Gödel's first incompleteness theorem states that:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,[1] but not provable in the theory (Kleene 1967, p. 250).
Wikipedia --- Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
That is, given a set of axioms from which theorems may be deduced: consistency means that none of the axioms or theorems may contradict each other, and completeness means that all possible true statements may be deduced from the given axioms. The incompleteness theorem, proven by Gödel and others, states that we cannot have both consistency and completeness in any set of axioms and deduced theorems.
Translate that into religion. Given any set of rules or laws meant to be used as guides to our behavior, Gödel's incompleteness theorem would say that the rules and their applications to life cannot be both consistent and complete. In fact, I will go so far as to say that such sets of rules are usually both incomplete and inconsistent. They are incomplete because events and situations will occur in real life which will not be explicitly addressed by the rules. And they are inconsistent because situations will occur in real life where making a decision to keep one rule will at the same time cause the breaking of another rule. This is why salvation is by faith, and not merely by keeping the law. It is impossible to keep all of the laws perfectly all of the time.
Jesus ran into this very problem with the Pharisee's interpretation of keeping the Sabbath. He had to point out that it should be lawful to relieve hunger on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:5), to heal or take care of animals on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:10-12), to circumcise on the Sabbath (John 7:22-23), to do good on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:12). In dealing with the issue of contradicting laws, Jesus applied the principal that people were more important than the laws --- Mk 2:27, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In prioritizing the laws, Jesus made love the overriding principal --- Matt. 22:36-40, Love the Lord ... Love your neighbor. So, whenever we run into rule-keepers who are intent on pointing out our deficiencies in this regard, perhaps we should just smile and thank them for their concern.
Usually we define righteousness or holiness as keeping the rules. But when the rules come into conflict with each other someone must make a decision as to which rules will be kept, and which rules will be allowed to slide.
So, here's the contradiction. God is good, and loving, and merciful, and righteous. God gave us this rule: He who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin. So, if God sees pain and suffering but (from our point of view) does nothing about it, is it sin? Or, is our perception being warped by Satan?
Suppose, hypothetically, an innocent child is badly burned in a fire. We pray to God for the child to be healed, for the suffering to stop. After a year, the child dies. Given that God has the power to heal the child, was it wrong that God did not use His power to heal the child? After all, "he who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin."
I would suggest that one answer to the problem of pain and suffering --- Can God be both good and all powerful and still allow suffering --- is a matter of perception and timing. It is a matter of perception because Satan would have us believe the lie that this earth is all there is, there is no life after death, there is no hope, implying that we must have justice and pain relief here and now. But from God's point of view, death is merely the gateway into an eternal life without suffering. And it is a matter of timing because Satan would have us believe that a few hours of suffering is too much. But from God's point of view, where almost no one suffers for more than a "few" years, our lives are the blink of an eye compared to eternity.
God has set up rules to give us the freedom to do good or evil. He has set up physical rules for this universe, and He has limited our lifespan to a relatively short period of time from His point of view. When pain and suffering happen to innocent people, is it wrong for God to allow these "natural" rules to take precedence over our desire for "instant" gratification? And just how instant is instant? If God were to relieve pain before it even happened, then this world would not be one which allowed us the freedom to do evil to each other. But what limit would we set on God? Is two hours of pain too much to bear, theologically speaking? What about two years, or two decades of suffering? In the book of Acts, the man that Peter healed had been lame for 40 years. How long is too long before we decide that God is either not good, or powerless, or not there at all?
To God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. To us, our lifespan is almost always less than 120 years. No one is suffering for a thousand years. So, if Paradise is waiting beyond death, is the problem of pain (can God be unjust or unmerciful?) a matter of perception and timing?
Logan
No comments:
Post a Comment