This was a comment from subscriber BackZ, following the second Epstein episode. Nothing to add. “The most famous chapter of Brothers Karamazov is "The Grand Inquisitor," but the one right before it, "Rebellion," contains another long monologue by Ivan in which he details the genesis of his rejection of God (not disbelief but a 'rebellion,' as Alyosha calls it). As he relates to Alyosha, Ivan's disillusionment with Jesus and His promise of eternal harmony stems from harrowing stories Ivan has read about the suffering of children:
I agree with you about “returning the ticket” on the social and political level.
“Returning the ticket” on the level of divinity and ultimate meaning over something like this is obviously a more troublesome prospect.
I’d like to say that I would not return the ticket there. I know that’s the “right answer,” even in the face of the most unspeakable horrors. In fact, that’s what Christianity (along with many other religious traditions) teaches us and prepares us for. Not losing faith in the face of these horrors is what makes faith worth anything at all.
And one related pitfall may be that when facing horrors like these through a worldview and in a society that has abandoned God and faith, the sublimated religious impulse manifests itself in zealotry on the sub-divine level of vulgar politics. (The recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and Clay Routledge is a fascinating exploration of this).
A wholesale “return of the ticket” here can lead to totalitarian political projects, Utopianism, and ultimately catastrophe. And maybe this is where Ivan has ended up. From Brothers Karamazov: “For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from Earth but to set up Heaven on earth.”
Of course I can’t say that I would always make the “right choice” in returning one ticket and keeping the other here. Not until life puts my nose in such horrors first hand would I know what my choice would be. It’s hard to read BK, get to know Ivan, and still be naive enough to think I would have access to the “right answer” when shit hits the fan. Unless I build my life around it.
One of my family friends just passed away last year. A French Jew, she was a little girl when the Nazis rolled through Paris in spring 1940. She was hidden away in a convent and passed off as a Catholic orphan. Obviously, she made it through the war; her family, however, did not. I met her only a few times, but I remember this story was brought up at a family dinner and her saying that, when she died, she was planning to demand from God an answer to why it was that her family had to be killed, that her childhood had been taken from her, that so many had been murdered with the name of God on their lips?
At the time, I heartily agreed with her, and it only added fuel to the fire for my atheism - really, anti-theism (I used to watch a lot of Christopher Hitchens material). However, after some years of further reflection and reading the Bible, I can now imagine God's response to her question: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=KJV
'Not losing faith in the face of horrors is what makes faith worth anything at all' - sounds like something Kierkegaard could have written! To put it another way (and more glibly): believe first, then ask your questions. God is always there- as you allude to, it is we who have abandoned Him.
'Believe first....then ask questions?'. Is there any other aspect of life in which you use this methodology? How can I know the Koran is not the true word of God if I don't ask questions before believing the book?
I realize that I may have portrayed myself as a believer in the God of the Bible as He is understood among the various Christian faiths; while I appreciate and value the insights found in these traditions (Catholicism most of all), I am by no means any sort of orthodox Christian believer. So I do not, for example, endorse the Lutheran/Protestant doctrine of sola fide, which I now see is perhaps the tradition which that comment was perceived to be supporting.
As we all know, belief in something metaphysical and transcendent certainly did not arise with Christianity, nor with Judaism. Indeed, religious faith of this kind is historically speaking a human universal. I'm no Traditionalist (nor have I read enough to make any sort of educated judgment of the movement), but I do see humanity sharing in common this desire to commune with something immaterial as a means of trying to understand. I think this is what you're referring to (and please correct me if I'm wrong), or at least what is opened up as a possibility, if one says that we must first reason and then find faith. There are certainly arguments like this that have been proposed throughout the ages - Aristotle's unmoved mover, Anselm's ontological argument - but, at least for me, such exercises have always felt cold, as though I were trying to animate something lifeless.
If we instead view belief in something greater as a feeling that we begin with, an inspiration (the etymology of this word is important), we get closer to how humans operate. Reason is a tool, but it is not a beginning nor a destination; as a tool, it is best used as a means. But you have to have a starting point, even if you don't know the destination yet. Asking questions is fundamental, and reasoning one's way through the answers that may be on offer is vital, but if we don't start somewhere, we are consigned to confusion. How do we know where to start? I submit that we cannot know - because beginning is not a thought but a feeling. I think Descartes is a far deeper philosopher than he is commonly given credit for, but I disagree (humbly) with his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am;" can you use reason to prove that you are an 'I?' I say no - your I-ness is, to speak in terms of logic, a given in the proof. As a tool, reason is a faculty, and it is therefore not pars pro toto of the I. To bring it back to your question concerning methodology, the way I approach the world is through an understanding that I begin as an inscrutable being who cannot fully comprehend himself because there are parts of what it is to be me (and to be a 'me') that are beyond the reach of reason to plumb.
