Objection 2:  Further, everything I’ve read by him so far is right.

Objection 3:  Further, the Church says he’s a really cool guy.

On the Contrary:  St. Thomas Aquinas falsely claims that the argument of Objection 6 is not demonstrative in Article 2 of Question 46 when, in fact, it is demonstrative.  He does this because he misunderstands an objection to his position that it cannot be demonstrated the world has a beginning in time.  Instead, he maintains the clearly absurd notion that it is possible to have an infinite regress in time (an infinite past).

I Answer That:  The original objection to St. Thomas’ position is “…if the world always was, the consequence is that infinite days preceded this present day. But it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium. Therefore we should never have arrived at this present day; which is manifestly false.”  The Angelic Doctor answers “…passage is always understood as being from term to term. Whatever bygone day we choose, from it to the present day there is a finite number of days which can be passed through. The objection is founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.”  

However, the objection is not founded on the idea that, given two extremes, there is an infinite number of mean terms.  Rather, it is founded on the fact that to be in the present day means all days in the past have, well, passed.  And even though it is indeed true that for any given day in an infinite past there is only a finite amount of time between it and the present, it is also true that there yet remains an infinite amount of time prior to any given day in an infinite past that must have passed before that day.  This leads us to conclude that an infinite past is self-contradictory, because assuming the present day is here, and it is indeed here, means an infinite number of days have indeed passed, or rather an infinite amount of time has terminated.  But an infinite amount of time by definition cannot terminate.

Further, the first extreme (the present day being the second extreme) is missing, so there can be no passage to the present in the first place.  Why?  Because present conditions depend on past conditions for their existence, and an infinite past would necessitate an infinite regression in efficient cause which Aquinas has properly demonstrated as nonsensical (ironically, by using the exact same logic underlying the objection to his position on the possible infinite nature of the past).

Further, time is the measure of the motion of something moved relative to the motion of something else moved.  Thus, the speed of a car is measured relative to the rotation of the earth (miles per hour).  If there was an infinite past, it would require infinite regression in things moved since time is their measure of motion relative to one another.  Once again, this has been demonstrated by Aquinas to be nonsensical.  In order to attain the present state of motion, there must be a First Mover which is unmoved.  Therefore, time must not have an infinite past duration.

Reply to Objection 1:  I really like him too, but he’s wrong sometimes.  More often than you would think, actually.

Reply to Objection 2:  But now you’ve read even further, and found him to be wrong on occasion.

Reply to Objection 3:  Yes, but he’s not infallible, and his philosophy needs to be revised and excised of its mistakes.

For more on my argument, see this post.

First of all, we need to decide on an acceptable definition for the word “God.”  By God, I mean a Being upon which other beings depend, or from which other beings derive.  This God has several attributes, and the main ones are omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, atemporality, and omnibenevolence.

Omnipotence:  The power to do anything that is logically possible.  By definition, that which is logically possible cannot be contrary to God’s own nature, because God gives existence to the rules of logic, and in a real sense is Logic (Logos).

Omniscience:  God knows all things past, present, and future.  In fact, it would be more accurate to say that God is the Knowledge of All Things.  As the Determining Principle of the universe, it is obvious that God should contain such perfect knowledge, since all things are contained within him.

Omnipresence:  God is present everywhere and in all things, but is not synonymous with each thing considered apart from the whole, just as a foot cannot be said to be a man.

Atemporality:  Since God is the source of motion, defined as change of any sort, his essence must not be within time, since time is a measure of motion.  Moreover, we know that the future already exists potentially in the present, and that the past exists necessarily, so God must sustain all three.

Omnibenevolence:  God is the law that determines what is good, just as he is the law that makes objects attract one another or water flow downhill.  Evil exists as a byproduct of good, since the freedom to love is impossible to have without the freedom to hate, and the good of victory cannot be had without the evil of struggle.  Therefore, God is Goodness itself; he is the reason something is good; he is the law that makes an act pleasurable, etc…  And the fulness of Goodness cannot be had without permitting the existence, or at least the potential, for evil, defined as a defect or deviation from a particular object’s good, relative to that object.

Now that you know what I mean by God, we should be able to proceed with minimal misunderstandings.  If you’re still confused by my definitions, it might be helpful to think about God just as the set of all universal laws, considered as a whole, because that is exactly what God is.  All the divine attributes can be discerned from this one fact.

“When we observe the world around us, we may sometimes wonder if life is nothing but a series of random events. We may have heard people say, ‘Mrs. Zhang is such a nice lady. She is a vegetarian, practices the Dharma religiously, and gives to all kinds of social causes. Unfortunately, however, she is also a most unlucky person and has experienced a great deal of misfortune. This is most unfair–why do so many bad things happen to such a nice person? How can anyone believe in conditionality?’ At other times, we may come across this type of comment: ‘That person is such a crook. You would think that he should have to pay for all the horrible things he has done. But instead he is rich and powerful. People look up to him. Will he ever have to pay?’ True, when we see bad things happen to good people, or vice versa, our faith may be called into question. Actually, there is nothing here that is inconsistent with the Law of Cause and Effect. Let us go back to the example of Mrs. Zhang. The reason that she does not yet have a chance to enjoy any good fortune is because of her ‘karmic debts’ from the past. Once her ‘karmic debts’ are burned up through the process of doing good, good fortune will await her. As to those who seem to be able to forever evade the retribution of their bad actions, it is because they have stores of merit from their past lives. When their store of merit is consumed, then the effects of their unwholesome actions will come knocking at their doors” (Venerable Master Hsing Yun, Conditionality: The Law of Cause and Effect).

