead of time he'd shoot someone, I'm held accountable for my part in the homicide. How much more so should God be held accountable for DESIGNING a creature that he KNOWS ahead of time (he's omniscient, remember) will murder a fellow human?
Hi Buttercup,
As others have said I don't think I have any answer that you would find satisfying. If God could have done it another way and have it be the experience we were meant to have, then he would have done it another way. And, maybe there are lots of universes out there with sentient beings experiencing other kinds of life, but I honestly cannot image them. And, for the record, I cannot imagine heaven. I can, however, entertain many pleasant thoughts of what I hope heaven is like.
Life as we know it involves change, movement through space and time. For there to be change, there must be differentials and a means to move from one place/condition to another. A physical example: for water to flow there needs to be a high and a low point (the differential) and gravity to cause it to move from high to low. This principle of disequilibrium applies to everything. If all is perfectly uniform and united, there is no movement, therefore no change, no growth, no life. So, out of the gates there is the basic fact that things cannot all be the same with only the choice between conditions that are otherwise perfectly equal.
I don't believe that human beings were designed. We, like the rest of the universe we inhabit, came into being via the long, gradual process of evolution, formed by the same forces that created mountains and oceans, stars and atoms, and all living things right down to viruses, those entities that are right on the border between living and non-living. Not only is the answer to "why murder, suffering, pain, death," is not just the 'free will' of humans, but the 'freedom' of the entire physical universe. A physical universe that can only exist with the concurrent processes of building up and tearing down, movement from high to low, organized to disorganized, and in some limited cases from disorganized to organized.
So, point 1 is that humans are part of this world that has many processes that have no regard for the happiness or well-being of humans. So there is suffering caused by the fact that we are part of creation, and we are subject to the same laws and processes as everything else.
Because we were created from nature by a combination of random events and selective pressures, we exhibit those same traits in our physical existence and in our behaviors. We grow, we decline. We individually die, but we also carry on forward via our children. We need to eat, so we sometimes kill. There is a competition and struggle for survival at times, so we sometimes kill other humans to preserve ourselves or our families. These instincts and choices are not wholly rational, yet they are part of our make-up because of the processes that formed us into sentient beings.
So now we get to my second point, which is that as sentient beings with higher levels of reasoning, we can now examine our own behaviors and decide if there are other ways to accomplish the same goals. For example, I think it is likely that humans will eventually all be vegetarians, if our species makes it that long. This is where free will comes into play. We are free to make other choices based upon experience and information gleaned from other sources (our education). We are free to chose actions that help or hurt others. Why might we choose actions to help others? Is the only answer for our own benefit? When we talk about values and existential meaning, we are no longer asking questions where the rules of logic help.
When talking about faith in God and free will, it is usually phrased as free will is required for love, and I agree. But love is not just a warm feeling of attraction and bonding to another; it is not even the free will to choose to 'love' God. It is the free will to make an active choice to do things that help, rather than hurt. It is wanting, and acting within your own power, the best for others. It is feeding, healing, teaching, listening, nurturing, supporting and having compassion for another, and for the rest of creation as well. Where does the impetus for love come from? I'd say it evolved in us along with all of our other traits as humans. In loving, we struggle against our baser, more selfish instincts. Life is process and process means change and change requires movement between differentials. Good is only 'good' when there is a choice that is 'less good.'
Murder, rape, starvation are not necessary. But to get rid of them we need to choose ever more 'love,' in the form of healing, feeding, nurturing, teaching, sharing etc.. Why do people murder, rape, and hoard resources? You know the answers better than I because of your education in psychology. Much of it lies in illness, much of it lies in fear, and much of it lies in cycles of hurt and pain. The suffering comes from being part of a world, formed by a world, where life emerges by struggle and things going wrong (from our perspective). Salvation comes from love, and love comes from God.
So, my third point is that is where God comes into play in our creation. God is the power that is attracting us out of the muck and mire of life. We are being formed in his image (the whole universe is), but it is still a work in progress. Could our own evolutional development have gone a different way, one in which we were already peaceful vegetarians not prone to violence? Sure, by chance, but it didn't. Could it have all been done a different way? I'd be interested to hear how that would be accomplished in a manner that did not leave us as puppets.
I'm not sure if that all makes sense, but going back to what I said in the beginning about not being able to imagine a different kind of existence, one that is perfect. To me, if something is perfect, then there can be no possibility of change, or life as we experience it. Following that, I agree with Katzpur's point, if one wants it be be less than perfect, to allow for life, where do you start drawing the lines between perfection and allowable imperfection? I don't see how one can be a little bit free, or a little bit part of this world.