Perhaps you will say this is just a 'God of the gaps' argument; for myself, I'm fine with that. In fact, that's the point - there is not only much in the material world that will remain unfathomable by human minds, but the very nature of what it is to be a phenomenal consciousness (to borrow David Chalmers' term) is likewise unknowable. As there is so much left mysterious by virtue of our common biology and psychology, I find solace in my ignorance; more than solace, I find inspiration. Nietzsche is often seen as being anti-theist, and rightly so - he was no fan of Biblical God (to say the least). But in his writings from Thus Spake Zarathustra onwards, he begins to speak of the god Dionysus in an almost religious manner. Indeed, while interpretations abound, the principle of eternal return can be viewed as a sort of catechism: to will the eternal return of the same is to accept the world and one's own life as it is, to be grateful for not only the pleasures but also the suffering, and to accept our fate as individuals as well as our common lot as a species - death. As far as I see it, this is the most philanthropic disposition we can have, as it is just these elements of existence that make us human. As for God, we cannot know Him necessarily, but we can be inspired by Him to be grateful, humble, and joyous.
Thank you for the prompting - I clearly like to type. Forgive me if I have misconstrued something in your question, and also forgive me for making you read all of that!
From Nietzsche's early essay Richard Wagner in Bayreuth:
“The individual must be consecrated to something higher than himself – that is the meaning of tragedy; he must be free of the terrible anxiety which death and time evoke in the individual: for at any moment, in the briefest atom of his life’s course, he may encounter something holy that endlessly outweighs all his struggle and all his distress – this is what it means to have a sense for the tragic…And if the whole of humanity is destined to die out – and who dares doubt that? – so the goal is set for it that is its supreme task…to grow together in one and in common that it sets out as a whole to meet its coming demise with a sense for the tragic…All the ennoblement of humankind is enclosed in this supreme task; the definite rejection of this task would be the saddest picture imaginable to a friend of humanity.”
Such horrors that little girls faced in WWI & WWII have led many to lose faith. This fall resulting in some who have embraced cruel and cold methods without this moral compass, and a cycle of violence. It is precisely this reason, the cold logic and cruelty, that led me to reject the Koran as religious truth, and the OT as incomplete. The Koran reads like the OT in some ways, without much of its nuance that foreshadowed the NT.
So in answer to your question...ask questions first, then believe. Asking questions of corrupted societies is not the same as asking those questions of their supposed guide to life. But even the NT calls this faith "foolishness", that some systems of pure logic might reject.
My answer is only a comparison of the reasons why one is superior to the other. As a guide to rule a nation state at large the NT may fall short of the Koran and the OT, if that is your basis of truth.
The modern interpretive texts of the Rabbinical tradition stand apart and offer more, but I find the NT a better place from which to start.
Your viewpoint is interesting and thank you for it. But my question was directed at the apologist (seemingly) viewpoint of 'Believe first and ask questions later' as a rebuttal to the problem of Evil question. The point being is that if one uses this methodology, any Muslim is correct in his faith as he should not ask questions as soon as he is given his religious indoctrination.
Fair point. Mainstream Western faiths have formed many answers to the problem from a biblical perspective I find limited. I formed my answer in parallel with cosmology or metaphysics.
There was once a debate between Einstein and Neil Bohr (if I remember correctly) over chaos theory versus determinism. If we assume that natural law exists, and that a generative force is governed in some way by the laws of nature the choices of sentient beings are their own. The paradox that free will and predestination exist is biblical and confuses the matter.
As an example a loving father may raise a child, and send them out into the world only to find that evil befalls them despite his best efforts. This does not negate his love or goodness. Perhaps another of his own children murder the sweet child out of jealousy. Would it be better to have mindless robots that obeyed?
Some people today assume it is better to forgo children as the world is an awful place at times.
Christianity has forms where only adults are allowed to join the church, around the age of marriage. Having those who falsely join or are forced to has created numerous problems. Parents though are free to guide their children. All cultures and belief systems indoctrinate their children to some extent. Otherwise we would have to drop them off by themselves like in the Lord of the Flies to create their own beliefs.
