I’ve spent three columns briefly discussing God’s omnipotence and benevolence, the existence of pain in our universe, and the resulting consequences. The power to eradicate pain, however, isn’t exclusive to an all-powerful god.
Humanity itself, secularists and irreligious people included, must be held accountable to the paradox of evil, as well.
As part of our technological evolution, our species has attained the ability to erase all the world’s pain and suffering.
Since we know from the first column in this series that our existence necessitates pain, we would need simply to not exist. This could be made possible, for instance, by employing our vast collection of nuclear weapons.
I don’t consider this as a practical matter, but because it pertains to a philosophical debate, the consequences should be considered. After all, we couldn’t possibly criticize God’s rationale for our existence without considering the motivations ourselves.
Supposing we decided to extinguish the human race, we would accomplish the benevolent goal of completely eliminating evil, pain and suffering. Should any pain be experienced in the process of our extinction, it would be miniscule in comparison to the amount of pain felt had our species continued.
If minimizing pain is your sole concern, this route proves effective.
I suspect, though, that not many of you would advocate for this position. You’re probably able to justify our existence despite the enormous amount of pain that occurs as a result.
The question you should ponder is what about humanity makes tsunami-ravaged villages, fatwas, honor killings and child victims of bone marrow cancer worth enduring.
For some the answer is love. For others, it’s the triumph of overcoming pain itself. Whatever the case, it becomes clear that benevolence, by our own account, isn’t solely dependent on minimizing pain.
In short, if you can come up with an answer, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand that God can, too.
To conclude this discussion, I’ll leave you with a conversation from Season 5, Episode 7 of Game of Thrones (spoiler alert) between Queen Daenerys and her lover Daario Naharis, who suggested she should marry him instead of the head of a prominent family.
“Even if I wanted to do such an inadvisable thing, I couldn’t,” she sais. “Why not? You are Queen. You can do what you like,” he retorts. “No, I can’t,” she replies softly.
“Then you are the only person in Mareen who’s not free.”
Not that this analogy is totally congruent, but, in a certain sense, it may help to understand God as being “not free,” much in the same way an all-powerful Daenerys, one of the most benevolent, well-intentioned characters in this series, isn’t free either.
She is omnipotent, but then again, she isn’t.
There’s still much to be explored in terms of omnipotence and benevolence. Questions about what defines the most benevolent purpose God can have remain unanswered and always will. The debate remains open regarding the qualities of omnipotence and whether God should be so omnipotent as to be able to defy logical paradoxes or whether God is capable of binding itself.
Wherever you take these arguments from here, I hope to have convinced you that disregarding God is irreducibly more complex than calling its benevolence and omnipotence incompatible with pain.
When dealing with subjects like these, the matter isn’t so simple.
