Paper presented to the

graduate class of the Power Seminar

and the No-Y-ian Association Oakville, Ontario, Dec. 2000.

How Can God Allow Evil In This World?

—

HERE IS THE ANSWER!

Dennis K. Chong & Jennifer K. Smith Chong ©

In this paper, the male pronoun will apply to either gender. The plural pronoun will apply to both authors. The nominal pronoun will apply to the first author.

We dedicate this paper to our very Jesuitical friend, ally and companion:

Professor Daniel Araoz

Across the span of civilizations, humankind has all manner and styles of gods, from a pantheon of over five million deities in the Hindu faith to religions with only one! Perhaps it is true after all that - god can be one and She can be many.

Concurrent with this, humankind has had a myriad of beliefs about the attributes of these gods or god. The ancient Greeks believed that their god of gods, Zeus was an utterly and thoroughly dedicated womanizer. And he had a counterpart in a goddess who had a propensity for love, love, love. Her name was Venus. The Islamists have a God that thunders against fornication and the Roman Catholics have one that is dead set against masturbation. Indeed every good Catholic, male or female, knows that if he/she masturbates, he/she will be at risk for an eternal embrace by father Lucifer. The possibilities across this entire domain of consideration are mind boggling. They speak to the incredible fecundity of the human mind. In the face of all this, perhaps there may some truth, after all, that there is no such thing as "the one true god."

The manner and style of worship for the deity or deities of choice in a given civilization has varied. Thus, in ancient times, in Corinth, it was incumbent for women to enter the temple of the goddess. She would remain in the temple until a man chooses to bed with her. Thus, having performed this sacred act of worship, she was free to leave the temple and rejoin her family. In India, the goddess Kali demanded of her followers to perpetrate the holy deed of thuggery from which the modern term "a thug" is derived. Thuggery involved larceny and killing by a unique form of strangulation.

The Aztecs and the Mayas had a principal deity that demanded human sacrifice.

The empty plate that Chacmool held across his stomach had once served as a receptacle for the freshly extracted heart: ‘If the victims heart was to be taken out’ reported one Spanish observer in the sixteenth century, they conducted him with great display . . . and placed him on the sacrificial stone. Four of them hold his arms and legs, spreading them out. Then the executioner came, with a flint knife in his hand, and with great skill made an incision between the ribs on the left, below the nipple, then he plunged in his hand and like a ravenous tiger tore out the living heart, which he laid on the plate . . . ³

Graham Handcock: Finger Prints of the Gods Double Day Ltd. 1995 page 96-97

And further on in this work:

It is recorded, for example, that Ahuitzotl, the eight and most powerful emperor of the Aztecs royal dynasty, ‘celebrated the dedication of the temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochitlan by marshaling four lines of prisoners past teams of priests who worked four days to dispatch them. On this occasion as many as 80,000 were slain during a single ceremony.

Ibidem page 97

The Catholic Faith asserts that the bread and wine in their worship, called the Mass, IS the flesh and blood of one of their gods called Jesus. As a sacred act, their members are to eat this flesh and drink this blood. This for them is a holy and sacred thing to do in their workshop. Of course there are people who, at their kindest and most generous, would wonder if this might not be a very odd and strange thing to do to your god.

Now, if God were many, then they would have many and unique different dispositions and tilts. Thus, the Norse people believed in a god called Loki who had a bent towards mischief and evil. In this event, the need for this essay would not be necessary. You have the answer for how it is that there is evil in the world. You can blame in on the god.

However, today, monotheism has become pre-eminent. In this contingency, there exists two prevailing universal presuppositions about this one god. They are that this god is:

infinitely omnipotent

infinitely good.

It is because of this second presupposition that god is infinitely good that the existence of evil in his creation now becomes a puzzle. If he is infinitely good, can he allow evil to exist in his creation. To solve this conundrum, has entailed the most extraordinary paradoxes:

God can’t banish evil unless he drowns the human race. And so all he can do is mourn.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: Putting Away Childish Things HarperSanFrancisco page 61.

