Simone Weil versus the horrible God of Power
Simone Weil believed that the idea of a God of power and might provoked a
response of fear and the thought that he was your king would make you angry
towards him for making demands on your freedom. She said that for God to suit
our needs he would have to empty himself of his divinity and cease to be God
(page 93,98, Faith and Ambiguity). To be an example of self-renunciation he
would have to give up the privileges of being God. It would not be enough for
him to empty himself of deity as man in Jesus for essentially he would still be
the same sovereign God for only the human part would be emptied.
The following might be the response of some to this. If we were angry and
fearful of this God then the reason this would be is that we do not trust him. A
being we trust and see as good would not inspire this response in us. What
really makes us angry is not his power but his goodness. We fear his power
because we fear his goodness for that means he has the power to do what he wants
which is good. If he had no power we would not fear his goodness.
Since we are by nature egoists and that is why religion says we will not cease
to sin until after we leave this world and go to Heaven it follows that she is
right about us disliking a God of power for this God will use the power to get
what he wants for he says he knows it all when he says he is good. It is up to
him what good is and not us. Fear and anger are the only things God could
produce in us and the love is based on anger and fear and so it is not love at
all but a convincing fake. Thus to merely believe in God is to advocate a
mystery that is not good for us.
Real love is letting others be free to do what they want and make their own
mistakes and being there for them when you are needed. How could you love God
then for he is going to do what he wants for he is the supreme being and you are
a mere speck of dust? You can’t let him make his own mistakes for he doesn’t
make any and you can’t be there for him when he is unhappy because he is perfect
and is not like man and is perfectly happy. So loving God is letting him do what
he wants which means that if you love God most then you are missing out on two
superior parts of love: being there for another person in their troubles and
letting them make their own mistakes. It is inferior to loving a human being or
loving yourself. It is not far from inhuman. If you can’t love God the most then
there is no point in worrying about him or belief in him for the big attraction
is supposed to be that loving God is a good thing. Letting God do what he wants
would seem to include letting him do what he wants with you – such as turning
you into a holy person like himself. But love means that you let people do what
they incline to do and people do have different inclinations and perceptions and
none are perfect. But God must want to remove diversity for some inclinations
are better than others and he is perfect meaning he is not diverse or
interesting. To love means that it is helping others to try and control their
lives. There is no benefit in loving God.
Everybody says they don’t blame people who lose a loved one in tragic and
horrifying circumstances for saying that God is not good to them. If they don’t
blame them then it is it not selfish to say God is good when all is going well
for you? Does it not imply a lack of sympathy and empathy for the bereaved. The
sympathy that God is supposed to arouse is totally repellent for when improved
health for women has made women more likely to have babies outside of marriage
and obviously to have “illicit” sex it follows that the Church must regret these
scientific advances. The bad times were good enough to be allowed to happen by
God and he allowed them because they helped restrain sin a lot. A believer has
to concur with that so the believer must wish that the bad old days never went
away.