Post by Admin on Mar 2, 2022 4:41:23 GMT
Chapter 13 - Stockholm syndrome
Job pleads with God to take him to court so he can plead his case. He still trusts in God's justice. He laments on how God is treating him like an enemy.
*The Abuser is Never at Fault*
Stockholm syndrome seems rampant in theist logic. When I studied psychology 101 in college, it became apparent to me that there was a weakness in the human psyche that allowed battered wives to stay with their abusive husbands. They would blame themselves for the abuse, expiating their husbands of guilt. It became self-apparent to me that this was morally wrong in that it allowed for the continuation of suffering by turning justice upside-down. It indicated a twisted view of reality that converted the perception of yourself as a victim into a perpetrator, and the perpetrator into a victim. Noticing this apparent pathology of reasoning in battered women caused me to identify a parallel in theist psychology. No matter what God does, God is the good guy. If a theist suffers, it must be the theist's fault. The pathological psychology seems to function in an identical way to put the blame on oneself, never on God.
*There Ought to be Justice*
I have gone through all of Job's emotions in suffering with scoliosis. In enduring my chronic pain, I concluded that ultimately, one of the most important principles for my continued existence was the principle of justice. If I endure suffering, but I am never rewarded for it, of what use is my endurance of character? The principle of justice seemed self-apparent to me as a fundamental axiom of how the universe ought to operate. In drawing this conclusion, I unwittingly arrived at a theory that is the alternative to divine command theory - namely natural law theory.
*Natural Law*
Natural law theory is basically the idea that there are certain fundamental rules to existence that we can be aware of naturally. In the Euthyphro dilemma, it was questioned if the good things are good because God commands them (goodness as arbitrary as God's opinion), or if God commands things because they are have the essence of goodness - hinting at the idea that goodness is a transcendent quality that pre-exists God's opinions, of which he is subjugated to.
*Consent and Compensation*
Everyday in 2020 I would lie on my couch in spinal agony and stare at a picture of Zeus on my wall. He cast a sanctimonious gaze of self-righteous judgement over the room - as if he was skeptical of whether or not I was worthy of his help. I mentally, emotionally, and spiritually wrestled with the concept of justice under his gaze. It seemed to me that the universe should give us a baseline quality of life as a minimum standard of what we deserve, then any undeserved suffering in excess of that should be balanced out with joy to compensate us for those damages. It seemed like even undeserved suffering could not be limitless without violating some aspect of justice. The idea of consent seemed relevant to justice. How can God give us suffering without our consent and still be termed "good"? I concluded that if there was a God who was allowing my continued suffering, he was already guilty of violating justice by allowing harm to me without my consent. Not only was God obligated by the principle of justice to compensate me for my suffering, but also compensate me for violating my consent.
*Judge God*
I figured that if God existed, he must be subject to the principle of justice or he doesn't deserve the status of God. I figured that perhaps my suffering was proof that he had violated the principles of justice and therefore I might be able to sue him for reparations in a heavenly court. By embracing natural law theory, I now had a legal standing to judge God. By accepting the idea that the principles of goodness (justice) were more powerful than God himself, I was able to comfort myself in the idea that I might be able to leverage that to my benefit just as Job does.
*Theological Algebra*
Carl Jung, in his book "Answer to Job" talks about the imperfection of God - God being a pseudo-perfect entity, the only think he lacked was imperfection. Carl ponders the idea that God created man to help him discover his own inconsistencies, as if man was a tool for God to learn from. Carl talks about God in terms of the psyche, or the unconscious. From a psychological standpoint, the book of Job is showing how man is struggling with the definition of perfection. Is the definition of perfection consistent with the harshness of life? Is the harshness of life consistent with justice? God almost functions like a algebraic answer to every question. If life is unfair, God's justice is the answer. The Old Testament often focuses more on justice during this lifetime. The New Testament makes an effort to push justice into the next life - were we no longer need to be frustrated with the problem of evil because all will be taken care of in the mansions above. Job struggles with this principle as it seems that God is not fulfilling justice during this lifetime and he is more or less ignorant of Christian ideas of rewards after death. He has not been enlightened by New Testament thinking, so he has to invent the concept of courts in heaven to comfort him in his pursuit of justice.
