The ‘Soul School’ Conception Of The World Cannot Be The Case: the atheist that took God more seriously than His followers
By: Relief Belief
Tags: Soul, God, Morals, Philosophy, Atheism

[This is a living document. It may be updated from its original published form.]

It is a popular thought both in Christian and non-Christian circles that adversity is valuable because striving to overcome adversity engenders growth which is hard won and rare. In this world we live in there is no doubt that striving is better than not striving because of this. That overcoming is admirable, worthy, and necessary. That the fruits of striving are rarer and therefore more valuable. Where would we be without overcoming adversity? Perhaps stuck on the metaphorical (or not?) beachhead of crawling out of the slime and onto the beach? But should this thinking be extended to topics like God, heaven, or other ways this world might have been?

In other words let us stipulate what we easily agree upon: in this life we know that worthy things tend to come at the price of effort. And that things that come without effort tend to be taken for granted, valued less, worth less. Holding back the march of entropy one way or another takes effort, and the ends are worthy and valuable. These things we agree on. Let’s not belabor them too much unless we have the need to do so.

However, we’ve passed over an important detail almost unnoticed. We are speaking in a context of “in this life”. There is no reason to necessarily apply this value judgement to God, or frames of reference outside of this life. After all, God is the most perfect thing and He was never less. Never grew by the sweat of his brow, never knew the pain of failure, the joy of overcoming. And by being perfect and not having striven, his followers value him not an iota less than they might have. He is perfect. Was always perfect. And this is not any sort of lack on His part. No one of his adherents wishes that at some point God was less so that He could in future be more.

This may be an awkward and slippery thought to grab a hold of: value systems that we all use all the time are usually framed in the context of “in this life” and we don’t feel a need to state or consider what frame we are operating in. But when we begin to ask questions beyond the context of this life — about God, or heaven — or posit questions of other ways life or existence might have been then we must be aware of the assumptions that are invisible: unjustified values along for the ride and not for a reason. In other words, we must have reasons to hold these positions in a different frame, beyond the fact that we do so in a separate, what seems to us — primary, frame. It goes without saying — but we’ll say it — that if one wants to be intellectually and ethically responsible, then one should know what their justifications are for their values, and this often results in a chain of values that need to be questioned.

If adversity is inherently valuable through some mechanism then we shouldn’t be able to find instances where it is not valuable. And yet, it seems hard to imagine that on a summer’s afternoon the reader, seeing some unfortunate soul cutting their lawn grass-blade by grass-blade with a pair of nail clippers would exclaim “How admirable! How much growth that person must be experiencing!”. But is this not to triumph over adversity? The lawn gets cut. The adversity is overcome. Much aching is experienced. Why not find value in this? Even better, we could also swear off the use of the telephone, indoor toilet facilities, running water and central heating. But yet, this does not seem like a valuable and noble pursuit and we do not do it. We do not even consider it. So: pointless adversity is pointless.

One’s intuition may be excused for still being fooled, and whispering that this cannot be the case. It tells us for instance, a self-made success is more valuable than inherited wealth. But the source of the value here lies in the assumptions we make: that being self made goes along with having or developing certain character traits like grittiness and sacrifice and a hard work ethic. The value comes from the value of those traits, and not the process or method of obtaining them. It is only because in our experience those traits mainly or only come through hard work and so we take a little mental shortcut and assume they must always go together. But they do not have to do so in another creation. Pointless labor is pointless and worthless inasmuch as it is pointless. The successful scion with qualities of good character has no less good character because she was born with them or at any rate did not go through adversity to get them.

Sometimes going through a process to obtain something does carry some value in the journey. Like taking a train ride to a destination instead of flying on an airplane. But only as much as we value what’s obtained by going through the process: we can certainly imagine instances when the extra time of a train ride is not wanted nor valued and the scenery neither. What matters to us is the ends. Not so much the means, unless the means themselves are also an end, as is the case of the train ride where we appreciate the scenery. Make no mistake though: if what matters is getting to the sickbed of a friend, then we make no bones about taking the fastest route. Which is to say that we value what is valuable, and we do not have to value pointless adversity.

We do not devalue God by saying, He did not work his way up to being God because he always was. And he did not develop his character by being less than perfectly good and then becoming better. And we do not value His love any less even though his very nature is to love us and He is therefore in a certain sense compelled to do so. Is there any doubt about these things?

Do you have an acquaintance or a friend that is really, truly kind, and cheerful and generous? And do you think less of her that she was always kind and cheerful and generous — that she was born this way? Does one harbor a feeling that this paragon of virtue somehow does not deserve to be appreciated and valued for her virtues? Perhaps in the diversity of possibilities one could, but why would one want to?

And so, if God were to create one soul that experienced a little less adversity, needed a little less growth — like our kind and cheerful and generous friend, would we look askance at the friend, or God? And if our friend was blessed with a little less adversity in their life — their relations were a little happier and their pets lived a little longer and their times of mourning a little less frequent — would they be lessened by this? Not inasmuch as their attributes of character or other things we value did not suffer, no. And let’s remember — God, by definition is only limited by the logically impossible. Unless it is logically impossible that a being can be created with a little more natural virtue and a little less pointless adversity and suffering and be none the worse for it — perhaps even in some other world than this, if necessary — then one must acknowledge there is a problem with the ‘soul school’ conception of the world. If you credit the idea at all even just a little, that a jot more natural virtues are not harmful or a life with a tittle less adversity isn’t harmful to the value of the person affected that is enough to discredit the whole monolith. Unless you are willing to sacrifice some part of the conception of god as good, and admit that He did not create the best world and the best circumstances He could. Is one willing to make that admission?