The Christian apologist Lactantius, who in the year 317 was called to Trier by Constantine to be the tutor of Prince Crispus, cites an argument by the Greek philosopher Epicurus (d. 271/270 B.C.):

Either God wants to get rid of evil, but he can’t; or God can, but he doesn’t want to; or God neither wants to nor can, or he both wants to and can. If God wants to, but can’t, then he is not all-powerful. If he can, but doesn’t want to, he is not all-loving. If he neither can nor wants to, he is neither all-powerful nor all-loving. And if he wants to and he can - then why doesn’t he remove the evils? (De ira Dei, chap.13)

Ibidem page 60.

By contrast, Christianity have always seen evil in the world as proof for the existence of God. In his book Vor dem Bösem ratlos? (Helpless in the Face of Evil), Herbert Haag quotes Bishop Graber of Regensburg. Apropos of the famous case of possession that occurred in the little Bavarian town of Klingenberg in the 1970s, when a supposedly possessed girl was exorcised, upon recommendation of the bishop of Würzburg, and died in the process, Bishop Graber said: "If the Evil one does not exist, then man is responsible." Humans do not want to bear the sole responsibility; they’d prefer to bear none at all. "Can God have created man such a monster: "No, he can’t, because he is love and goodness. If there is no Devil, then there is no God."

But this theological flight of fancy, which makes the existence of the Devil absolutely necessary for the existence of God, only shifts the problem. As Haig rightly stresses, "The bishop seems to have forgotten for the moment that according to the Church’s teaching the Devil is also a creature of God . . . and therefore God has made a monster after all"

Ibidem page 59 - 60.

However, by the First Fundamental that God created each of us with the power to be self-initiating, self-actualizing, self-sustaining and self-supporting, it must mean that:

The belief in the Devil as the cause of evil is a superstition. Man has invented the Devil to get himself off the hook. Man doesn’t want to be responsible for his actions, but he remains the only responsible party. He and nobody else is the Prince of Hell on earth - which is not to diminish the power of evil and even the devilishness of evil in the world.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann: Putting Away Childish Things HarperSanFrancisco page 59

So, the question remains. Indeed, if god is infinitely good, then:

"How Can God Allow Evil To Exist In This World."

This question has vexed and irked theologians, logicians and scholars for a very long, long time. They have failed to answer the question because of the structural trap they have created for themselves. This kind of structural trap is an analogical trap.

An analogical trap is a self-created and self-endorsed one. It is one in which one lives it, thinks and feels it and one is part of the structure of the trap. As a result the searcher for the answer is completely ensnared by it and he will nor realize what is going nor will he be able to see the way out. As a result, one cannot be aware of the illogicality of the structural trap. And so one remains caught and mired in its illogical paradoxes.

An example of an analogical trap was the universal belief held by humankind that the earth was flat. Now, there is recorded an ocean going expedition by the ancient Egyptians around Africa. This expedition recorded that at the beginning, the sun rose from their left and set on their right. This of course would happen if one sailed south by way of the Red Sea. To their astonishment, the expedition then recorded that one day the sun rose from the right and set on their left. This would happen when they sailed north upon rounding the Cape of Good Hope. Of course they could not work out how this was so.

What then is the structural trap apropos to this domain of consideration? To answer this, let us begin with the following representation between us and god in the following manner ÿ

In this relationship, we relate with god from an anthropomorphic stance and egocentric direction. We represent what we have said thus ÿ

It is this stancing direction that is the analogical trap.

Since our stance by philosophy and logic is to approach our god, then this will inevitably mean that we shall have do so through the wall of religion to get to our god.. This is an inevitable corollary fact that we are finite and, therefore, our instinctive knowing that we are not able to grasp and understand the deity. From this flows the need of a religion and priests to tell us and guide us.

Therefore, to get through to God, one will have pass through the theology of the religion and also through the consecrated priests of the deity who will advise us the way to God. And as what we have cited above, there is such a profusion of choices.

