Is God Fair? — Transcript

God, in the Christian understanding, is a personal God whose aim and reason for creating the universe is to allow human beings—some would say coerce human beings—into a relationship with him. If that's the goal, if that's the desire, then it seems strange to me that some people are given an easy ride in this respect. They either get some form of religious experience, perhaps they receive a prophecy, perhaps they even get to meet the risen Christ himself, but not me, not my friends, not people that I know, probably not yourself. I don't know. You may have had a religious experience in your life, but I'm not sure that you've met Jesus, and you know the way in which I mean that. Um, in which case there seems to be a sort of crude element of favoritism going on. If not favoritism, then experiences granted to others that, if granted to me, would allow me to be in a position or compel me to be in a position to inherit eternal life that I'm not receiving through no fault of my own. And yet this could be the deciding factor as to my eternal fate. This seems unfair, for a start. And that's one of the atheist's main gripes: unfairness. This seems unfair. It's unfair that people suffer. It's unfair that religious belief is scattered in unpredictable ways. And I'm not among the favored, the elect. Um, this is, I think, probably the principal emotion behind the power of this argument and why people so often refer to it: it seems unfair. And if, you know, if God is anything, it seems he must be fair. Um, I mean, I don't know if you'd agree with that. I imagine that you would agree that God would be fair, but that, I think, puts you in a position of having to defend the fairness or having to believe that there is, in principle, a defense of the fairness of the kind of distribution that I've described. Um, yeah, I don't know if I would say that God is fair. Um, insofar as, you know, our paradigm for fairness is based on a human expression of justice. Yeah. And in justice, you're rendering to another what is his due, but you're doing so according to a standard of equality, which equality can't really be grounded in our relationship to God. And that doesn't mean to say that he floats free of all morality. It's just that he is subsisting, you know, morality in a certain sense, insofar as I would say that there's a nonparallelism between God's relationship to us and our relationship to God. And I think that's part of—yeah, there are a lot of interrelated things that I'm going to get too excited about and talk too fast about. Deep breath. Um, so with respect to the doctrine of creation, um, I think that one, the relation of creation and then the, you know, as it were, goal of creation, and here I'm relying on revelation. I'm not smart enough to figure this out. So, um, that it's a kind of dependence of all things upon God, and that's the heart of the matter: that everything that is is by God's gift. And so this note of gratuitousness enters at the outset so that none of us are due anything because it could have been otherwise, and it could not have been. And as a result of which, what we have, what we have come to possess in time, is God's gift, but that it's earmarked for glory or that it's earmarked for a return to God. And I think part of the complexity and subtlety of the divine plan is, regardless of the gifts that are apportioned in the natural order, that there are further gifts in store in the supernatural order which are not directly correlated with those of the natural order. So, like, for instance, St. Teresa of Lisieux, you know, who lived in the late 19th century. She dies of tuberculosis at the age of 24, but she has these wild insights into the divine mercy or these wild insights into the divine condescension which, in a certain sense, catapult her beyond the limitations of body and soul while still retaining a kind of organic connection with her personality and with her history. And so I think that God is bringing about a certain differentiation in creation because he's not motivated by a bland equality, because in a certain sense—and I don't pretend to know the mind of God—but in a certain sense, he says to himself, um, in the differentiation of creation, my divine life, which is, yeah, ineffable, the depths of which are unsoundable, stands a better chance at captivating or capturing the attention of creatures because, on account of the fact that I am infinite, you know, a kind of wellspring of divine abundance. No one created thing can express that sufficiently. And so he expends himself in creation, saying it differently with the intent that both in its being and acting and in the ultimate orientation of its being and acting to God, that you see both in the creature and in the ecosystematic harmony of the creatures taken as a whole or taken as a universe, right? Something more that God, as it were, hides both in the things and then in their relations as a way by which to afford us further opportunities for noticing. But I've been talking too long. Well, um, I want to understand the relevance of this to the experience of saying, look, I'm somebody who maybe used to be a new atheist saying that God is some celestial dictator. Maybe he is a celestial dictator, but I think maybe the celestial part sort of undermines the badness of the dictator part. Who knows? Um, but, you know, you shake that off and you say, "Okay, look, religion isn't all evil. Um, heaven isn't some kind of North Korea. It's actually a quite pleasurable sounding experience. Um, if there are such things as sort of moral truths, then I want to apprehend and follow them. And I want to worship that, that which deserves to be worshipped. And I want to see my family, friends again. The whole works. I'm just not convinced. I just don't think it's true. I've listened to arguments and maybe I've had an irrational response to them, but I've tried my best. And, you know, if I'm limited only by my cognitive capacity, then I can hardly be blamed for that. Maybe I should have tried harder in school, but that seems like quite a loose basis on which to balance my soul for eternity. And I think that in itself would be something of a problem of evil, one of the many problems of evil. Um, okay. So, here's the situation that I'm in, and this is the situation that many people are in, and it may not be the case that I'm truly seeking properly. It may be that I'm what Shelonburg has called a resistant non-believer. That is, you're a person who sort of has some kind of proactive defensiveness. And this is certainly true of many people, but so long as there is a single example, it doesn't have to be me, as somebody who sincerely seeks but doesn't find an answer, then what I'm looking for, I suppose, is either an explanation for that, an explanation of that experience, some kind of second-order explanation which makes that not a problem to worry about, or itself what I'm doing wrong so as not to experience that. A question that I often ask is what you would do if you woke up tomorrow, sort of in my mind, as it were. You just found yourself convinced that the arguments don't run anymore in the way that you're sort of—you've heard about conspiracy theories that the moon landing was fake, but you just sort of intuitively think it's ridiculous. And even if you start to look into them a bit, you think, "No, there's no way these are true." And if somehow the eternity of your soul was balanced upon, was predicated upon you accepting that the moon landing didn't occur. And I'm not trying to say that the arguments for God are of the same caliber, but by analogy, something that, look, arguments do exist and they're discussed ad nauseam on the internet, but when you listen to them, you don't get to choose not to be convinced by them. You're just not. If that's the case, I ask if you found yourself in that situation, what would you change? What is it, in other words, that I might be doing wrong?

desire, then it seems strange to me that some people are given an easy ride in this respect. They either get uh some form of religious experience, perhaps they receive a prophecy, perhaps they even get to meet the risen Christ

himself, but not me, not my friends, not people that I know, probably not yourself. I I don't know. You may have had a religious experience in your life, but I I'm not sure that you've met Jesus and you know the way in which I mean

that. Um, in which case there seems to be a sort of crude element of favoritism going on. If not favoritism, then experiences granted to others that if it if granted to me would allow me to be in a position or compel me to be in a

position to inherit eternal life that I'm not receiving through no fault of my own. And yet this could be the deciding factor as to my eternal fate. This seems unfair for a start. And that's one of the atheists main gripes um is

unfairness. This seems unfair. It's unfair that people suffer. It's unfair that religious belief is scattered in in predictable ways. And I'm not among the the favored, the elect. Um, this is, I think, probably the principal emotion behind the power of this

argument and why people so often refer to it is that it seems unfair. And if, you know, if if God is anything, it seems he must be fair. Um, I mean, I don't know if you'd agree with that. I

imagine that you would agree that God would be fair, but that I think puts you in a position of having to defend the fairness or having to believe that there is in principle a defense of the fairness of the kind of distribution

that I've described. Um, yeah, I don't know if I would say that God is fair. Um, in so far as, you know, our paradigm for fairness is based on a human expression of justice.

Yeah. And in justice, you're rendering to another what is his due, but you're doing so according to a standard of equality. uh which equality can't really be grounded in our relationship to God.

And that doesn't mean to say that he floats free of all morality. It's just that he is subsisting, you know, morality in a certain sense in so far as I would say that there's a a nonp parallelism between God's relationship

to us and our relationship to God. And I think that's that's part of yeah, there are a lot of interrelated things that I'm going to get too excited about and talk too fast about.

Deep breath. Um so with respect to the doctrine of creation um I think that one the relation of creation and then the you know as it were goal of creation and here I'm relying on revelation. I'm not smart enough to figure this out. So um

that it's a kind of dependence of all things upon God and that's the heart of the matter that everything that is is by God's gift. And so this note of gratuitity enters at the outset so that none of us are due anything because it

could have been otherwise and it could not have been. And as a result of which what we have what we have come to possess in time is God's gift but that it's earmarked for glory or that it's earmarked for a return to God. And I

think part of the complexity and subtlety of the divine plan is regardless of the gifts that are aortioned in the natural order that there are further gifts in store in the supernatural order which are not directly correlated with those of the

natural order. So like for instance St. Terresa of Leia, you know, who lived in the late 19th century. She dies of tuberculosis at the age of 24. But she has these wild insights into the divine mercy or these wild insights into the

