There is a Facebook post that presents a classic philosophical challenge known as the Epicurean Paradox or the "Problem of Evil." It essentially argues that if a human feels the moral impulse to help, but an all-powerful Creator does not act, then human empathy has outpaced divine character.
To maintain our journey through diverse perspectives, let's analyze this claim through the lens of the Participatory Universe, Karaite Theology, and the AMV Materialist view.
1. The Karaite View: The "Hiding of the Face"
A Karaite or traditional Jewish thinker would respond that this post fundamentally misunderstands the "Contract" between God and Man.
The Mandate of "Do": In the Torah, God doesn't conjure food to solve world hunger because He explicitly commanded humans to do it. The law of Peah (leaving the corners of the fields for the poor) and the tithes for the hungry are "Source Code" for a functioning society.
Hester Panim (The Hiding of the Face): Jewish theology suggests that God intentionally "withdraws" His overt power to create a space where human morality is actually meaningful. If God conjured food every time someone was hungry, human charity, sacrifice, and growth would be impossible.
The Rebuttal: The Karaite would say: "You aren't more moral than God; you are finally feeling the moral impulse God programmed into you so that you would act as His hands on earth."
2. The AMV / Materialist View: Biology vs. Theology
The critic AMV (whom you quoted earlier) would likely take the poster's side but remove the "God" element entirely.
Empathy as an Evolution: AMV would argue that your desire to feed a child isn't "Divine," it's Biological. Humans are social animals. In our "hacked-together" DNA, those who felt empathy for the vulnerable helped their tribe survive, passing those genes down.
The "Moral" Illusion: To AMV, saying "I am more moral than God" is like saying "I am more aerodynamic than the vacuum of space." If God doesn't exist (or is just a name for indifferent physical laws), then morality is a human survival strategy, not a cosmic standard.
3. The Participatory Universe: The Observer Effect
If we look at this through the "It from Bit" model (John Wheeler), the act of "observing" the starving child is what creates the moral reality.
The Experiment: If God intervened directly, the "simulation" of free will would collapse. The universe is "Fine-Tuned" for consequences.
The Conclusion: In a participatory universe, God provides the possibility of food (chemistry, seeds, rain), but the actualization of that food reaching the child’s mouth is the "Information" that only a human observer can provide through action.
4. Exploring "God's Morality" vs. "Human Morality"
The post assumes that "Moral" = "Preventing Pain." However, many ancient systems define "Moral" differently:
Biblical Morality: Often defined as Justice or Covenantal Loyalty.
Natural Morality: Often defined as Balance or Sustainability.
Expert Insight: The "Antidote" to the Paradox
The Rabbi and philosopher Jonathan Sacks once noted that when we see suffering and ask, "God, where are You?", God is actually looking back at us and asking, "Human, where are you? I gave you the food, the hands, and the empathy. Why hasn't the child been fed?"
The "Only Logical Conclusion" depends on your view of the "Tree of Knowledge":
Is your moral judgment a gift from God to help you fix the world?
Or is your moral judgment a sign that you have outgrown the "myth" of a Shepherd who never shows up?
No comments:
Post a Comment