In realizing this, we were compelled to invert the existing structure. We proposed that the relationship be about god to humankind and not humankind to god:

If we accept this structural change, then it would follow that god will have no need for religion; god would also have no need of pope, cardinal, archbishops, bishops, priest and deacons nor chief rabbis and rabbis, nor ayatollahs, mullahs, archpriest and pastors and so forth.

The question of course is how would god relate to his creation, especially humankind, even though we all know he is very busy with all the problems in the Central City of the Klingon Empire.

To answer this question one would have to think what it would like be to be like god. If we do this then we will find out what god will do.

It was very clear that it was in us to be able to do this. Of course the initial response to think of doing such a thing is one of concern that one would be acting in a blasphemous and sacrilegious way. If, however, we were not meant to do this, would a god put the power in us to do such a thing? By this logic we were able to feel comfortable to do so. We proceeded to think

what it would be if we were god. You too may do the same. If you do, then it will become instantly clear that god is: 1. Infinite

2. Omniscient

3. Omnipotent.

However, you will also know that god is:

4. Absolutely logical

5. Absolutely lawful.

We then reviewed each attribute in turn to be sure of what each meant. For god to be infinite is to be able to be everywhere in the past, present and future - NOW! And everywhere is from here to the furthest know quasar and pulsar.

For god to be omniscient means that god knows everything. There is nothing that is hidden from god. However, on closer scrutiny, it was clear that god’s knowing is structurally always ABOUT the item of consideration but never the item itself. It as if god knows ABOUT a Caesar salad but never the Caesar salad itself. One of the loveliest places we have ever been to is Puerta Vallata, Mexico. We can talk to you ABOUT it, we can show you photos of it and a video ABOUT it. However, in spite of all the information we share with you, you will never know it. You will only know ABOUT it.

This kind of omniscience is defined as META knowing not MESA. If it was MESA, then god would know-in-experience your love for your spouse or for your child and god would know your pain and grief when some loved one of yours died. God would know-in-being the glory of your triumph when you broke through the tape and won the 100 meters race on your school sports day and the disgrace you endured when you failed one of your term exams. However, because god is META, god will only know ABOUT these events. He will not know them.

Thus, across the arc of the glory and wonder that we can be to the horror and abomination that we can become, god will only know the ABOUT of it, but never it. In this, we now have a contradiction. If god does not know the MESA of what can be known, then god is not omniscient; he cannot be all knowing. Additionally, one must now wonder if god might feel the infinity of frustration that only a god can, in not knowing the experience of being, in the face of the infinite power of god’s omnipotence.

Before creation, in one forever after another forever in eternity, it also became clear, that the infinite logic of god would mean a reality in which there never was an illogicality. As a result there never any humour. There was never a joke in heaven. The place was absolutely humourless without laughter and joy.

Commensurately, in one forever after another in eternity, it also became clear that the absolute lawfulness of god meant a reality in which there was no crime and no sin. Both crime and sin are the mothers of thrill and excitement. As one woman who cheated on her husband told me, "It is just the thrill of it." And a husband who cheated on his wife said to me, "It is all so exciting, Dr. Chong." And those who have engaged in sin, well know the thrill and excitement of doing so. Heaven is absolutely bleak and dull.

So, the eternity of god is a reality without humour, laughter, joy or fun and without any thrill, excitement, adventure nor upheaval. Eternity is a place of structure, order, grammar and symmetry for which it is absolutely without stark and monotonous. Even as I write this, I can hear the roar of all humankind crying out aloud, "BORING." Yes! Indeed, Heaven is boring. Can a god become bored? We think the answer is "Yes!" God can be bored. In fact not just bored but ABSOLUTELY and INFINITELY BORED!

And what is the solution to the boredom. The solution is CREATION. And by creation god can experience. He can do this by sending an infinitely small part (*x) of him into you. Thus, the Hindu have a saying that in the heart of every man is a temple; and in that temple there is a shrine. Within the shrine is a flame. You are that flame. And in our civilization we know it as the "Light of God" within us.

