RSS
Sin, Evil, Inhumanity or The Argument from Evil
The Plague, (New York: Vintage International, 1948, 1975) 125-8.
I've seen too much of hospitals to relish any idea of collective
punishment. But, as you know, Christians sometimes say that sort of
thing without really thinking it. They're better than they seem.
[Father] Paneloux is a man of learning, a scholar. He hasn't come in
contact with death; that's why he can speak with such assurance of the
truth — with a capital T. Bet every country priest who visits his
parishioners and has to hear a man gasping for breath on his deathbed
thinks as I do. He'd try to relieve human suffering before trying to
point out its excellence. If [I] believed in an all-powerful God [I]
would cease curing the sick and leave that to Him. But no one in the
world believed in a God of that sort; no, not even Paneloux, who
believed that he believed in such a God. And this was proved by the
fact that no one ever threw himself on Providence completely. [S]ince
the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn't it be better for
God if we refuse to believe in Him and struggle with all our might
against death, without raising our eyes toward the heaven where He sits
in silence?
The Plague (New York: Vintage International, 1948, 1975), 37.
When a war breaks out, people say: "It's too stupid; it can't last
long." But though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent
its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see
if we were not always so much wrapped in ourselves... In this
respect our townspeople were like everybody else, wrapped up in
themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in
pestilences. A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure;
therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind,
a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and,
from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away. Our townsfolk
were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was
all, and thought that everything still was possible for them.
Albert Camus on Suffering said...
The Plague, (New York: Vintage International, 1948, 1975) 224.
His interest quickened when, in a more emphatic tone, the preacher said
that there were some things we could grasp as touching God, and others
we could not. There was not doubt as to the existence of good and evil
and, as a rule, it was easy to see the difference between them. The
difficulty began when we looked into the nature of evil, and among
things evil he included human suffering. Thus we had apparently needful
pain, and apparently needless pain; we had right that a libertine
should be struck down, we see no reason for a child's suffering. And,
truth to tell, nothing was more important on earth than a child's
suffering, the horror it inspires in us, and the reason we must find to
account for it. [H]e might easily have assured them that the child's
sufferings would be compensated for by an eternity of bliss awaiting
him. But how could he give that assurance when, to tell the truth, he
knew nothing about it? For who would dare to assert that eternal
happiness can compensate for a single moment's human suffering? He who
asserted that would not be a true Christian, a follower of the Master
who knew all the pangs of suffering in his body and his soul. No, he,
Father Paneloux, would keep faith with that great symbol of all
suffering, the tortured body on the Cross; he would stand fast, his
back to the wall and face honestly the terrible problem of a child's
agony. And he would boldly say to those who listened to his words
today, "My brother, a time of testing has come for us all. We must
believe everything or deny everything. And who among you, I ask, would
dare to deny everything?"
The Plague, (New York: Vintage International, 1948, 1975) 214-7.
They had already seen children die — for many months now death had
shown no favoritism — but they had never yet watched a child's agony
minute by minute, as they had now been doing since daybreak. Needless
to say, the pain inflicted on these innocent victims had always seemed
to them to be what in fact it was: an abominable thing. But hitherto
they had felt its abomination in, so to speak, an abstract way; they
had never had to witness over so long a period the death throes of an
innocent child. In the small face, rigid as a mask of grayish clay,
slowly the lips parted and from them rose a long, incessant scream,
hardly varying with his respiration, and filling the ward with a
fierce, indignant protest, so little childish that it seemed like a
collective voice issuing from all the sufferers there. Paneloux gazed
down at the small mouth, fouled with the sores of the plague and
pouring out the angry death-cry that has sounded through the ages of
mankind. He sank on his knees, and all present found it natural to hear
him in a voice hoarse but clearly audible across that nameless, never
ending wail: "My God, spare this child!" But the wail continued without
cease.
"Epistle II" in An Essay On Man (T. Tegg: 1811), pp. 61-2.
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, ¶ The proper study of mankind is Man. ¶ Plac'd on this isthmus of a middle state, ¶ A being darkly wise, and rudely great: ¶ With too much knowledge for the sceptic side, ¶ With too much weakness for the stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest; ¶ In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast; ¶ In doubt his mind or body to prefer; ¶ Born but to die; and reas'ning but to err: ¶ Alike in ignorance, his reason such, ¶ Whether he thinks too little or too much; ¶ Chaos of thought and passion, all confus'd; ¶ Still by himself abus'd or disabus'd; ¶ Created half to rise and half to fall; ¶ Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all; ¶ Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd; ¶ The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest; ¶ In doubt to deem himself a god, or beast; ¶ In doubt his mind or body to prefer; ¶ Born but to die; and reas'ning but to err: ¶ Alike in ignorance, his reason such, ¶ Whether he thinks too little or too much; ¶ Chaos of thought and passion, all confus'd; ¶ Still by himself abus'd or disabus'd; ¶ Created half to rise and half to fall; ¶ Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all; ¶ Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurl'd; ¶ The glory, jest, and riddle of the world!
Barry Goldwater on Human Nature said...
With No Apologies: Personal and Political Memoirs (Morrow : 1979), 320 pages.
We have conjured up all manner of devils responsible for our present
discontent. It is the unchecked bureaucracy in government, it is the
selfishness of multinational corporate giants, it is the failure of the
schools to teach and the students to learn, it is overpopulation, it is
wasteful extravagance, it is squandering our national resources, it is
racism, it is capitalism, it is our material affluence, or if we want a
convenient foreign devil, we can say it is communism. But when we
scrape away the varnish of wealth, education, class, ethnic origin,
parochial loyalties, we discover that however much we've changed the
shape of man's physical environment, man himself is still sinful,
vain, greedy, ambitious, lustful, self-centered, unrepentant, and
requiring of restraint.
Why I Am Not a Christian (Simon and Schuster: 1957), p. 12.
If you are quite sure there is a
difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is
that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's
fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and
wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is
good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you
must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is
independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not good
independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to
say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God
that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their
essence logically anterior to God.
"Do We Survive Death?" in Why I Am Not a Christian (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1957), 88-93.
[I]t is only when we think abstractly that we have such a high opinion
of man. Of men in the concrete, most of us think the vast majority very
bad. Civilized states spend more that half their revenue on killing
each other's citizens. Consider the long history of the activities
inspired by moral fervor: human sacrifices, persecution of heretics,
witch-hunts, pogroms leading up to wholesale extermination by poison
gases... Are these abominations, and the ethical doctrines by which
they are prompted, really evidence of an intelligent Creator? And can
we really wish that the men who practiced them should live forever? The
world in which we live can be understood as a result of muddle and
accident; but if it is the outcome of deliberate purpose, the purpose
must have been that of a fiend. For my part, I find accident a less
painful and more plausible hypothesis.
The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1872-1914, (Boston: Little Brown, 1967), pp. 3-4.
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my
life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable
pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds,
have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep
ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair... Love
and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the
heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of
pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by
oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the
whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what
human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot, and I
too suffer.
"Why I Am Not a Christian" in Bertrand Russell on God and Religion (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1986), p. 62.
Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and
millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce
nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascist, and Mr. Winston
Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say:
"Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been
design in the universe." I am not very impressed by the splendor of
those people. Therefore I think that this argument of design is really
a very poor argument indeed. Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws
of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on
this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the
pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage
of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth
which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in
the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of
thing to which the earth is tending — something dead, cold, and
lifeless.
