Happiness and the Problem of Evil
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1994.
Atheists are accused of expecting God to make us all happy instead of letting us suffer and die.
Christians say that is the fundamental error behind atheist arguments that God cannot exist because of the problem of evil.
They insist that happiness is not everything. But they teach ethics is about virtue. And all authorities agree that virtue is good because it brings happiness and is still worth doing for it is the only chance of happiness there is.
Aristotle taught that morality is about what will make you happy and about fulfilling yourself. Thomas Aquinas agreed but added that spiritual happiness is what matters most. Both argued that happiness is not about how you feel but about how you act. If you are miserable but doing the right thing by others and by God and yourself then you are happy. You are well in the way it counts. Spiritual happiness is just a scam - believers tell you you can be spiritually happy even when crippled by a dreadful sickness or depression. It is a way of redefining happiness so that it means nothing like what we understand by happiness.
The next astounding declaration of this Catholic book is that happiness is not feeling happy! How desperate of this book! It says you can be happy and feel nothing and that happiness is under your control and is permanent. This tells us we have a duty to be detached from feelings like love and hatred for suffering. That is just another trick to make us able and ready and willing to do whatever the Christian leaders want. It is abnormal to be happy when you feel nothing because you know it is better to be have a wonderful feeling of happiness. If you are happy without the feeling there is something wrong with you. Being happy implies having the best and enjoying it for happiness implies being true to your dignity. The book agrees with the latter part for it says that no matter how happy Nero felt when he set fire to Rome he was not happy. Page 141 admits that if we are to be happy in the true sense we have to lose the shallow happiness meaning the happiness we feel. This is an attack on falling in love and entertainment and so on. It says you can feel healthy without being healthy and so you can feel happy without being happy. But this analogy is deceptive. Happiness is in the mind and health is physical and so the analogy fails for you can know if you are happy but not if you are really healthy. You cannot be happy in any shape or form or in the way the book wants you to be happy without believing and seeing and understanding that you are a good person. But with the health thing you don’t know you are unhealthy or at least the way you feel convinces you that you are healthy no matter what the doctors say. No proof at all is given that happiness is not a feeling which is what they are trying to prove which shows they support the traditional Heaven of joyless joy and happiness-free happiness which has nothing to offer except being better than Hell. We all feel something all the time so happiness has to be a feeling. In reality, this philosophy tells us that Christianity does not want to give this arid artificial happiness to people at all just as much as it does not want to give the warm happiness to them for Christianity says we are always sinning in some way so how could you think of yourself as a good person to experience that “happiness” then?
The book makes out that happiness is a choice and nothing more in fact blames
the victim of the evil person and not the evil person for the unhappiness. It is
as callous as the notorious book The Secret inferring that those who died in the
Holocaust brought it on themselves by thinking negative thoughts.
Do we really want happiness without feeling happy? Of course not. We see the
greater evil as being “happy” without feeling happy rather than being “unhappy”
as Christians call it and having happy feelings and this is logical and right.
Let Christianity preach the first kind of happiness if it wants for nobody will
follow it then. We see then that the book only teaches that happiness is
detachment from all feelings of well-being to convince us that suffering is not
a bad thing for we are not meant to be happy as in feeling happy anyway. I wish
the Church would be more openly anti-happiness so that it will be seen for the
danger it really is but it gets its victims through public relations and
deception for they think the Church really wants them to have happy feelings.
If you are unhappy when you are doing something sinful or anti-God and
anti-Heaven no matter how happy you feel then it follows that you cannot be
happy unless you know there is a life after death in which you will have eternal
happiness as understood by the book. So the less sure you are the less happy you
are. God wants faith so this means that you will not know for sure and he does
not want you to be happy at all. You cannot be happy in any form if you cannot
see that happiness for sure and see it as something permanent and if you are
told not to trust yourself that you will stay true to God and die in his
friendship. You get the picture from considering that when you are blissfully
happy the realisation that it will not last pains you and the greater the
happiness the worse the pain will be. Buddha gave us this insight and it is
right. Anybody that is happy in the sense meant by the book must have something
wrong with them or be deceiving themselves. They might be mad or possessed.