Thus, when Joseph Campbell taught Bill Moyers about the reality of opposites he did not only mean that in space/time there is good and evil, kindness and cruelty, generosity and selfishness, love and hate, calm and turbulence, peace and war, joy and pain, happiness and suffering and so forth. He also meant the visible and the invisible, because without the invisible there is no meaning to the visible; and without the intangible, the tangible can have no feeling. What then is the invisible and the intangible but the infinite Light of God.

However, even *x is god infinite. If you turned all the waters into whiskey, a trillion liters of it is whiskey, a pint of it is whiskey, a thimble full of it is whiskey. *x is still god and is infinite. This universe is god’s created product. It is, therefore, as an entity – finite, vast as it is. An infinite entity cannot enter a finite reality.

It can only do so if it can be contained and constrained within something. When it is so contained and constrained it will assume a certain form that, whatever it may be, will be finite and limited. In our work, Don’t Ask WHY?! we proposed that the form and way of a human being is a function of the set of imprinted life blueprints one uses to understand ourselves, others and the world we live in. Such imprinted blueprints are clearly semantic paradigms. The set were designated as the Hierarchy of Paradigms. It was abbreviated to HOPs:

The HOPs have three categories. They are:

a the General Paradigms. They are so named since they are shared generally by the members of a given societal or national group. This is not exactly exact since today, as a byproduct of the mass movements of peoples since World War II there is no societal or national group that is absolutely homogenous. The only exceptions that we can think of is Japan and some of the states that abut against the Himalayan mountain range like Bhutan or Sikkim. We cite below what they are:

Race &

Racial History

Culture &

Cultural History

Ethics &

Ethics History

Language &

Language History

Politics &

Political History

Legal System &

Legal History

Religion &

Religious History

Morality &

Moral History

Social System &

Social History

the Specific Paradigms. They are so named since they are specific and unique to a given person

the Meta Paradigm. There are two. It is either by thinking by Causality or by Relativity

We represent what we have stated in the following diagram:

The outer ontological manifestations are the outer personalities we put on for the benefit of this world or for our own private benefit. They are the outer social selves that we role play in our lives to get the satisfaction of our wants and desires, needs and greeds and the cover for our worries, anxieties and our fears. This is how Shakespeare said that this world is a stage and we are but actors playing out our roles.

It is therefore in the experience of creation that:

god knows the mesa of all that god knows by meta

god is free of the boring constraints of the eternity of heaven.

God cannot die. In creation he enjoys the experience of death in all its infinite myriad of possibilities. God has never known what it is to have an itch. In creation by this sentient entity, god has the enjoyment of it:

This patient came with this flamboyant diagnostic label, Chronic Prurigo Nodularis. In the vernacular it mean chronic itching nodules. And how they itched and there was no treatment or cure. In desperation she came to us for that old Western voodoo known as Hypnosis. When she came she was so desperately bitter, frustrated and angry that none of the specialists that she had been to could help with her itch let alone to cure her of her Chronic Prurigo Nodularis.

This patient in fine today. But in the course of my work I had to teach her this truth that in eternity, god never ever had an itch. Now finally, her and now, she was enjoying the experience of the itch of her life. Once she heard this, she cracked up laughing.

Of course when the point sinks in, there are some people who feel such a terrible scratch to their ego and self-importance. They cannot believe that the gift of their life is nothing but a way to satisfy the whim and fancy of their god.

All over the civilized world are grand palaces, castles, mansions, chateaus and villas. For us we think of Versailles, Blenheim, Hampton Court.

In their hey day, the kitchens of these places were full of cockroaches. Now let us suppose that the cockroaches were imbued with our abilities of sentiency, cognition and communication. What would you think if they said to each other, "Let us pray and give thanks to the duke of the palace who has created us to love him and worship, gave us dominion over this wonderful kitchen and when we die he will take us to his great kitchen in the sky." What really would you think when relative to the God we are infinitely insignificant than the cockroach is to the duke? Well, perhaps it is true what they say about us, we fancy ourselves and how we love to do so.

THIS ARTICLE IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND IT CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL/OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND HAS EXEMPTION FROM EXPOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW.