The Problem of God's Complicity

The other day there was a discussion taking place on a website that I peer into from time to time, and in this instance that discussion was centered around whether or not God was complicit, specifically, when it comes to, a) those who reject God, and b) the Problem of Evil, a problem for which we are to believe "sin" is a consequence.

The author of the submitted article to which I refer is someone who goes by "Ben Love", and this author contends that for any person who rejects the Christian god, that God is therefore complicit in the matter, calling this dilemma "The Problem of God's Complicity". The author maintains that it was these problems, mainly the latter, that were the leading factors for him leaving the Faith.

To encapsulate, his argument is as follows.....

"The one who enables the choice must be considered complicit in the end result".

Before I jump into this I'd like to iron out a few things: For starters, I don't advocate when the non-believer's position is portrayed as "rejection"[of "God"], whether a theist does this, or whether an atheist does this. To "reject" someone (or something) implies that said someone (or something) exists. From an Atheist POV, there is nothing to "reject". Notwithstanding, I do understand how and why some atheists discuss the issues under the pretense that God exists, which is usually in an attempt to make a rhetorical point. I do this often. Of course, some theists take this and run with it - that is, they assume that because an atheist might make a reference to "God" in a discussion, that, oh, this is evidence that atheists really, really do believe in God after all, and that they just reject God. This sort of "gotcha!" mentality is as ridiculous as it is false.

To illustrate just how flimsy this sort of mindset is on the part of believers, just imagine if I'm having a conversation with a UFOlogist and I ask them, "Okay, then why do you supposed that alien abductions are never documented, given that nearly everyone these days has a recording device on their person a large percentage of the time?"

Do you see what happened there? I used the words "alien abductions" in a sentence to make a rhetorical point.

Now, which of us here, if any, honestly believe that my using those words in a sentence must mean that I truly, deep down, in my heart of hearts, believe that aliens travel here and abduct the inhabitants of Earth? I sincerely hope that no one does, but yet, I know that some people have unfortunately adopted such a mindset.

So, it's no different when it comes to "God". In other words, I just may discuss "God" as if such an individual exists, and I may do so for no other reason than to illustrate to my interlocutor that in fact no such individual exists. For instance, I may rhetorically ask, "Why do you suppose that God stands by as little children get raped and molested?"

Now, in the context of my question, is my using the words "God stands by" necessarily indicative that I believe that God is necessarily standing somewhere? I maintain that the answer is "no" and that the reason I use those words is to make a rhetorical point.

But getting back to the subject at hand, the author of the above-referenced article was getting some feedback from various people, a few of whom I safely assumed to be Christians attempting to defend Christianity. They were arguing that God gave its creation "free will", and that without it, we'd be the equivalent of "robots".

In other words, their defense is that since we were endowed with the ability to choose between two or more options, e.g..right/wrong, good/evil, etc., then God is therefore not complicit. They argue that all of the responsibility is our own.

Okay, at face value this might seem like a fair enough argument. But let's do the usual and dig a little deeper.

I think we all must first agree that if the God in question exists, then this God also has things like options and free will, yes? Yes, I think so, otherwise, this God couldn't be a free, personal being. A God who that cannot do things like make choices and change its mind is not a "who", but rather, a what. It's essentially an automaton.

Thus, if god X has the free will with which to make choices, then god X can simply choose to endow its creation with a nature that is consistent with the image of god X, a nature that is consistent with what it would require for the creation to not disappoint god X. For example, if Christians define their god as a being who can do no wrong and one who is incapable of error; and further, if this god seeks to not be disappointed by its creation, then the solution is so obvious that a 6th grader could probably figure it out.

But before we talk about that solution, let's look at what we have on the table so far:

1. the Christian god is a personal being who can freely make choices

2. the Christian god has a nature by which this god has no inclination to error(e.g.. "sin")

3. the Christian god has a will(e.g...has dreams, desires, plans, etc.)

4. the Christian god's will is that his creation not displease him, yet, retain free will

Does *anyone disagree with those 4 premises? If so, please feel free to speak up.

*unless you are Reformist/Calvinist, since according to Calvinism's 5 points, your god had prescience of who will be saved and who will be damned to hellfire before the foundation of the world. In which case, this is all moot to you; everything is preordained. We are all puppets following the Puppeteer's script.


The Solution:

Per 1, above, the Christian god of the bible could have chosen to endow its creation with a nature that is consistent with achieving its will(see 4, above). Note, this would not adversely affect..e.g..circumvent, render useless, etc., the creation's free will(see 1 and 2 above).

Conclusion: Based on the above premises, having a nature that is devoid of the proclivity to error does NOT preclude free will. Note, this is in accordance with Christianity's very own doctrine. In other words, this is not merely my "opinion"; this is a logical, reasonable conclusion, even allowing Christianity to define the terms.

So, here's where the reasonable among us should see the first red flag:

The Christian god did not choose(when it could have) to give his creation a nature that is consistent with 2, above. Nope. The Christian god mysteriously chose to give his creation a human nature, which, by definition, includes the proclivity to error. It is human nature to make mistakes, just as it is the nature of a goldfish to be "wet". You would not create a goldfish with gills and then turn around and blame it for being "wet", now would you? No, of course you wouldn't.

The same should hold true for a being whom we are to believe transcends our mere mortal intellect a bazillion fold. This god, the Christian god, chose to give his first two prototypes a nature that allows for error, or more in line with Christian theology, an evil inclination.

Thus, where "The Problem of God's Complicity" is concerned, the Christian god is most certainly complicit should those two prototypes make a choice that displeases this god. This is especially true considering the chronology error in the Bible, and the error of which I speak is that Adam and his accomplice were expected to know right from wrong(ergo, good from evil) before they had eaten from the very tree that presumably would give them that sort of knowledge.

Time and time again Christianity comes up intellectually bankrupt when put under the microscope. And what are we told? That "God is mysterious."

 Now, really...is it? Is it  that God is mysterious? Or could it just be that there isn't such a thing?