I don't know that its confirmed Predestination is biblical. The originator of Predestination as a religious tenant was John Calvin. This means that 1,500 years worth of theologians studied the bible, and did not see proof of Predestination. I might also believe that Predestination would form a belief of a minority of modern Christians though I am not an expert in the field and I could be incorrect.
But if I am reading your overall point correctly, its that evil befalling children does not negate the optimal course which is that they not be 'mindless robots'. Correct, but perhaps the greater point here might be that there are paths to create the conditions in a world that would minimize or completely negate 'evil' al together and its not clear that religion, or Christian philosophy as its practiced, gets us to that world.
Also also, I am not sure its proven Free Will exists, or rather, the default position that we have free will seems to increasing at odds with the increasing abundance of scientific literature. Here specifically I would reference the work of Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris.
this is the kind of post that makes my subscription worthwhile. I have read this 5 times and am still digesting it! I have also really been enjoying "Always with Honor". Good stuff!
I’m not advocating it in any direct way, but seeing people get away with this level of evil is the kind of stuff that brings about vigilantism. Vigilantism is justice when the system no longer works.
There are those who have committed horrible acts against Christians to prove their God false. Eusebius's book on the martyrs is one I could not finish. Satan once tempted Jesus to jump and let angels catch him. Jesus's response was something like "do not tempt/test God."
More than the OT or many other faiths, the NT emphasizes that his kingdom is not of this world. It is a mistep to assume God will catch you when you fall. Small communities of Christians do exist. But most fail to take into account that the kingdoms of the world are Satan's. When they seek polical power beyond protection, they typically fall short of perfection.
I would argue that the suffering of children is regarded differently depending on a whole host of factors and variables. People don't treat it uniformly. Episode 2 of the Epstein podcast talked about child sex abuse in relation to people in powerful positions. These are treated one way while other instances such as teachers and coaches or strangers of low position are treated in another. (And for that matter consider the treatment of convicted sex offenders in the events surrounding the Kenosha riots to reference the November 13 podcast.) Consider the "Satanic panic" and "Stranger Danger" of the 1980s where there was a belief that Satanic child abuse and stranger abduction were widespread and common, when the reality was that though these instances happen (as horrifically shown in this podcast by well documented evidence) that they are actually very rare and other types of abuse (by acquaintances, family members and other children who had been victimized themselves) and family member abductions far and away much more common though far less addressed. (How many of us grew up hearing we should never talk to strangers but were never told that if another kid touches us inappropriately we should tell an adult?) Even though these kinds of instances were rare, there was a huge public outcry to about these types of cases that shaped public perception. For example, a few states have passed laws restricting the movements of registered sex offenders specifically on Halloween and many others have implemented less official programs because of the perception that there is a greater risk that children will be kidnapped, molested or even murdered on Halloween. The reality is that Halloween is not associated with a greater risk of child abduction, molestation or murder but it there is a documented increased risk of pedestrian accidents with young children as victims on Halloween, not to mention a nationwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes among young children. (OK the last time I made a comment, I mentioned Halloween and for the record I actually really like Halloween and it's a lot of fun, especially with kids.) There is a lot of fear surrounding the victimization of children, though what people think is utterly unacceptable versus "Ummm... I'll look the other way" tends to vary a lot based on the children, the perpetrator and the circumstances as history shows us. Darryl made the comment that we would generally expect that our family friends would report child abuse, but I think that is not really the case. I think most of us could point to cases we know of where a family member covers for an abuser or doesn't leave, allowing the abuser to keep abusing the spouse and/or children. I listened to the Jocko podcast on Johnny Kim as I was trying to figure out how to escape my marriage without my ex taking my children and refusing to let me see them. I think my viewpoint on that podcast and Kim's upbringing is probably different than a lot of other people who listened to it. I personally think that it's more of an exception that people stand up to evil than a rule. I don't think I'm a cynic, but I know how easy it is to just stay in denial and I've seen it. As for where God fits into this, I don't think any of us have any really good answers. One example of scripture I have encountered that attempts to address this question is the Book of Mormon. The book of Alma chapter 14 contains a terribly haunting passage that describes to ancient Meso American prophets being forced to watch an atrocity against women and children and being constrained from making it stop. There are probably more questions than answers in this passage, though the Mormon doctrine of agency (the ability to choose) as a fundamental pre cursor to virtuous action sheds some light on the perspective in that passage in particular.