divine condescension which in a certain sense like catapult her beyond the limitations of body and soul uh while still retaining a kind of organic connection with her personality and with her history. And so I think that God is

he's bringing about a certain differentiation in creation because he's not motivated by a bland equality because in a certain sense and I don't pretend to know the mind of God but in a certain sense he says to himself um in

the differentiation of creation my divine life which is yeah ineffable uh the depths of which are unsoundable stands a better chance at captivating or capturing the attention of creatures because on account of the fact that I am infinite. You know, a kind of wellspring

of divine abundance. No one created thing can express that sufficiently. And so he expends himself in creation saying it differently with the intent that both in its being and acting and in the ultimate orientation of its being and

acting to God that you see both in the creature and in the ecosystematic harmony of the creatures taken as a taken as a whole or taken as a universe, right? something more that that God as it were hides both in the things and

then in their relations as a way by which to afford us further opportunities for noticing. But I've been talking too long.

Well, um I want to understand the relevance of this to the experience of saying look, I'm somebody who maybe I used to be a new atheist saying that God is some celestial dictator.

Maybe he is a celestial dictator, but I think maybe the celestial part sort of undermines the badness of the dictator part. Who knows? Um but you know, you shake that off and you say, "Okay, look, religion isn't all evil. Um, heaven

isn't some kind of North Korea. It's actually a quite pleasurable sounding experience. Um, if there are such things as sort of moral truths, then I want to apprehend and follow them. And I want to worship that that which deserves to be

woripped. And I want to see my family, friends again. The whole works. I'm just not convinced. I just don't think it's true. I've listened to arguments and maybe I've had an irrational response to them, but I've tried my best. And you

know, if I'm limited only by my cognitive capacity, then I can hardly be blamed for that. Maybe I should have tried harder in school, but that seems like a quite loose basis on which to balance my soul um for eternity. And I

think that in itself would be something of a problem of evil, one of the many problems of evil. Um, okay. So, here's the situation that I'm in, and this is the situation that many people are in, and it may not be the case that I'm

truly seeking properly. It may be that I'm what Shelonburg has called a resistant non-believer. That is, you're your person who sort of has some kind of proactive defensiveness. And this is certainly true of many people, but so long as

there is a single example, doesn't have to be me, as somebody who sincerely seeks but doesn't find an answer, then what I'm looking for, I suppose, is either an explanation for that, an explanation of that experience, some kind of second order explanation

which makes that not a problem to worry about, or itself what I'm doing wrong so as not to experience that. That a question that I often ask is what you would do if you woke up tomorrow sort of

in my mind as it were. You just found yourself convinced that the arguments don't run anymore in the way that you're sort of you've heard about conspiracy theories that the moon landing was fake, but you just sort of you intuitively

think it's ridiculous. And even if you start to look into them a bit, you think, "No, there's no way these are true." And if somehow the eternity of your soul was balanced upon was predicated upon you accepting that the

moon landing didn't occur. And I'm not trying to say that the arguments for God are of the same caliber, but by analogy something that look arguments do exist and they're discussed adnauseium on the internet, but when you listen to them,

you don't get to choose not to be convinced by them. You're just not. If that's the case, I I ask if you found yourself in that situation, what would you change? What is it in other words that that I might be doing wrong?

Yeah, I I suspect I probably agree with you on um the paper thin quality of human valition. I think that um in past generations, human abolition has been described as something herculean or colossal. And I just don't think that's

really that's really tenable. I think more often it's a matter of we're dealt a hand and then we're asked to play the hand. The rules of the game are somewhat simple. um not overly complex, but that we can choose to play the hand even if

it seems like a losing hand. We can play it with a kind of what whimsy or pache.

And I think that that's largely what what freedom amounts to. Um so I'm not saying that everyone has opinions which they find to be perfectly malleable or uh revisable. Like for instance, um there's just the fact of human

investment. You know, think of like a Protestant pastor who is thinking about becoming Catholic. that's his livelihood, you know, and you might say perhaps it's better not to involve oneself like by way of livelihood in a thing that you might decouple yourself

from in subsequent, you know, months or years, but that's just that's not humane. You know, we all do that. We all hitch our wagon to whatever it is.