*Consent in the Pre-existence *
In considering the concept of consent, it occurred to me that the Mormon doctrine of the pre-existence gives God an "out". If we existed as spirits before this earth life, it is possible that we preemptively consented to our trials that would come to us in this mortal life. So the pre-existence is necessary for satisfying the consent component of justice. An afterlife is necessary for satisfying the compensation component of justice. To be ontologically pessimistic about the veracity of religious claims, it seems like humanity has invented metaphysical solutions to comfort us in our emotional needs for justice.
*This Universe is the Forbidden Fruit*
When thinking on the story of Adam and Eve, an alternative interpretation came to me. Perhaps God understands the evil of this world. Perhaps he understands that a universe based on entropy is so horrible that he forbade his children from going there. Perhaps the forbidden fruit was a symbolic representation of a universe based on the principle of entropy. Perhaps the other fruit of the garden of Eden represented other universes founded upon other benign yet interesting principles. Perhaps the fruit of the tree of life was the ideal universe with no entropy, no suffering, and no sorrow. Perhaps the garden of Eden functioned as a conjunction point between the universes within the multiverse. God, giving his children access to all universes, only forbade them from visiting one universe - the universe of entropy and death. He called it the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
*Godhood Requires Suffering*
There is an argument to be made that if you desire to become a God, you must necessarily become omniscient. Then there is a further argument that the only way to know all things is to experience all things - which includes experiencing all suffering. Therefore the path to Godhood necessarily involves a journey through hell. This theological argument necessitates reincarnation - in that the only way to experience all types of suffering is to be born into every possible experience of suffering. When I ask myself - "Is it possible that in a preexistent state I desired something like Godhood and therefore consented to enter a universe of entropy?" I am forced to the conclusion that it is possible that I consented.
*Create Justice*
My conclusion was that there are ways to construe the metaphysical landscape that allow for justice to be satisfied over time. But just because we have the cognitive ability to play metaphysical algebra to calculate how eternal justice might work doesn't mean it is true. It might be possible that in the cold harsh reality of things, justice isn't always satisfied. The idea that the universe might be a system that perpetuates injustices filled me with an intense rage for a time. But in the end, I think the idea that this universe might not guarantee justice should motivate us to cherish this principle even more. If we want to live in a just universe, we may have to create that justice ourselves. We should try our best to engage with others in an honest way that respects their consent and doesn't harm them unnecessarily.
NEXT: Chapter 14 - Destroyer of Hope
Job pleads with God to take him to court so he can plead his case. He still trusts in God's justice. He laments on how God is treating him like an enemy.
*The Abuser is Never at Fault*
Stockholm syndrome seems rampant in theist logic. When I studied psychology 101 in college, it became apparent to me that there was a weakness in the human psyche that allowed battered wives to stay with their abusive husbands. They would blame themselves for the abuse, expiating their husbands of guilt. It became self-apparent to me that this was morally wrong in that it allowed for the continuation of suffering by turning justice upside-down. It indicated a twisted view of reality that converted the perception of yourself as a victim into a perpetrator, and the perpetrator into a victim. Noticing this apparent pathology of reasoning in battered women caused me to identify a parallel in theist psychology. No matter what God does, God is the good guy. If a theist suffers, it must be the theist's fault. The pathological psychology seems to function in an identical way to put the blame on oneself, never on God.
*There Ought to be Justice*
I have gone through all of Job's emotions in suffering with scoliosis. In enduring my chronic pain, I concluded that ultimately, one of the most important principles for my continued existence was the principle of justice. If I endure suffering, but I am never rewarded for it, of what use is my endurance of character? The principle of justice seemed self-apparent to me as a fundamental axiom of how the universe ought to operate. In drawing this conclusion, I unwittingly arrived at a theory that is the alternative to divine command theory - namely natural law theory.
*Natural Law*
Natural law theory is basically the idea that there are certain fundamental rules to existence that we can be aware of naturally. In the Euthyphro dilemma, it was questioned if the good things are good because God commands them (goodness as arbitrary as God's opinion), or if God commands things because they are have the essence of goodness - hinting at the idea that goodness is a transcendent quality that pre-exists God's opinions, of which he is subjugated to.
*Consent and Compensation*
Everyday in 2020 I would lie on my couch in spinal agony and stare at a picture of Zeus on my wall. He cast a sanctimonious gaze of self-righteous judgement over the room - as if he was skeptical of whether or not I was worthy of his help. I mentally, emotionally, and spiritually wrestled with the concept of justice under his gaze. It seemed to me that the universe should give us a baseline quality of life as a minimum standard of what we deserve, then any undeserved suffering in excess of that should be balanced out with joy to compensate us for those damages. It seemed like even undeserved suffering could not be limitless without violating some aspect of justice. The idea of consent seemed relevant to justice. How can God give us suffering without our consent and still be termed "good"? I concluded that if there was a God who was allowing my continued suffering, he was already guilty of violating justice by allowing harm to me without my consent. Not only was God obligated by the principle of justice to compensate me for my suffering, but also compensate me for violating my consent.
*Judge God*
I figured that if God existed, he must be subject to the principle of justice or he doesn't deserve the status of God. I figured that perhaps my suffering was proof that he had violated the principles of justice and therefore I might be able to sue him for reparations in a heavenly court. By embracing natural law theory, I now had a legal standing to judge God. By accepting the idea that the principles of goodness (justice) were more powerful than God himself, I was able to comfort myself in the idea that I might be able to leverage that to my benefit just as Job does.
*Theological Algebra*
Carl Jung, in his book "Answer to Job" talks about the imperfection of God - God being a pseudo-perfect entity, the only think he lacked was imperfection. Carl ponders the idea that God created man to help him discover his own inconsistencies, as if man was a tool for God to learn from. Carl talks about God in terms of the psyche, or the unconscious. From a psychological standpoint, the book of Job is showing how man is struggling with the definition of perfection. Is the definition of perfection consistent with the harshness of life? Is the harshness of life consistent with justice? God almost functions like a algebraic answer to every question. If life is unfair, God's justice is the answer. The Old Testament often focuses more on justice during this lifetime. The New Testament makes an effort to push justice into the next life - were we no longer need to be frustrated with the problem of evil because all will be taken care of in the mansions above. Job struggles with this principle as it seems that God is not fulfilling justice during this lifetime and he is more or less ignorant of Christian ideas of rewards after death. He has not been enlightened by New Testament thinking, so he has to invent the concept of courts in heaven to comfort him in his pursuit of justice.
*Consent in the Pre-existence *
In considering the concept of consent, it occurred to me that the Mormon doctrine of the pre-existence gives God an "out". If we existed as spirits before this earth life, it is possible that we preemptively consented to our trials that would come to us in this mortal life. So the pre-existence is necessary for satisfying the consent component of justice. An afterlife is necessary for satisfying the compensation component of justice. To be ontologically pessimistic about the veracity of religious claims, it seems like humanity has invented metaphysical solutions to comfort us in our emotional needs for justice.
*This Universe is the Forbidden Fruit*
When thinking on the story of Adam and Eve, an alternative interpretation came to me. Perhaps God understands the evil of this world. Perhaps he understands that a universe based on entropy is so horrible that he forbade his children from going there. Perhaps the forbidden fruit was a symbolic representation of a universe based on the principle of entropy. Perhaps the other fruit of the garden of Eden represented other universes founded upon other benign yet interesting principles. Perhaps the fruit of the tree of life was the ideal universe with no entropy, no suffering, and no sorrow. Perhaps the garden of Eden functioned as a conjunction point between the universes within the multiverse. God, giving his children access to all universes, only forbade them from visiting one universe - the universe of entropy and death. He called it the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.
*Godhood Requires Suffering*
There is an argument to be made that if you desire to become a God, you must necessarily become omniscient. Then there is a further argument that the only way to know all things is to experience all things - which includes experiencing all suffering. Therefore the path to Godhood necessarily involves a journey through hell. This theological argument necessitates reincarnation - in that the only way to experience all types of suffering is to be born into every possible experience of suffering. When I ask myself - "Is it possible that in a preexistent state I desired something like Godhood and therefore consented to enter a universe of entropy?" I am forced to the conclusion that it is possible that I consented.
*Create Justice*
My conclusion was that there are ways to construe the metaphysical landscape that allow for justice to be satisfied over time. But just because we have the cognitive ability to play metaphysical algebra to calculate how eternal justice might work doesn't mean it is true. It might be possible that in the cold harsh reality of things, justice isn't always satisfied. The idea that the universe might be a system that perpetuates injustices filled me with an intense rage for a time. But in the end, I think the idea that this universe might not guarantee justice should motivate us to cherish this principle even more. If we want to live in a just universe, we may have to create that justice ourselves. We should try our best to engage with others in an honest way that respects their consent and doesn't harm them unnecessarily.
NEXT: Chapter 14 - Destroyer of Hope