Some may resist the conclusion that God could have done better here. They will say, “Ah yes, but on the balance suffering and adversity is for the good”. This is also a serious moral mistake. Is not God a personal god? That loves each and every one like a parent? And while a parent might apportion some reasonable suffering to one child in this world we live in, especially for a greater good divided among the other children, a parent will never apportion an outsize suffering on one for the benefit of the many.

An older sibling may be required to babysit the younger ones and this tradeoff not thought to be onerous. But a larger personal sacrifice — say requiring of the older both kidneys — their life — for the betterment of two siblings would never pass. We need not look far for examples of children — children, experiencing deadly, continual heart wrenching suffering. Do not put this from your mind. Allow yourself to fully contemplate the depth of this possibility, admit that at least one child experiences largely only pain and suffering in this world and then expires. And then realize that ~15,000 children under 5 die in the world every day. Butterfly children exist. Infants are raped, children are caged, tortured, abused, burnt. They are turned into child soldiers and forced to commit atrocities on other children — and while you may be aware of some fairy tale ending for one who escaped or was reformed, do not dishonestly pretend there is not another that was far less lucky and experienced all of the evil and then died without any redemption or rescue. This is the sort of suffering calculus that does happen in the world and must be accounted for if one wants to go down the road of claiming “on balance” suffering is “good”.

But there is no accounting. You know it in the morals written upon your heart that this is wrong. One cannot force this sort of sacrifice. And even if one colluded to bring about consent it would still be wrong. Or does one want to affirm that God asks approval for the life he has planned before he sends a soul to live such a life? Do those that end up in hell or with lives that resemble such on earth have informed consent then and go forward in any case? This is like the example of a parent coercing-convincing the sibling to give up both kidneys for the others.

Let us just nod towards another point: whatever human suffering is in the world, there has been as much or more pointless animal suffering, and much of it perpetrated by — but not limited to — human beings. Consider also, that some spark of an imago dei might be seen by a sympathetic eye in some of these animals.

In the beginning of the Book of Job, we learn that God has put a hedge around Job and his household and blessed the work of his hands. Is there someone who will say that this blessing from God is actually a bad thing? That God has harmed Job by giving him blessings? That Job having a successful and happier life by God’s hand has lost some valuable chance at more pain and fear and sadness? No, we do not. And remember, Job is created — and so if some lack of Job’s was to be revealed by the having of these blessings, well then God would be within His powers and His rights to simply create Job in a way that did not have this weakness.

And so you see, we already knew this answer all along: pointless adversity inasmuch as it is pointless is worthless, and virtues valued are valued no less for how we came to have them. Some niggling details and intuitions may linger, but these are only products of how we often encounter things in this world — like expecting a shoe to be one of a pair but these expectations are only that, and not a way things must be. Especially when we are contemplating other ways of being in other possible worlds.

And therefore, a soul need not be less if it is created perfect and finished. If it be already complete and created that way we have no need to wonder, was that soul wronged? It was not any less for having been so.

Knowing these things we are forced to conclude: a loving perfect God could certainly have created loving and good beings with a nature of love and of good and any lack of experiencing evil or suffering or growing out of pain or triumph over adversity would matter as little as failing to give up your indoor plumbing in favor of the outhouse. In other words, inasmuch as suffering is pointless, it is not valuable and not needed in a possible world created by God unless that world is purposely created with a need of suffering and of evil and growth and adversity by design. But designing in a need for adversity is not required. Indeed, designing a world with suffering and adversity when they are not needed would be evil. Instantiating souls with perfect foreknowledge some number will only suffer and expire — perhaps before going to hell — is evil. Even if one is compensated after the fact. Consent has still been violated, and in any case compensation does not make an evil not have happened. After all, Jesus could be seen to have willingly sacrificed in full possession of informed consent, but one would not say that his sacrifice never happened because he was compensated with eternal life later. Compensation is just that. It does not erase the act that brought the need for compensation about. What compensation might one imagine a rapist could give to make a rape like it never happened? So compensation is not operative. We needn’t try to account for this by later rewards — that are not guaranteed for all the suffering souls we are talking about anyways, and if there is just one that evil applies for then the justification has doubly failed. Let us make this explicit — if there is one soul that suffers unconsented evil in the world, grows up bitter or stunted by it, and goes to some version of hell because of it — even if one is choosing the least costly version of hell being simply annihilation, then in your calculus a soul has been punished infinitely and unjustly. So: to say that compensation is a defense is to be hoist on the petard of such a counter example.

We live in a world based on scarcity and so our values are warped by its presence. It is certainly the case that a possible way of being — a world of souls without scarcity — and with created good natures is possible for an all powerful all good God, himself without change, or lack, or development, or growth — or choice to love or not love. Even in the case were goods inextricably bound to sufferings it would still be immoral to sup at the table set by the unconsented sufferings of even one. Moreso immoral for the God that created the scene in the first place, whether or not there was a better way. Better for creation never to have happened than to fuel bliss for some on the backs of unconsented evil, suffering and infinite punishment for some others who never had a chance.

But as I have shown, there is no reason to think there was no better way available, and certainly a slightly better way is easily imagined. And even admitting a slightly better way as a possibility is enough to tumble any sort of narrative that involves the maximally knowing, the maximally powerful and the maximally good.