Copious Crack
July 31, 2002
Roy Jacobson, at Dispatches from Outland posts a section from the children's story At the Back of the North Wind to explain how god can be good and do bad things but still be good at the same time.
The passage is an exchange between a boy, Diamond, and the North Wind, who is about to carry him a loft and into the sky. Oh yeah, she's going to sink a ship in the north sea at the same time:
Then you do mean to sink the ship with the other hand?""Yes."
"It's not like you."
"How do you know that?"
"Quite easily. Here you are taking care of a poor little boy with one arm, and there you are sinking a ship with the other. It can't be like you."
"Ah! but which is me? I can't be two mes, you know."
"No. Nobody can be two mes."
"Well, which me is me?"
"Now I must think. There looks to be two."
"Yes. That's the very point.---You can't be knowing the thing you don't know, can you?"
"No."
"Which me do you know?"
"The kindest, goodest, best me in the world," answered Diamond, clinging to North Wind.
"Why am I good to you?"
"I don't know."
"Have you ever done anything for me?"
"No."
"Then I must be good to you because I choose to be good to you."
"Yes."
"Why should I choose?"
"Because---because---because you like."
"Why should I like to be good to you?"
"I don't know, except it be because it's good to be good to me."
"That's just it; I am good to you because I like to be good."
"Then why shouldn't you be good to other people as well as to me?"
"That's just what I don't know. Why shouldn't I?"
"I don't know either. Then why shouldn't you?"
"Because I am."
"There it is again," said Diamond. "I don't see that you are. It looks quite the other thing."
"Well, but listen to me, Diamond. You know the one me, you say, and that is good."
"Yes."
"Do you know the other me as well?"
"No. I can't. I shouldn't like to."
"There it is. You don't know the other me. You are sure of one of them?"
"Yes."
"And you are sure there can't be two mes?"
"Yes."
"Then the me you don't know must be the same as the me you do know,---else there would be two mes?"
"Yes."
"Then the other me you don't know must be as kind as the me you do know?"
"Yes."
"Besides, I tell you that it is so, only it doesn't look like it. That I confess freely. Have you anything more to object?"
"No, no, dear North Wind; I am quite satisfied."
"Then I will tell you something you might object. You might say that the me you know is like the other me, and that I am cruel all through."
"I know that can't be, because you are so kind."
"But that kindness might be only a pretence for the sake of being more cruel afterwards."
Diamond clung to her tighter than ever, crying---
"No, no, dear North Wind; I can't believe that. I don't believe it. I won't believe it. That would kill me. I love you, and you must love me, else how did I come to love you? How could you know how to put on such a beautiful face if you did not love me and the rest? No. You may sink as many ships as you like, and I won't say another word. I can't say I shall like to see it, you know."
"That's quite another thing," said North Wind; and as she spoke she gave one spring from the roof of the hay-loft, and rushed up into the clouds, with Diamond on her left arm close to her heart.
So in an attempt to explain the contradiction between a purely good being doing evil things and still able to be considered good, we have an infinite being justifying being capricious, condescending and culpable by saying "Hey, it's just me. Deal."
Right - o.
You can't escape the inconsistencies and impossibilities of one children's story by appealing to another children's story. Well you can try, as Roy does, but not without the help of lots and lots of crack -- either to see the point or defend against the entire absurdity of it all.
But that's the point. It's God. You just can't understand.
Fine. If we can't understand something that is plainly wrong, then we also can't understand something that is plainly right. Our entire sense of moral certainty doesn't exist, nor does our capacity for reason, understanding or perception of reality. Which means that we also can't know that whatever a god teaches really is good because we have no ability to really discern such a thing.
In our world, people who can't believe what their senses are telling them are severely disturbed. Their inability to perceive reality is given the medical term schizophrenia -- a total disruption and breakdown in the functioning of the mind. It's a disability, a tragedy and very difficult to watch happen to someone you love. Which, by a quick and dirty analogy, must make us schizophrenics in the Meta-Cosmos of Eternity. Of course, we can't really even know that.
Nor can we even know that we don't even know that. Nor that we even know that we don't even know that we don't even know that we don't even...
Posted by Jody at July 31, 2002 11:36 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://WWW.nakedwriting.COM/mt-tb.cgi/1359
Comments
I'm afraid that I didn't state it clearly enough, if you think the point is "to explain how god can be good and do bad things but still be good at the same time" [emphasis added], because you've missed an important bit. It has to do with the difference between what we perceive as bad, and what is really bad. That's why I used the phrase "apparently evil thing" in the post in question. Just because I may think a thing is evil, that doesn't make it so.
Here's how I responded in the comments section over on my blog: Is getting stuck by a needle a good thing or a bad thing? My gut reaction is to say it's a bad thing, but then I start thinking about the times I've been stuck with a needle. Yeah, it always hurts, but it isn't always a bad thing, e.g. getting stuck with a needle because you're giving blood, or getting an injection of a life-saving drug.
OK, now think about a little kid being taken by mom to the doctor. The mom says "We need to let the doctor stick a needle in you, because if we don't, you're going to die." How is the kid--who knows nothing of infections or antibiotics, but knows that needles hurt--going to view getting stuck with a needle?
Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at July 31, 2002 11:43 AM
Excellent Point. Just because I think a thing is evil, it doesn't make it so. God declared what's evil and what's not. He has set the standard by which our emotions are driven. He has "written His law upon our hearts" (Rom 8).
If we think a thing is evil, and find that the person doesn't seem to have an evil intent, we immediately reanalyze the thing. What was the real motive? It may be clearly an "unpleasant" thing, but the MOTIVE determines the morality (good vs evil).
All things still have consequences (good and bad things). The Natural consequences and Legal consequences. The legal consequences are determined by leaders, and should take into account any natural consequences already suffered/enjoyed by the doer of the thing.
Posted by: William Janoch at December 31, 2003 10:32 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
