"Is 'god' willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him 'god?'" Epicurus 341-271 BC (whatever C means to you)
Epicurus was talking about religion. But we can focus elsewhere. We don't have to concern ourselves with whether or not anyone believes there's such a thing as "god," or which one, or how many, or whether they're connected to each other. That's each of our entirely personal devotion, or amusement. But we have another problem. We have Texas, and yesterday's mass shooting in a shopping mall. (Seven or eight, including the mass murderer, dead, and seven or eight hospitalized, depending on which report you read.)
If anyone thinks there's such a thing as "god," they can deal with Epicurus' questions. But we have something everyone agrees exists. We live in a country supposedly of laws, and we have a Congress. And that Congress, comprised of people everyone agrees exist, and empowered to make, eliminate, or change laws, can then take the place of "god" in at least three of Epicurus' questions.
Epicurus' first question is tricky, if we're thinking of Congress. In theory, of course Congress is able to change the laws, so that every day doesn't bring us yet another mass shooting murder. But Congresspeople, if they've been bought off by gun lobbies, may not consider themselves able to change horrible and wildly destructive laws. Or to put it slightly differently, they may have decided they need campaign financing more than they need voters/"constituents", so they might feel that their otherwise "ability" to manage the laws of this country is compromised, or overpowered. If someone offers a candidate $10K, or $100K, that's not easy to do without. If 8-10, or 20, or 50, citizens get gunned down, you can still manage fine without them. Of course, regardless of the mechanism and dynamics, that still leaves them "not omnipotent," or it leaves them impotent.
It's a different angle to consider if they are, as Epicurus proposes, "able," but not willing. (Are they unwilling, because their ability has been compromised? It's sort of an academic question.) But if they're able, or potentially able, and they're not willing, then Epicurus is right to call them malevolent.
Epicurus' third question is straightforward, and it speaks for itself. Except that we don't have to consider a Congress that is both able and willing, but won't act in the public interest, leaving us wondering "whence comes evil." If Congress is both able and willing, and won't act, then it itself is evil. That sort of leaves us with Epicurus' second question, or with the proposed answer to it.
The rhetorical and logical conundrum is Epicurus' fourth question. This, of course, was Epicurus' point: why call anything "god," if there's evil that some imagined force is both unable and unwilling to stop? And there have been proposed answers to that question along the long way: "'god' works in mysterious ways," "'god' never gives anyone more of a burden than they can handle," whatever that's supposed to mean. Anyone who subscribes to a theory like that can go console the surviving family and friends in Texas. And once they've consoled that group, there are loads and loads more mourners in this country.
But Keith Self, a Texas legislator, has a more direct and less timid answer: 'Now it’s God’s fault': Texas Republican slammed for claiming 'the almighty' controls shootings (msn.com). There are things like mass murders, because "god" wants them. (That's like the suggestion that HIV is "god's" way of punishing homosexuals.) Clearly, that gets us back to Epicurus' second proposal, but Epicurus was debunking "god," and Keith Self isn't. It's sort of too bad, in a way, that Self didn't have a better opportunity to demonstrate his personal religious devotion and commitment, by having his own family gunned down in a shopping mall. Frankly, I'd be curious to know what that looks like, and how it sounds, to have "god" murder your family, or approve of the hitman, and you still maintain an unwavering devotion, because the "god" you like wants it that way. A much gentler version of that happened a few years ago, when Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot in the leg while playing in a softball game with other Congresspeople, and he didn't take that as an indication that guns were out of control. Of course, it was only his leg, and his wife and children weren't murdered, so it might not have been an entirely fair test of his dedication to the profusion of guns, very clearly in the wrong hands (if there are any right hands), in this country. He and his mates could stop that, but he, and Keith Self, and very many others of them, don't seem to see what the problem is.
Well, if "charity begins at home," maybe tragedy should, too. I don't wish ill on Keith Self's family, or Steve Scalise's, or Lauren Boebert's, or Marjorie Greene's, or the families of the rest of them, but I'd like to see them all give us a real lesson on unflinching devotion.
No comments:
Post a Comment