This passage is an illuminating starting point, and I'd like to say a few things about where it can direct our thinking about all this.
I finished this episode a few days ago, and I don't think I've ever felt this psychically injured. It has left me with a singular, nagging idea. The idea is this: the reality of these crimes confounds our normal ways of making sense of the world. When we learn about them our understanding reaches a limit. And, to put it somewhat hyperbolically, it is possible that our ignorance of that limit in some way implicates us in the very crime itself.
How do we begin to make sense of something like this? The Dostoyevsky quote is a helpful starting point, because it sheds light on the phenomenon itself: the love of torturing children, a desire to torture precisely what is defenseless, because it is defenseless.
But the unanswered question is why. Why does so much of humankind have this sadistic desire, a desire that is apparently so corrosive and devilish that it lies at the heart of global conspiracies? Why does this exist? Why does it plague us and where does it come from? Is it truly fathomless? Just as Hannah Arendt claimed about genocide, only genuine understanding and thinking can begin to stop the cycle and possibly provide a kind of spiritual salvation.
So I’d like to suggest a partial answer, even if this answer might risk oversimplifying or exonerating the criminals (which is certainly not my intention, quite the contrary): The source of this sadism lies in the unconscious.
Let me explain what I mean by way of a lengthy quote from the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller In her book Freedom From Lies:
“It did not happen during the war, nor in the so-called Third World. It happened in the middle of Europe, in one of its most civilized countries. In 2005 a small girl by the name of Jessica was starved to death by her parents in the German city of Hamburg. They looked on impossibly as the child attempted to stave off the pangs of hunger by eating her own hair or bits of material she had bitten out of the mattress. At the same time, they indulged themselves to the hilt, washed their food down with lashings of alcohol, enjoyed their meals, and did nothing to save their daughters life.
Understandably, most people believe that there can be no explanation for this fathomless hatred for a child of one’s own. Such extreme cruelty is regarded by the public as entirely incomprehensible… But the really astonishing thing is that the so-called experts, medical and psychological, agree that this case is unprecedented, although almost every day there are reports of perverted child abuse in the newspapers… One can hardly avoid the impression that there is some tacit agreement preventing people from asking the simple question ‘Why?’
The cruelty of individuals is not something imposed on them by some mysterious agency but by their parents and other people involved in their upbringing. It takes shape in the brain of a child exposed to cruelty. This is an established fact from which we cannot avert our eyes, and it should be part of the ABC’s of forensic psychiatry. It must no longer be concealed or played down if we want to prevent infanticide and other crimes.”
With that in mind, I wonder to what extent this principle — that sadism toward children takes shape in the childhood of the abuser, and that in the ignorance of suffering endured in childhood lies the source of suffering inflicted to others — can be applied to the case of systematic child torture. There is no question that these criminals are guilty. But how should we understand their motivation? Of course the torture of animals, who are also defenseless, is driven by a similar sadism.
I’m not sure this gives us a complete picture of what’s happening here, but I think it builds on the Dostoyevsky passage in a meaningful way.
The point, I think, is perhaps even more bewildering than passive ignorance. It is the failure to think deeper into the roots of this evil -- both in our own lives and our communities -- that is repeats the violence. We simply dismiss it as "evil" in itself, without thinking, because we often lack the power and the will to think. Let me put it another way closer to what A. Miller wants to say: these crimes are the nemetic symptom of generations of perverse cycles of violence, whereby each successive generation takes revenge on their parents through violence toward not just anyone, but specifically children. Why children? Precisely because it is they who are innocent, and it is that innocence into which these people want to sink their teeth. In this perversion, everything becomes inverted: evil is innocent, and innocence is evil and must be canceled out, tortured, mutilated, starved...
I have come to think of this issue (thanks to this podcast) as THE unspoken crime of our time, every bit on par with genocide, inasmuch as it is a crime not just against these children themselves but against humanity as such.
That this is an emergency and should be treated as such is clear. But my question is: how can we think deeper about these crimes?
Unrelated question but I'm not sure if there's a general discussion board where I could ask. DC could you share a bit about your jiu jitsu/martial arts journey?
Fantastic reference.
I agree with you about “returning the ticket” on the social and political level.
“Returning the ticket” on the level of divinity and ultimate meaning over something like this is obviously a more troublesome prospect.