Um, so I think that, yeah, one thing I would say is this with respect to our rank in creation and then with respect to differentiation amongst human beings, I would say that we're called to live this life. So not the life of rocks or

of plants or of animals or of angels but of men. And so like when St. Thomas for instance describes the movement proper to each you know echelon or rank. He'll say God you know makes no movements in so far as movement for him you know is

an expression of coming to be. He says angels they come to their end by one movement whereas men come to their end by many movements. So I think that there can be a kind of tendency to falsify our

human experience by focusing on certain moments of it or even like tanches of it when truth be told it's over the course right it's discursive it's diiacronic and I think that we have two modes in which we operate the living of our lives

and then the interpreting of our lives some people might want to break that into further modes still but I think that we learn to live our lives well and we also learn to interpret our lives well and as time passes you know

provided we're doing so sincerely I would add in a Christian context by the grace of God we get better at interpreting our lives. So like for instance if you would asked me in 2010 like why did you become a Dominican

frier? I would have told you like a hurrah story. Um it would have sounded like an like an army recruitment story and you'd be like that's precious. Um 13 years in you know like I'm not utterly ground down but I have had to suffer

more for it and as a result of which the story that I'm going to tell you is different. And that doesn't mean that the story that I told you 13 years ago was necessarily false. it was and nor

was it just wholly perspectival. It's like I can't relate to myself back then. No, there's there's continuity. There's narrative continuity. But I would say that it's it's deeper. It's subtler. And I've picked out certain hues on the pallet which I didn't perceive earlier.

Um in part because of the way that life seasons your experience or kind of draws out the flavor of your experience. And so I think too like for you now that that's probably I mean like I don't want

to make it too terribly personal because then it just becomes somewhat inextricable you know um but but but I also think that like patience not just in the mirror you know the virtue that is commended to us by our schoolroom

nannies uh but patience in the sense of you know like pottery like to suffer life well not to be dramatic about it but like a lot of life is endurance. St.

St. Thomas Aquinus when he talks about the virtue of courage he says there are two principal parts the attack dimension and the endure dimension he says the endure dimension is the principal part because life is hard in effect and

because we need to bear up and he he breaks it out into two further pieces which are patience and perseverance patience which bears up under sadness which I would say is one of the principal obstacles of living in the

21st century and then perseverance which sees it through to the end um so I think that there's something to the time bound nature of our lives and God his revelation interfacing with the time bound nature of our lives which forces

us to kind of undergo it or to you know like recognize and receive it with a certain patience.

Okay. In the context of what I'm talking about that is the evil if God does exist seemingly or the the sort of ostensible apparent evil of people being withheld from communion with him. Yeah.

In the context of speaking about that seeing taking a more holistic approach to a person's life might be helpful. So there are still I I think quite jarring problems with this. For example, I presume you believe in libertarian free

will. I what the thing that I hold for antidates like the the distinctions in which we currently traffic. So human beings get to uh stuff.

Get to choose stuff. Yeah. And so perhaps it's the case that I'm on some kind of grand theological journey.

and that is that maybe when I turn 45 I'm going to see my sort of waterfall split into three streams and fall to my knees and accept Christ. Um problematically, you know, um the Cameron sat over there has libertarian free will. He could

choose to stand up and stab me in the throat and kill me now. Yeah.

I would die. I would come before God and I would fall short and I wouldn't have accepted the sacrifice of Jesus. if I am being used in some kind of well I shouldn't say used if I'm if I'm part of

some kind of grand theological journey it's the way I worded it um this can be cut short by another human being's actions and presumably therefore you know also cut off the road to redemption now some people have suggested to me

when I pointed this out that well okay because people sometimes say to me that it's a good job I'm an atheist because when I finally convert to Christianity I'll provide such a great story for people to look to it be some kind of

road to Damascus esque uh you know narrative that people can refer to. Fine. Firstly, I feel like I'm being sort of used as a bit of a porn. Um but secondly, if that is the case, this can be cut short by another human

being. Yeah. And sometimes people then say to me, well, if that were to happen, God would know what you would have done.

They take a sort of molinist view or something. They say, well, look, you know, of course, if you die now, you're you're not making it to heaven. But God knows that if you would have stayed alive, that's what you would have done.

And so you get to heaven on that account. If that's the case, then I don't see the point in this veil of tears altogether because there's no point in running the running the exam if God already knows what everybody's going

to get, if you know what I mean. So I I'm not sure if what you were saying was a direct response to my point that people live with the essentially this the suffering of this privation of communion with God.

