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.
“I’m not obsessed, and I don’t have a basement dungeon where weird things take place.”
You don’t require a basement dungeon because abnormal things occur above ground inside your home, #2. :p
I have to admit my thoughts were all too similar, girlfriend. 😀
A dungeon would have been so much more convenient, though. I’m very disappointed by this news. We were planning to visit sometime, but now what will I do if my children act up?
I suppose I’ll just have to feed them to the Giant Hound of Doom. I hear her appetite should be sufficient.
“We were planning to visit sometime, but now what will I do if my children act up?”
Don’t worry…children don’t act up in Texas 🙂 Besides, if they do, we can send them over to #2’s…
“You don’t require a basement dungeon because abnormal things occur above ground inside your home, #2. :p”
Don’t mess with the volcano, #2, because I will go POMPEII on your butt…:)
“Don’t worry…children don’t act up in Texas ”
Canadians are immune to the laws of the American universe, you realize. However, we’d love to visit Shema.
“Don’t mess with the volcano, #2, because I will go POMPEII on your butt…:)”
[in my driest tone] Wow. So much smoke, but where’s the fire?
To get down to business, Marc, you once asked me how I made the shift from my atheist/agnostic background to biblical Christianity. This is exactly it:
“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.”
However, as you and Tat were discussing on the other thread, there’s a difference between a general theism and Christian theism. Too tired to dig into that just now, but I’m mulling over some succinct way to express it.
One of the writers at DA acknowledged recently in a post on deconversion evangelism that Jesus Christ is the key to the Big Three religions. Having concluded that evil exists, I found a relationship between the fact that evil exists within me, and the necessary reality of Jesus Christ’s person and substitutionary atonement within the factuality of God’s existence.
Ptui. There’s gotta be a better way to say that.
“Canadians are immune to the laws of the American universe, you realize. ”
I guess you’re unaware of the Monroe doctrine 🙂
“[in my driest tone] ”
Your driest CL 9000 tone, that is…
“One of the writers at DA acknowledged recently in a post on deconversion evangelism that Jesus Christ is the key to the Big Three religions.”
I thought that was interesting as well.
“I found a relationship between the fact that evil exists within me, and the necessary reality of Jesus Christ’s person and substitutionary atonement within the factuality of God’s existence.”
This is a great way to see it and say it, and I might add by the witness of the Holy Spirit, just to round things out.
[…] It’s God who allows us to logically define them as evil. […]
“I guess you’re unaware of the Monroe doctrine”
We’ve discussed how it interferes with the longings of your heart, but I’m afraid it’s impossible to graft a British accent onto that mangled stump of a tongue. So sorry, old chap.
“Your driest CL 9000 tone, that is…”
😀 😀 😀
I can still hear that zany laugh of yours. You’re priceless, Marc.
“I might add by the witness of the Holy Spirit”
Agreed.
“We’ve discussed how it interferes with the longings of your heart, but I’m afraid it’s impossible to graft a British accent onto that mangled stump of a tongue. So sorry, old chap.”
I suppose I should have known the CL9000 would never forget…
MS,
As usual, your post prompts more than most would consider “fair game” for a comment:
and,
I literally raised both hands in the air and declared an emphatic “yes” when I read those sentences. There exists what I describe as a sort of “ideological middle ground” between the Christian and the Naturalist. I make the distinction “ideological middle ground” because I tend to agree with Bob Dylan that, “you either got faith or unbelief and there ain’t no middle ground” (spiritually speaking). The ideological middle ground is this: many Christians tend to view natural disasters as genuine human tragedies, horrible yet contingent unpleasantries that resulted from the fall of man. However, swap “horrible yet contingent unpleasantries that resulted from the fall of man” with “horrible yet non-contingent unpleasantries that necessarily result from an imperfect Earth” and many Naturalists generally react the same way as Christians. To me, therein lies the inconsistency.
What I’m getting at is this: your sentence should be a wake-up call to Naturalists who embrace this “ideological middle ground.” I’m sure on atheists sites I’d catch a can of whoop-ass for what I’m about to say, but I honestly believe that one cannot be a Naturalist and at the same time be morally outraged at events like the recent one in Haiti. In fact, coming from a Naturalist point of view I think we can make a strong argument that the world needs more earthquakes, tsunamis, and disaster, to wipe the plague of mankind from the face of the beautiful planet. Who’s to say these natural disasters aren’t Earth’s way of excising human cancer? If we’re all just a conglomeration of chemicals then hell yes – why not embrace the cruel indifference of the world and quit feeling sorry for the recipients of natural disasters?
Now, note that this is NOT my true reaction to the tragedy in Haiti. However, assuming it were, it seems to me the best any atheist or Naturalist could say in response would be something to the effect of me being cruel or lacking empathy. Well then, to those Naturalists I ask: give me one reason why I should care? Aren’t natural disasters as inherently meaningless as the gravity between Jupiter and Saturn?
[…] That being said, by no means am I through with the blogosphere. In fact, just this morning I read a post over at MS Quixote's that got the gears turning: A Problem of Evil… […]