I’d like to say that I would not return the ticket there. I know that’s the “right answer,” even in the face of the most unspeakable horrors. In fact, that’s what Christianity (along with many other religious traditions) teaches us and prepares us for. Not losing faith in the face of these horrors is what makes faith worth anything at all.
And one related pitfall may be that when facing horrors like these through a worldview and in a society that has abandoned God and faith, the sublimated religious impulse manifests itself in zealotry on the sub-divine level of vulgar politics. (The recent conversation between Jordan Peterson and Clay Routledge is a fascinating exploration of this).
A wholesale “return of the ticket” here can lead to totalitarian political projects, Utopianism, and ultimately catastrophe. And maybe this is where Ivan has ended up. From Brothers Karamazov: “For socialism is not merely the labour question, it is before all things the atheistic question, the question of the form taken by atheism to-day, the question of the tower of Babel built without God, not to mount to Heaven from Earth but to set up Heaven on earth.”
Of course I can’t say that I would always make the “right choice” in returning one ticket and keeping the other here. Not until life puts my nose in such horrors first hand would I know what my choice would be. It’s hard to read BK, get to know Ivan, and still be naive enough to think I would have access to the “right answer” when shit hits the fan. Unless I build my life around it.
One of my family friends just passed away last year. A French Jew, she was a little girl when the Nazis rolled through Paris in spring 1940. She was hidden away in a convent and passed off as a Catholic orphan. Obviously, she made it through the war; her family, however, did not. I met her only a few times, but I remember this story was brought up at a family dinner and her saying that, when she died, she was planning to demand from God an answer to why it was that her family had to be killed, that her childhood had been taken from her, that so many had been murdered with the name of God on their lips?
At the time, I heartily agreed with her, and it only added fuel to the fire for my atheism - really, anti-theism (I used to watch a lot of Christopher Hitchens material). However, after some years of further reflection and reading the Bible, I can now imagine God's response to her question: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+38&version=KJV
'Not losing faith in the face of horrors is what makes faith worth anything at all' - sounds like something Kierkegaard could have written! To put it another way (and more glibly): believe first, then ask your questions. God is always there- as you allude to, it is we who have abandoned Him.
'Believe first....then ask questions?'. Is there any other aspect of life in which you use this methodology? How can I know the Koran is not the true word of God if I don't ask questions before believing the book?
I realize that I may have portrayed myself as a believer in the God of the Bible as He is understood among the various Christian faiths; while I appreciate and value the insights found in these traditions (Catholicism most of all), I am by no means any sort of orthodox Christian believer. So I do not, for example, endorse the Lutheran/Protestant doctrine of sola fide, which I now see is perhaps the tradition which that comment was perceived to be supporting.
As we all know, belief in something metaphysical and transcendent certainly did not arise with Christianity, nor with Judaism. Indeed, religious faith of this kind is historically speaking a human universal. I'm no Traditionalist (nor have I read enough to make any sort of educated judgment of the movement), but I do see humanity sharing in common this desire to commune with something immaterial as a means of trying to understand. I think this is what you're referring to (and please correct me if I'm wrong), or at least what is opened up as a possibility, if one says that we must first reason and then find faith. There are certainly arguments like this that have been proposed throughout the ages - Aristotle's unmoved mover, Anselm's ontological argument - but, at least for me, such exercises have always felt cold, as though I were trying to animate something lifeless.
If we instead view belief in something greater as a feeling that we begin with, an inspiration (the etymology of this word is important), we get closer to how humans operate. Reason is a tool, but it is not a beginning nor a destination; as a tool, it is best used as a means. But you have to have a starting point, even if you don't know the destination yet. Asking questions is fundamental, and reasoning one's way through the answers that may be on offer is vital, but if we don't start somewhere, we are consigned to confusion. How do we know where to start? I submit that we cannot know - because beginning is not a thought but a feeling. I think Descartes is a far deeper philosopher than he is commonly given credit for, but I disagree (humbly) with his famous dictum "I think, therefore I am;" can you use reason to prove that you are an 'I?' I say no - your I-ness is, to speak in terms of logic, a given in the proof. As a tool, reason is a faculty, and it is therefore not pars pro toto of the I. To bring it back to your question concerning methodology, the way I approach the world is through an understanding that I begin as an inscrutable being who cannot fully comprehend himself because there are parts of what it is to be me (and to be a 'me') that are beyond the reach of reason to plumb.
