UNHAPPINESS THE MERE ABSENCE OF HAPPINESS?
How can a good God who makes all things make evil? The Christian answer is that
evil is really good in the wrong place and time so it does not exist and thus
cannot be created. Evil is there mere absence of good or good that is not good
enough. Good is a power and evil is not.
I have never seen this ever admitted in any religious book but the fact is that
the argument denies the doctrine that goodness is real happiness, the happiness
that comes from being caring. The doctrine talks about goodness as a theory. It
is a cold detached doctrine.
Happiness is a real power. So is unhappiness.
To say unhappiness is happiness which has not reached its full potential (or
that it is the absence of happiness) is to tell people they are wrong and mad to
sense that their unhappiness is a power. They experience its power. You are
insulting them. This leads to disregard of others and a form of positive
thinking that fails to notice the suffering of others. When you are talking
about their suffering you are using the word suffering but you don't know what
the suffering means for them. To tell people who experience suffering that they
don't for suffering is not real is evil and arrogant.
Unhappiness cannot be dismissed as being happiness in the wrong time or place.
That is saying that it is happiness that feels wrong. To say happiness is real
but unhappiness is not real is to say that happiness needs to be taken seriously
and unhappiness does not!
Suppose evil does not exist for it is just an absence of good. Suppose that
unhappiness is an experience and it is not real. Then how could happiness be
real either for it is an experience too? If unhappiness is a bad feeling and not
a real thing happiness is not real either for it is a feeling too. You could
even choose to say that unhappiness is real and happiness is not if you are
willing to say that happiness is real and unhappiness unreal.
Happiness is central to what we want for our lives. A doctrine that has to
insult and desecrate happiness for the sake of religious belief is just
anti-human. Happiness is not possible if we make out that unhappiness is more
good than bad.
If unhappiness is the absence of happiness, then is unhappiness the opposite of
happiness? Not if happiness is real and unhappiness is just faulty happiness!
If you are neither happy or unhappy you are in fact both at the one time! One
balances the other so that it ends up feeling like you feel neither! When you
feel hot and cold at the one time that means you feel both or you feel neither.
Either way means the same thing. If happiness has an opposite, then feeling
nothing, feeling dead inside, feeling indifference is the true opposite of
happiness.
It is possible to be both happy and unhappy at the one time! That is possible.
But it does show that it is nonsense to say happiness is real and unhappiness is
not. The unreal and the real cannot meet half-way.
The doctrine that evil is the absence of good ignores feelings and experiences
of happiness and suffering. It is thinking of a theoretical and abstract good.
This is the kind of good the argument cares about. The argument says that that
goodness is independent of pleasure, and happiness is a pleasure. That is just a
way of saying that pleasure is really evil. So the argument is very cruel and
can be even crueller. A cruel and unwarranted and cold-blooded murder and
murderer can be good in this view. It is safe to insist that belief in God
forbids happiness. The good this argument seeks to defend is pure evil or
make-believe. The religious people are redefining evil and good in order to get
devotees for God. God is their idol.
The argument or defence cannot admit that pain is the absence of pleasure for
pain is a power. It is a power that God made. This insinuates that suffering is
not bad but a great thing! To say suffering is great and good is incoherent.
This proves that the argument is totally unable to say what good is. It doesn't
really believe in good at all. How could it tell what evil is when it can't tell
what good is?
Augustine of Hippo, like his Church, assumes that we should not be perfectly
happy in this world and that God is right not to bestow perfect happiness on us.
How can he say this? He sees suffering and evil and misery in the world and
agrees that God is right to look down on it and refuse to eradicate it. He just
simply says it but that will not do. It is condoning the evil God does. It's an
assumption - it is not even a reason or an excuse. That is the assumption that
lies behind his assertion that evil is a privation of a good that should be
there. But this is philosophy-time not speculation-time. An assumption is not
good enough and will not do. We have asked can a good God allow evil and he has
answered it with an assumption about evil but what use is that? Assumptions in
such serious matters are terribly wrong and callous. The argument itself is
evil. It makes it evil to believe in God. End of story. Augustine in his
eagerness to trick people to adore evil as God even tries to make out that evil
is not evil but is good for it comes from God.
Happiness is one form of good among many others. Health is good but not much
good without happiness. Money can only be enjoyed by the happy but it cannot
make you happy. Happiness is the supreme good - it is top of the list of good
things. If we dismiss the supreme importance of happiness, we may as well not
bother with morals or religion or anything. To say happiness is unimportant is
to say people are unimportant. Happiness is the most important thing. It would
be insane to tell people, "Okay obey these laws of God but try your best to find
no joy in them or be willing to do nothing to make yourself happy." That is like
playing football and avoiding the goals. The argument that God the creator of
all is good because evil is not real is a red herring. The issue is happiness.
And happiness and unhappiness are real forces. Their reality proves that God
cannot exist and it is in some way heartless to say he does. It is heartless to
worship him.
Some say that happiness comes automatically if you do good without thinking
about being happy or trying to be. But it follows that it is our programming
then gives us the happiness. If we do good and end up happy, it does not follow
that the doing good was directly responsible. The way we are is responsible. If
you study and end up smart, it is not the study that does it but the potential
of your brain.
Christianity says that if you want the chance of happiness you have to repent of your sins. So does unhappiness include the absence of repentance? Is unrepentance the mere absence of repentance? Absolute unrepentance is more than just a vacuum. It is a real thing. The Christians promote evil by redefining it into something it is not. That is what it condones us suffering for!
We all know by instinct that happiness and unhappiness are powers. We have been
fooled into thinking we really want faith in God. We do not! Happiness is a
power and we want to feast on that power. Does it really matter where it came
from as long as we have it? No.