Even looking at it as a as a journey, even if I look at it as something that could potentially develop over time, this is something that can be trivially cut short by another human being's actions. All of this put together just

ascribes an arbitrariness and triviality to the conditions under which my eternal soul either receives this unimaginably pleasurable communion with goodness itself or whatever your sort of doctrine of the afterlife for those who are not so lucky is. I don't know what it is. Um

I don't know if you're an annihilationist. Even that compared to the infinite goodness of communion with God is, you know, uh, a sort of infinitely bad outcome.

These problems, like I people have syllergized them. They've they've sort of been a bit analytical about it.

They've done premise, premise, conclusion. But can you feel the arbitrariness, the triviality of of what I'm talking about here?

Yeah. And so if I were you in a situation of thinking, okay, there are lots of people on planet Earth who are seeking very very desperately and they're not finding God, but you know, I'm I'm I've I've got

a relationship with him. I'd say lucky me. And you probably do say lucky me.

But lucky you is unlucky me, if you know what I mean. And that's something that I think needs to be accounted for.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I think um so like a couple of speculative back stops and then maybe some more practical or existential um things to advance I suppose. Uh so the one would be that this vision the hierarchical nature of creation or the

differentiated nature of creation and also differentiation within the ranks like our human rank it pertains to the wisdom of God as to see it through. So like taking an example you know from revelation we believe Catholics believe in a doctrine of predelection um namely

that god loves everyone the same but that he loves some people in a certain sense more than others in so far as he accords them greater goods. So primaparus question 20 article 3 it's scandalous but it's also somewhat

beautiful seen from a particular angle in so far as the point of the differentiation of the goods accorded to those who occupy the rank of human um is for like an organic end in so far as he describes it in the context of the

mystical body of Christ. So it's not like um it's not so much better and worse as it is like heart and lungs.

Now, mind you, you're going to look at the thing and you're going to see the person who was born blind and clubfooted and, you know, with all sorts of sufferings and you're going to say, "I'm sorry, you know, heart and lungs. This

is decidedly better and worse." And yet, and this is where I think that, you know, a defense sometimes works better than like a straight these in so far as you can tell a story of that person's life. Not in every case obviously but in

some cases whereby God will use even that not in the sense that God visited this thing because we have sufficient material conditions whereby to account for the fact that nature fails you know it obtains always for the most part and

that God entrusting creation to a certain kind of set of conditions as it were admits for this possibility but in light of a glory that lies in store without chewing up and spitting out those who are involved in it as if they

were mere pawns. Um so like on the one hand you've got this doctrine of predelection. So differentiation in the goods given but then on the other hand you have it in a personalistic whole the idea that it's for the other. So like

the blessed virgin Mary for instance I believe that God loves her most of those who are not God. Um and I don't begrudge her that in part because it's glorious and it's like something to behold and in part because she is my mother and you

know like not to get like touchyfeily about it but I know that in a certain sense the graces accorded to her are also graces given to me. in so far as she mediates them with some facility and with some tenderness and I've

encountered that in my life and that that can be part of a story but that if this is from the uncarchable depths of the wisdom of God in light of predestin or like predelection um in such a way as

to you know like account for what we what we deal with here like we're never going to get to the bottom of it but that by continuing to ask the question right we we can get a hint of it or we can get a

a kind of indication of it. I'll stop there. I'm I'm wondering how this consideration functions as a response to this this I I think the problem is quite specific.

Okay. Um that is you know if if there's a God who wants to come to know me Yeah.

and I want to come to know him. Yeah. and he has the power to bring about the conditions that he know would knows would lead to my conversion and I'm proactively seeking those to the best of my ability and even if it's not

me, you know, somebody else might be doing this and they don't find him. Um I I can sort of understand the idea that God might love Mary more than another human being. God might love you more than me, me more than you, you know, who

knows. But the question I think that I'm that I'm wanting to get to the bottom of is why are there some people who seem completely excommunicated in that they reach out and and just just can't find.

Yeah. So I would say some things are beyond their control but some things are also within their control. Um and so again, Catholic dogma, it's been pronounced upon um which I take for a kind of epistemological backs stop that

if one goes to heaven, it's by God's predestinating grace. If one goes to hell, it's because he has freely rejected that. Um so there's at least some some way in which it can be said that by an exercise of free will, a

grace which was offered was rejected. And so it's not necessarily like the grace of justification, but the Catholic teaching is that graces are kind of daisy chained together.