Perhaps you will say this is just a 'God of the gaps' argument; for myself, I'm fine with that. In fact, that's the point - there is not only much in the material world that will remain unfathomable by human minds, but the very nature of what it is to be a phenomenal consciousness (to borrow David Chalmers' term) is likewise unknowable. As there is so much left mysterious by virtue of our common biology and psychology, I find solace in my ignorance; more than solace, I find inspiration. Nietzsche is often seen as being anti-theist, and rightly so - he was no fan of Biblical God (to say the least). But in his writings from Thus Spake Zarathustra onwards, he begins to speak of the god Dionysus in an almost religious manner. Indeed, while interpretations abound, the principle of eternal return can be viewed as a sort of catechism: to will the eternal return of the same is to accept the world and one's own life as it is, to be grateful for not only the pleasures but also the suffering, and to accept our fate as individuals as well as our common lot as a species - death. As far as I see it, this is the most philanthropic disposition we can have, as it is just these elements of existence that make us human. As for God, we cannot know Him necessarily, but we can be inspired by Him to be grateful, humble, and joyous.
Thank you for the prompting - I clearly like to type. Forgive me if I have misconstrued something in your question, and also forgive me for making you read all of that!
From Nietzsche's early essay Richard Wagner in Bayreuth:
“The individual must be consecrated to something higher than himself – that is the meaning of tragedy; he must be free of the terrible anxiety which death and time evoke in the individual: for at any moment, in the briefest atom of his life’s course, he may encounter something holy that endlessly outweighs all his struggle and all his distress – this is what it means to have a sense for the tragic…And if the whole of humanity is destined to die out – and who dares doubt that? – so the goal is set for it that is its supreme task…to grow together in one and in common that it sets out as a whole to meet its coming demise with a sense for the tragic…All the ennoblement of humankind is enclosed in this supreme task; the definite rejection of this task would be the saddest picture imaginable to a friend of humanity.”
Such horrors that little girls faced in WWI & WWII have led many to lose faith. This fall resulting in some who have embraced cruel and cold methods without this moral compass, and a cycle of violence. It is precisely this reason, the cold logic and cruelty, that led me to reject the Koran as religious truth, and the OT as incomplete. The Koran reads like the OT in some ways, without much of its nuance that foreshadowed the NT.
So in answer to your question...ask questions first, then believe. Asking questions of corrupted societies is not the same as asking those questions of their supposed guide to life. But even the NT calls this faith "foolishness", that some systems of pure logic might reject.
My answer is only a comparison of the reasons why one is superior to the other. As a guide to rule a nation state at large the NT may fall short of the Koran and the OT, if that is your basis of truth.
The modern interpretive texts of the Rabbinical tradition stand apart and offer more, but I find the NT a better place from which to start.
Your viewpoint is interesting and thank you for it. But my question was directed at the apologist (seemingly) viewpoint of 'Believe first and ask questions later' as a rebuttal to the problem of Evil question. The point being is that if one uses this methodology, any Muslim is correct in his faith as he should not ask questions as soon as he is given his religious indoctrination.
Fair point. Mainstream Western faiths have formed many answers to the problem from a biblical perspective I find limited. I formed my answer in parallel with cosmology or metaphysics.
There was once a debate between Einstein and Neil Bohr (if I remember correctly) over chaos theory versus determinism. If we assume that natural law exists, and that a generative force is governed in some way by the laws of nature the choices of sentient beings are their own. The paradox that free will and predestination exist is biblical and confuses the matter.
As an example a loving father may raise a child, and send them out into the world only to find that evil befalls them despite his best efforts. This does not negate his love or goodness. Perhaps another of his own children murder the sweet child out of jealousy. Would it be better to have mindless robots that obeyed?
Some people today assume it is better to forgo children as the world is an awful place at times.
Christianity has forms where only adults are allowed to join the church, around the age of marriage. Having those who falsely join or are forced to has created numerous problems. Parents though are free to guide their children. All cultures and belief systems indoctrinate their children to some extent. Otherwise we would have to drop them off by themselves like in the Lord of the Flies to create their own beliefs.
I don't know that its confirmed Predestination is biblical. The originator of Predestination as a religious tenant was John Calvin. This means that 1,500 years worth of theologians studied the bible, and did not see proof of Predestination. I might also believe that Predestination would form a belief of a minority of modern Christians though I am not an expert in the field and I could be incorrect.