If we cannot truly be happy on earth in sense that we feel happy and strive to
do so then we cannot make others happy and there is no love in the world only
emotional artificial love. God could not have made us and gave us free will just
for that if the book is right.
One thing is for sure, if you are a believer in an all good God you have to
agree that happiness is not a feeling because if it is then goodness is pleasure
and God should have made us perfectly happy from the moment we were conceived.
He did not so he does not exist. The redefinition of happiness is really the old
idea that love is painful and agonising selfless sacrifice under different
terminology for it is renouncing for when you turn away from emotional happiness
to have sterile happiness that must cause pain for you would rather have the
first. Better one minute of elation than two or more minutes of sterile
happiness.
Theologians warn the world that Atheists have made the error of assuming that
God should make us all happy and that atheists conclude from the reality of
suffering that there is no God. But would that be an error?
The quick answer is that if God's love is perfect then when he loves a person
that love is more important and valuable than any love that person could manage.
For him to make a person so that that person could love would be crazy when his
purpose is to make more love for his own love does the trick. If God makes
people like us who according to him are not much good for anything but sinning
then he is reducing his own love for loving the sinner and hating the sin is
impossible. He can only do what increases love and making people who are so
prone to sin is not doing that.
Theists say that love as in selflessly willing good is good and since love is
not happiness love is better than happiness. This kind of love does not exist
and is not possible so religion and God condemn everything we do when they say
that. Love the emotion gives the reward of pleasure and satisfies some need in
us so it is never selfless.
But is this selfless love better than happiness?
If it is then it is better to murder a baby than an adult for the baby can't
love. To say the baby will be able to love if it is allowed to live is not an
answer.
Happiness is self-evidently good and love is not. Even happiness that rejoices
in evil is good and it is just the motives and circumstances that are bad. Love
looks bad for it demands pain and suffering and seeks to be an example of such
to the people "helped".
Love, as theists understand it, is not good just because it is sacrifice. God of
course disagrees. So he could have a free being should be brought into existence
just to be unhappy and sacrificial. That is a chilling idea and nobody likes it.
Many find it impossible to believe. But love could be good for no other reason.
God would not need to create if he is almighty for he could satisfy himself if
he is lonely. And also, if he did, making one free person would do. Love must be
good for it makes us happy. But it doesn't. Your feelings cannot be produced if
they are not there. Feelings happen to you not because of you. You could love
and the feelings not come. People assume that free will is for happiness. Free
will would disprove the existence of a good God whether we assume love is for
happiness or not.
If God wants us to be happy and we are able to be happy without free will then
we should not have free will to threaten it. If we have free will it is a
punishment for no reason but to satiate divine insanity and not a blessing. If
God is good then we have to be completely misanthropic and heartless for he
wants us to be like him.
Love in the religious sense is not helping others but struggling to do it. It is
not the people that matter but the struggle for if helping was the most
important God would do it himself the fast way for he has miracle powers. If it
were the people you would be allowed to enjoy helping them and to do it for
pleasure. Love under that understanding is evil and an unnecessary evil. We
better hope that we do not have free will.
Religion says it is not enough to want to do good but you have to go out and do
it and that that is the way it should be. But the truth is the world should be
in such a state that we would want to suffer to help others if necessary but
have no reason to and that would not make us inferior people in any sense. If we
don't abuse children for example will God have to do it for us so that we can
have the struggle of helping the victims? The suggestion of theists that good is
good when it is only an intention or will to do good but not fully good until it
is put into action assumes that we should be able to do good which is not
clearly true. True a will to do good is better if it is carried out in the sense
that it heals a bit of the world but we are saying the world should not need
that healing and it is down to their God that it does. The free willists are
saying you are not as good a person unless you prove your good intention by
carrying it out. Ideas like that suggest that the cripple is not as useful a
person as a person who is not a cripple. The believers mean that healing is not
important but what you do with the will is what is important. I could be as good
as the person who can put their good into action only if I can't so it is wrong.
Being able implies that others should have problems to enable you to help them
which makes no sense so a good God would be happy enough with our good intention
when it is the best we can do and it should be the best we can do for there
should be no suffering or not much anyway.
If free will is a gift we have from God then that means that God wants us to
make sacrifices for others by loving and wants us to be evil and do evil so that
there will be plenty of opportunity for sacrifice and love when we repent. Free
will implies that there should be mostly suffering and that it must come to pass
one way or the other and suggests that if we scientifically come up with a way
to prevent evil forever we should shelve it.
