I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world.
If there’s a more captivating line in all of fictional literature outside of Shakespeare, I’ve never heard it. I’ve mentioned it here before, and I’m certain I’ll mention it again. In the aftermath of the horrible Haitian earthquake, and the subsequent calumnious outcry directed at God, this line haunts me; and it should haunt you as well.
Camus’ Meursault is a demarcation. He’s a pivot-point into opposing worldviews. He’s a metaphor for the choice between meaning and meaninglessness that all consistent thinkers encounter. He is a window on the Problem of Evil.
The POE fascinates me. I’ve written on it extensively: a thesis which I believe contains some original work on the origin of evil, as alluded to in CD’s latest comment, The Dark Man (attack helicopters),-those of you who read it (thank you, much appreciated) should recognize the POE content-and my current work-in-progress, which is an all-out fictional study of evil in the world, not to mention my prattling here with regard to the POE.
I’m not obsessed, and I don’t have a basement dungeon where weird things take place. It’s just that evil presents observable evidence for the existence of God, and it is a subject and experience that awakens the heart and conscience of all but the most hardened and sociopathic among us. That’s a powerful and uncommon combination.
What a horrid scene Haiti is, and our hearts go out to all those caught in this tragedy.
With that said and believed, we of all stripes can agree it’s a tragedy, as in a great misfortune or calamitous event. We can all feel deeply for the victims. However, can we genuinely all believe that an evil has taken place? I think not, and Meursault is the demarcation:
Mamam died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.
This is what opening oneself to the gentle indifference of the world is. The world, which necessarily includes all events within it, is indifferent precisely because matter, energy, space, time, and any other physicality if there be such a thing, do not possess properties necessary for non-indifference. The gentle indifference of the world means that whether the universe flames out, dies a heat loss death, or even stretches out into an infinite future, there is nothing to care ultimately about what happens or to effect a difference on this particular piece of conglomerate matter we call earth. Among other names, we call this Naturalism, and all the observable articles of nature cannot alter this indifference.
Do you really believe, in accordance with its own power, that the contingent, particular organization of matter and energy called man can change this or endow tragedy with lasting meaning, despite his fleeting care? Camus was correct: without God we should open ourselves.
Under this view, there’s no such thing as evil. There are events. There are perturbations of matter and energy. There are earthquakes. They are but occurrences, not meaningfully different under Naturalism than the gravity exerted between Jupiter and Saturn. And this brings us to the great paradox: evil is a proof for God’s existence, rather than an argument for his non-existence.
Have we discussed the axiological argument for God’s existence yet? Here’s one formulation of the argument, presented in deductive form:
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
It just so happens that the existence of evil requires the existence of objective moral values and duties. Hence:
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Evil exists.
Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
There’s much that could be said in defense of these premises. Let’s just consider evil, though. Is it really evil? The choice appears clear to me, and it resides at Meursault’s demarcation: will you accept evil as truly evil, or open yourself to the gentle indifference of the world?
Ironically, with God we have the necessary element both to make sense of evil, and to see evil for the evil it truly is, both of which cannot obtain under Naturalism. More on this later…
PS-Yes, those who do not believe in God may be good, moral persons (which does not contradict the doctrine of total depravity you Arminians and Calvinists out there), and I name many as my friends. That’s not the point of this post, and if you are a Christian who makes that claim you may find yourself in the next Silly Christian Arguments post. So stop doing that…it’s silly. The salient point is whether there can be Goodness without God.