But if I am reading your overall point correctly, its that evil befalling children does not negate the optimal course which is that they not be 'mindless robots'. Correct, but perhaps the greater point here might be that there are paths to create the conditions in a world that would minimize or completely negate 'evil' al together and its not clear that religion, or Christian philosophy as its practiced, gets us to that world.
Also also, I am not sure its proven Free Will exists, or rather, the default position that we have free will seems to increasing at odds with the increasing abundance of scientific literature. Here specifically I would reference the work of Dr. Robert Sapolsky and Sam Harris.
this is the kind of post that makes my subscription worthwhile. I have read this 5 times and am still digesting it! I have also really been enjoying "Always with Honor". Good stuff!
I’m not advocating it in any direct way, but seeing people get away with this level of evil is the kind of stuff that brings about vigilantism. Vigilantism is justice when the system no longer works.
You're right. If no one knows there can be no justice. Courage is very rare.
There are those who have committed horrible acts against Christians to prove their God false. Eusebius's book on the martyrs is one I could not finish. Satan once tempted Jesus to jump and let angels catch him. Jesus's response was something like "do not tempt/test God."
More than the OT or many other faiths, the NT emphasizes that his kingdom is not of this world. It is a mistep to assume God will catch you when you fall. Small communities of Christians do exist. But most fail to take into account that the kingdoms of the world are Satan's. When they seek polical power beyond protection, they typically fall short of perfection.
The Book of Revelation is often misinterpreted.
I would argue that the suffering of children is regarded differently depending on a whole host of factors and variables. People don't treat it uniformly. Episode 2 of the Epstein podcast talked about child sex abuse in relation to people in powerful positions. These are treated one way while other instances such as teachers and coaches or strangers of low position are treated in another. (And for that matter consider the treatment of convicted sex offenders in the events surrounding the Kenosha riots to reference the November 13 podcast.) Consider the "Satanic panic" and "Stranger Danger" of the 1980s where there was a belief that Satanic child abuse and stranger abduction were widespread and common, when the reality was that though these instances happen (as horrifically shown in this podcast by well documented evidence) that they are actually very rare and other types of abuse (by acquaintances, family members and other children who had been victimized themselves) and family member abductions far and away much more common though far less addressed. (How many of us grew up hearing we should never talk to strangers but were never told that if another kid touches us inappropriately we should tell an adult?) Even though these kinds of instances were rare, there was a huge public outcry to about these types of cases that shaped public perception. For example, a few states have passed laws restricting the movements of registered sex offenders specifically on Halloween and many others have implemented less official programs because of the perception that there is a greater risk that children will be kidnapped, molested or even murdered on Halloween. The reality is that Halloween is not associated with a greater risk of child abduction, molestation or murder but it there is a documented increased risk of pedestrian accidents with young children as victims on Halloween, not to mention a nationwide epidemic of type 2 diabetes among young children. (OK the last time I made a comment, I mentioned Halloween and for the record I actually really like Halloween and it's a lot of fun, especially with kids.) There is a lot of fear surrounding the victimization of children, though what people think is utterly unacceptable versus "Ummm... I'll look the other way" tends to vary a lot based on the children, the perpetrator and the circumstances as history shows us. Darryl made the comment that we would generally expect that our family friends would report child abuse, but I think that is not really the case. I think most of us could point to cases we know of where a family member covers for an abuser or doesn't leave, allowing the abuser to keep abusing the spouse and/or children. I listened to the Jocko podcast on Johnny Kim as I was trying to figure out how to escape my marriage without my ex taking my children and refusing to let me see them. I think my viewpoint on that podcast and Kim's upbringing is probably different than a lot of other people who listened to it. I personally think that it's more of an exception that people stand up to evil than a rule. I don't think I'm a cynic, but I know how easy it is to just stay in denial and I've seen it. As for where God fits into this, I don't think any of us have any really good answers. One example of scripture I have encountered that attempts to address this question is the Book of Mormon. The book of Alma chapter 14 contains a terribly haunting passage that describes to ancient Meso American prophets being forced to watch an atrocity against women and children and being constrained from making it stop. There are probably more questions than answers in this passage, though the Mormon doctrine of agency (the ability to choose) as a fundamental pre cursor to virtuous action sheds some light on the perspective in that passage in particular.
This passage is an illuminating starting point, and I'd like to say a few things about where it can direct our thinking about all this.
