Canterbury-SplinterFaith

The assignment was to write a paper exploring some of the philosophical, religious, or scientific questions that were exposed in the Nun's Priest's Tale by Chaucer. The paper was to show both modern and historical perspectives of the topic. The particular topic I choose to write about was to show three possible solutions to the paradox of omniscient and benevolent God who punishes sinners.

Human beings have a tendency to want to classify things. We like making fixed interpretations so as to make it easier on our minds. Therefore, when the human race became aware of a powerful being that created the universe, we gave to that deity certain traits that we ourselves didn't have. For who would want to worship someone who was just like you? The point of worship is to praise these qualities that make that particular being greater and more powerful than you are. Knowing that humans are obviously less than perfect, they gave to God the traits of being infallible, always choosing the right path, and never being wrong. In other words, God was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, and benevolent. The problem set before theologians was, if this type of God was real, then how did they explain why sinners go to hell? For example, since God knows everything, what he sees of the future must come true because he is also never wrong. So then, if God sees you committing a murder, then he has in fact sent you to hell. But the problem with that is that God is benevolent and therefore could not send one of his children to such torment. How could this argument ever be solved?

Then again, maybe God doesn't really care about sinners. Maybe the only reason why those people were created were to act as an example of what God's powers can do. In the Bible, God tells Abraham that he will destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorra because of how far the people there have strayed from the righteous path. Abraham goes on to ask God to spare the cities if he could find 100 followers of the faith there; God agrees to do so. Abraham then asks God again, lowering the amount to 50 people and again God concedes. This continues until finally Abraham asks that if there are 10 people in the city if God will spare the city and God grants Abraham this final request. Yet when God sends his angels to search for the innocents he cannot find enough. The only people found are Abraham's nephew Lot and his family. An angle is sent to warn Lot to leave the cities and to never look back during his exodus, which he quickly obeys. God then destroys the cities, turning Lot's wife to salt in the process since she disobeyed and looked back upon the cities as they were being destroyed. Such an event as that mass killing is necessary so that all might know and fear God's power. By agreeing to show mercy on the whole city of sinners for the sake of a mere 10, God proves his love and benevolence to his followers. By destroying those who oppose him and defile his world, God shows his power and righteousness. The sinners who go to hell are just serving the purpose they were created for. To do anything different would go against their nature and God's will. God is not unfair in using a tool to carry out the task it was created to do. By using that tool in such a way, God is able to create beautiful pieces that reflect his power and love for creation.

When arguing such a point as this theological dilemma, it is important to not limit your perspective. Otherwise the answer you are looking for might be just beyond your range of sight. That said, up to this point the argument has remained in the Jeudo-Christian arena. It is time to include some other ideas of faith, such as that of a "higher self" and "reincarnation." In some eastern religions it is believed that a soul does not die when the body does, but instead goes to a sort of in-between world where it stays until it inhabits another body. The purpose of having a single soul go through many lifetimes is to allow the soul to reach a higher understanding of what they truly are. As the soul reawakens hidden meanings of its existence, it comes closer to God and heaven where all the fully aware souls go to enjoy an everlasting paradise as compensation for what they endured on earth. In keeping with this idea of religion, God keeps to all of the requirements of the argument, without having to redefine anything. God can allow a sinner to go to hell because it is necessary for the soul to go through such pain so as to learn something about itself, thus becoming closer to the highest level of self-realization. Why should such a benevolent and loving God who is capable of creating paradise, make his children go through such pain and sorrow? That can be answered with a quote from Ben Franklin. "The worth of the well is known only once it has gone dry." If people were allowed to live in paradise from birth, they would have no way of appreciating just what exactly they were living in. What is good if one has nothing to compare it against? People must go through pain on this world so that they can fully understand and enjoy the paradise that they will have in the next life. Yet again something that appears to be cruel joke that God plays with his children turns out to be a blessing in disguise.

While all of this theological discussion fascinating, one has to keep in mind what is the main point of the discussion: faith. The simple and pure definition of faith is something that is believed without any sort of proof or explanation needed. By setting up logical justifications for their religions, theologians are in fact disobeying the principal rules of their doctrine. God does not ask for his followers to believe in Him is they can prove that He exists of if the rules set down in the holy tomes make sense to them. No. God is not restricted by the inability of man to percieve what God has planned. He does not need to explain himself to his children; that is the one of the main rights of being a parent. Our own parents have used the phrase "because I say so" many a time to explain why their children must do something. There is no difference from that case and the one between God and his children. By attempting to prove their faith so as to convert the atheists and other non-believers, the clergy defile the very thing that they hold dear.

There is no single answer for the question proposed at the beginning of this essay, or even if there should be an answer at all. A battle between all-powerful entities or a journey of souls in search of self-realization through hardship; any might be a possible answer. There is also the idea that by even contemplating the deeper meaning behind God's actions, we are assuring ourselves a place in hell along with the other unfaithful because we could not follow the simple rule of simply believing. The only sure thing we humans can do is to try and live a life in accordance to our morals and faith. There is no way for us to reason whether we act of our own free will or if we follow a plan of God, so our only choice is to continue to living each day as our ancestors have been doing for the past two millennia. We will find the answers eventually when we finally walk through that final tunnel into the light. Until then, live life to the fullest and hope that all will be revealed to us in due time.

The way ancient theologians had solved this dilemna was to set certain definitions for the qualities of God. Omniscent was defined as everything except the future. Therefore, if in the future you have the chance to committ a murder, you still have an equal opportunity to not committ the murder. God doesn't know about it, and so can't force it to happen because of his requirement to be infalliable. In that way, God isn't forcing you to committ crimes, merely punishing you for the crimes you have chosen to committ by virtue of the free will he gave to all men. But that is the ancients way of getting out of the problem. Like many dilemnas, there is more than one solution.