Subjectivity and evil
I was thinking that Kierkegaard’s objectivity/subjectivity distinction could help me articulate my views about evil and the “problem of evil”. I gave a first try in class on Thursday. I think one inescapable difficulty is the “public” nature of evil (at least on some typical views of what evil is). Read more
It is well with my soul
One of my favorite hymns. I only recently read about its history. From Wikipedia, here’s a snip:
“It Is Well with My Soul” is a very influential hymn penned by hymnist Horatio Spafford and composed by Philip Bliss.
This hymn was written after several traumatic events in Spafford’s life. The first was the death of his only son in 1871, shortly followed by the great Chicago Fire which ruined him financially (he had been a successful lawyer). Then in 1873, he had planned to travel to Europe with his family on the S.S. Ville du Havre, but sent the family ahead while he was delayed on business concerning zoning problems following the Great Chicago Fire. While crossing the Atlantic, the ship sank rapidly after a collision with a sailing ship, the Loch Earn, and all four of Spafford’s daughters died. His wife Anna survived and sent him the now famous telegram, “Saved alone.” Shortly afterwards, as Spafford traveled to meet his grieving wife, he was inspired to write these words as his ship passed near where his daughters had died.
Bliss called his tune Ville du Havre, from the name of the stricken vessel.
And here’s the text:
When peace like a river attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Refrain:
It is well with my soul,
It is well with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.
Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control:
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.
My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part, but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!
For me, be it Christ, be it Christ hence to live:
If Jordan above me shall roll,
No pang shall be mine, for in death as in life,
Thou wilt whisper Thy peace to my soul.
But Lord, ’tis for Thee, for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh, trump of the angel! Oh, voice of the Lord!
Blessed hope, blessed rest of my soul.
And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.
Elie Wiesel on evil and Bernie Madoff
Questions, questions, questions
I’m struggling to find questions for my PHIL 500 class forum. I don’t want to have the class devolve into a theological slugfest. Here are some ramblings courtesy of a medium Americano at my local Peets.
If Hick is right, or if we accept Hick’s view about all religions being a product of human imagination, we might “easily” resolve the problem of evil question by simply refomulating our notions of evil, God, and goodness. My sense is that this is what DZ is addressing layer by layer, or rather, concept by concept.
But if we can refomulate our conceptions in order to defang the “problem” of evil, doesn’t that lead to the risk of obliterating the prospect of a stand-alone, ontological god or divine reality?
Maybe I’ve given human imagination too much authority and power here.
Perhaps the Divine Reality (or Hick’s Ultimate reality) allows us to play in our theological and philosophical sandbox(es). What difference would it make to “OMNI” (to switch dieties for a moment)?
I’m not sure where I stand on this. I suppose my view is that these philosophical arguments have no purchase on me, and that since they do not persuade me one way or the other I would probably come down on the side of the constuctivists (in my sense of the term).
I suppose my view would make any “sandbox decision” irrelevant. My belief or non-belief is immune from other people’s formulations.
As a philosopher though, I really worry about this immunity. It doesn’t seem to be something I can hold consistently. As I often say in class, “Gators don’t let other Gators believe in or act upon any old belief.” Why should religious Gators be immune from challenges? Challenges to their … what? Sanity? Rationality? Consistency?
The consistency demand leads us back to the problem of evil issue.
So what’s my forum question?
Maybe: Can we reformulate our way out of the problem of evil?
Or: What does it mean — ah — here’s the point. We can reformulate all we want. Is it going to change any ontological facts on the ground? Or does Buddhism offer a model here? The Buddha doesn’t say that bad things don’t happen to good people. Part of the way of handling the “bad things” is to reframe the event or our expectations of ourselves, others, and the cosmos.
If I don’t set myself up for suffering by understanding the fundamental impermanence of existence, does this mean I can live a relatively balanced, “evil-free”? life? No. That doesn’t seem right either.
Well, there’s a question in there somewhere!
Second question: What is evil? Is it real, i.e., ontologically or metaphysically real? Is it only a human phenomenon? Do gorillas or antelopes encounter “evil”? Is evil something we generate by or with our thoughts and/or actions? Or is evil something “out there” completely separate from any human enterprise?
I’d better stop while I’m ahead!