I finished this episode a few days ago, and I don't think I've ever felt this psychically injured. It has left me with a singular, nagging idea. The idea is this: the reality of these crimes confounds our normal ways of making sense of the world. When we learn about them our understanding reaches a limit. And, to put it somewhat hyperbolically, it is possible that our ignorance of that limit in some way implicates us in the very crime itself.
How do we begin to make sense of something like this? The Dostoyevsky quote is a helpful starting point, because it sheds light on the phenomenon itself: the love of torturing children, a desire to torture precisely what is defenseless, because it is defenseless.
But the unanswered question is why. Why does so much of humankind have this sadistic desire, a desire that is apparently so corrosive and devilish that it lies at the heart of global conspiracies? Why does this exist? Why does it plague us and where does it come from? Is it truly fathomless? Just as Hannah Arendt claimed about genocide, only genuine understanding and thinking can begin to stop the cycle and possibly provide a kind of spiritual salvation.
So I’d like to suggest a partial answer, even if this answer might risk oversimplifying or exonerating the criminals (which is certainly not my intention, quite the contrary): The source of this sadism lies in the unconscious.
Let me explain what I mean by way of a lengthy quote from the Swiss psychologist Alice Miller In her book Freedom From Lies:
“It did not happen during the war, nor in the so-called Third World. It happened in the middle of Europe, in one of its most civilized countries. In 2005 a small girl by the name of Jessica was starved to death by her parents in the German city of Hamburg. They looked on impossibly as the child attempted to stave off the pangs of hunger by eating her own hair or bits of material she had bitten out of the mattress. At the same time, they indulged themselves to the hilt, washed their food down with lashings of alcohol, enjoyed their meals, and did nothing to save their daughters life.
Understandably, most people believe that there can be no explanation for this fathomless hatred for a child of one’s own. Such extreme cruelty is regarded by the public as entirely incomprehensible… But the really astonishing thing is that the so-called experts, medical and psychological, agree that this case is unprecedented, although almost every day there are reports of perverted child abuse in the newspapers… One can hardly avoid the impression that there is some tacit agreement preventing people from asking the simple question ‘Why?’
The cruelty of individuals is not something imposed on them by some mysterious agency but by their parents and other people involved in their upbringing. It takes shape in the brain of a child exposed to cruelty. This is an established fact from which we cannot avert our eyes, and it should be part of the ABC’s of forensic psychiatry. It must no longer be concealed or played down if we want to prevent infanticide and other crimes.”
With that in mind, I wonder to what extent this principle — that sadism toward children takes shape in the childhood of the abuser, and that in the ignorance of suffering endured in childhood lies the source of suffering inflicted to others — can be applied to the case of systematic child torture. There is no question that these criminals are guilty. But how should we understand their motivation? Of course the torture of animals, who are also defenseless, is driven by a similar sadism.
I’m not sure this gives us a complete picture of what’s happening here, but I think it builds on the Dostoyevsky passage in a meaningful way.
Thanks for your response Jonathan.
The point, I think, is perhaps even more bewildering than passive ignorance. It is the failure to think deeper into the roots of this evil -- both in our own lives and our communities -- that is repeats the violence. We simply dismiss it as "evil" in itself, without thinking, because we often lack the power and the will to think. Let me put it another way closer to what A. Miller wants to say: these crimes are the nemetic symptom of generations of perverse cycles of violence, whereby each successive generation takes revenge on their parents through violence toward not just anyone, but specifically children. Why children? Precisely because it is they who are innocent, and it is that innocence into which these people want to sink their teeth. In this perversion, everything becomes inverted: evil is innocent, and innocence is evil and must be canceled out, tortured, mutilated, starved...
I have come to think of this issue (thanks to this podcast) as THE unspoken crime of our time, every bit on par with genocide, inasmuch as it is a crime not just against these children themselves but against humanity as such.
That this is an emergency and should be treated as such is clear. But my question is: how can we think deeper about these crimes?
It’s almost like the cults of Baal just rebrand as years go by.
They don't, the Devil's best trick was convincing people he isn't real.
There is an answer to this proposition of Ivan's in the Brother's K. It would be Fr Zosima's speeches in book 6 "the Russian monk".
The original Omelas story. This argument has stuck in my gullet for 35 years, when I first read it.
Distraught with grief. Bound to a culture. I will stand.
Indeed. https://kidsafefoundation.org/topics/qanon-a-statement-from-kidsafe-foundation/
Unrelated question but I'm not sure if there's a general discussion board where I could ask. DC could you share a bit about your jiu jitsu/martial arts journey?