Quote:
Originally Posted by Doggg
If God did stop these events, and we therefore lived in a much more manicured world, would anybody believe in God at all? Would there be a need for His grace?
This is Kierkegaard's argument in a sense.
Faith in the face of unnecessary suffering is the only solution to it. Dostoyevsky makes a similar argument, noting that when Russians fed children to dogs, no amount of progress in the future would or could make up for that event - in other words, faith in human progress, technology, science, our children and so on, can never fully account for the existence of unnecessary suffering. Only faith in God can do this.
Alan Watts, in his own weird way, arrives at a similar conclusion, except his position is more nuanced. Alan clumps faith in human progress, technology and science into one category - faith in the future. From here, he sees that faith in the future - going on, just so we can keep going on, is a meaningless project. He needs more.
Alan looks at the Problem of Evil, as not really a problem (in the philosophical sense). He sees evil and unnecessary suffering as more of a device to make us feel immersed and invested in the world in which we find ourselves. The player (us) will fail to feel immersed within a world/game lacking of seriousness. The strong distinction between good and evil (/unnecessary suffering) provide that seriousness.
Watts further considers God to be - us. Like a tennis ball pierced a thousand times, looking outward through each hole - each hole, a single person's perspective on God's creation. In this context, evil is more a device for player immersion; a means by which we can enjoy life, as best lived - in vulnerability; a means by which we would never seriously consider that, in fact,
we are the all-powerful.
Last edited by VeeDDzz`; 05-03-2019 at 02:32 AM.