We would not need to be free if love were for happiness. If happiness is the
goal for us and God approves then we can't have free will. That is because free
will is not for happiness. It is not needed for it. If God is good, God would
not give free will.
Sacrifices for ourselves are not real sacrifices because we will benefit from
them. That's what we are performing them for. What about sacrifices for
ourselves and others as well? But then you avoid any sacrificing simply by doing
the things you like that will benefit others and get the same results. For
example, you could get praise and help the sick to get better if you don't want
to do it but pretend that you do. You can get the same results by doing it
because you want to and are only doing it to make yourself feel good in which
case it is not sacrifice. It is motive that determines if an act is a sacrifice
or not. God does not want this: he wants sacrifice so God made us to freely
sacrifice ourselves for others selflessly.
The sacrifice doctrine is not worth the sin it causes. God would have to do
without the sacrifice. He should have made us as happy robots when we cannot
sacrifice.
Unhappiness must always be a vindictive and corrupting punishment not mere
retribution for sin if you believe in God. How else could you explain it then?
It cannot be a sin to do harm in that case or if the harm is permitted by
justice. When you cannot sin by doing harm then God should not let us be able to
harm at all if he is just worried about free will.
Many think that you should not suffer for it's own sake but for some good that
is worth it. Suppose you accept your sufferings for God's will. When you are not
as sure that you will live to see the results but are sure you suffer now for
something that means you are willing to suffer and put a greater certainty
before a lesser one. That means you should suffer for its own sake and degrade
yourself by suffering. But that is only if you have free will. This argument
proves that God could not give free will even if he wanted to and that we should
all be conscious robots.
God claims to be perfect goodness and therefore the being to be loved above all
things. Free will then would be given so that we can make the choice between
loving God alone or something else in his place. When God implants reason in all
mankind and does not implant the truth that he alone is to be loved and others
for his sake only what is the use of the free will defence when only Christians
and Jews know it? Perhaps everybody should be robots-made-of-flesh except Christians and Jews.
Suppose we had no method of proving that love is better than happiness. We would
not be able to prove that it is worse either. The free will defence would not be
a defence at all in that case. There would then be absolutely no evidence at all
for it and therefore for God. Even the greatest miracle would not be evidence
because there is no evidence for the free will defence which would be the only
thing that could declare it possible for God to exist for even miracles prove
nothing if free will cannot exist or be believed in.
We should all be happy instead of being free. We see then that if happiness is
good and holy the unhappiness refutes the existence of God.
Why is sacrifice for love good? Because it makes others happy? But then what
about your own happiness? It forbids you and every other person to be interested
in your and their own. It is contradictory to say that you should forget about
your happiness in order to give it to another person for why them and not you?
If you should avoid making yourself happy then it is hate to make another happy.
Therefore happiness is more important than love and the free will defence is
wrong for saying otherwise and certainly cannot be interpreted as being
pro-happiness. Yet the fact that unhappiness is seen as an evil is the reason
the defence was made up in the first place. It is all very confusing and very
hypocritical and very incoherent.
It is the way people are made that makes them happy. Nobody can just reach out
and grab happiness. It happens to them not because of them. Sacrifice is done
for its own sake. It is done for the sake of suffering.
When I am more sure that I exist than that anybody else does then to suffer for
others in such a way that I am putting them first and not me is to refuse to
love myself especially when I cannot tell if it is I or they who are suffering
most. I only know what is in my mind. Love as in free-willed self-sacrifice for
others could not be better than happiness and unfree will when it is impossible
in such a situation. It is impossible because you are asking others not to love
you when you try to love them. If they loved you they would not let you help
them. I want to make them evil so my love is fake. That is evil. God could not
give us free will if he were good. However, it is possible to suffer for others
in such a way that you can still put yourself first but you have to believe that
you come first and not God and so it contradicts the free will defence which
says that God or good comes first. All martyrs put themselves first anyway
except when they are crazy.
We conclude that the only objection Christians can come up with against the atheist argument that unhappiness shows there is no God is an utter failure. They denigrate happiness in order to make God and evil seem to fit together.