Overall, Hsing Yun presents an accurate and concise summary of Buddhism’s teachings on the problem of pain.  However, I find these teachings to be quite primitive and unsatisfactory, and ironically not at all different from the temporal reward/punishment theodicy of ancient Judaism.  

While not entirely wrong, doctrines that cling only to present reality when explaining the existence of suffering are fundamentally flawed.  Indeed, at first glance, they appear to deal with the presence of evil by merely dismissing it with the flick of a wrist, like some second-rate magician performing cheap parlor-tricks.  They can never fulfill our desire to know the answer to mankind’s greatest question:  why do innocent people suffer?  

Over the eons, many philosophers, prophets, politicians, doctors, poets, artists, and yes, even fishermen and carpenters, have risen to meet the challenge of finding an answer to this burning question.  Their conclusions have generally fallen into one of two categories: suffering just happens for no reason, and suffering happens for a reason.

Let’s discuss the former category, refute it’s proponents, and then proceed to consider the latter category.

Suffering Just Happens for no Reason

The “suffering just happens for no reason” category can be subdivided into three different schools of thought: determinism, randomism (for lack of a better term), and indifferentism.

Determinism:  In short, everything just happens because there isn’t a different way it could’ve happened. For example, Susie’s father, Bernard, died in a horrific automobile accident simply because, fourteen billion years ago, the initial conditions of the universe predetermined this outcome; a slight imbalance in quantity between matter and antimatter during the first few seconds after the Big Bang eventually led to the creation of stars, the emergence of life, and the death of Bernard. As a consequence, there’s no such thing as freewill. Whether behavior is determined by astrological signs, by selfish genes, or by environmental factors, one thing is absolutely certain: behavior is determined. Talking about human rights is pointless, unless you happen to think that equations like y=x have a right to free speech, or that baking soda must be allowed to react with vinegar due to its inherent dignity. Suffering just happens, and there’s no purpose to it.

Randomism:  Absolutely nothing is determined. Things just happen, but there isn’t any rhyme or reason to it. Everything ultimately has its origin in some lawless, chaotic sub-reality. Matter randomly appears from nowhere for no reason, produced by nothing. In other words, something comes from nothing, nothing comes from nothing, and nothing comes from something; anything and everything goes. Evolution is the only law, and even evolution could stop or go backwards at any time, because all physical laws, all properties of matter, energy, and existence, are created and destroyed by the random collisions of different realities, each vying for dominance and survival. Thus, all order is an illusion, and consequently, freewill is an illusion too, because essentially, there’s nothing making decisions. Deciding between this or that implies order, indeed, it implies an “orderer,” which cannot exist in a randomist universe, at least not in any intelligible sense.  Suffering just happens, because like everything else, it’s random, and there’s no purpose to it.

Indifferentism:  Suffering just happens…who cares why?

Critique: Suffering Just Happens for no Reason

Response to Determinism:  Who then, is the illusion of freewill fooling? If suffering is predetermined, like everything else, why do we resist and rebel against it? This philosophy is completely unintelligible, self-contradicting, and necessarily false. Suffering doesn’t happen because things couldn’t have happened in any other way. No, we call suffering, “suffering,” precisely because things could’ve happened in a different, and better way.

Response to Randomism:  If all order is an illusion, then how do you explain the existence of stable physical laws and such? Everything surely can’t originate in randomness. Even my freewill is not random. I carefully weigh the facts, and then choose; I don’t roll dice in my head! There’s always a reason behind my choices, even if I don’t acknowledge it. In a sense, I determine myself, at least within the constraints of my environment. How is this possible? I don’t know, but it happens each and every time I make a decision.

Response to Indifferentism:  Who cares why suffering happens? I do.

Suffering Happens for a Reason

I think, if we’re truly honest with ourselves, we must admit that all things happen for a reason, including suffering.

Actually, I think suffering happens for several reasons; here are the five main ones:

1) Freewill

All suffering is ultimately a consequence of the abuse of freewill. The highest good is love, but love must be chosen. By giving us the ability to choose, God opened up the possibility that we might choose wrongly, and thus decide against love.

2) Drive for Autonomy

By this, I mean the urge to set ourselves up as the absolute authority, and thus dethrone God. The cause of this urge is pride, an overestimation of self; that which is, by nature, constricted with limitations, can’t act as though it hasn’t got any limitations, not without doing harm to itself and everything around it. This is precisely what happened when Lucifer fell from heaven. We don’t know why Lucifer chose an inferior and exclusive love of self, rather than a superior and inclusive love of God; but, Lucifer chose what he chose, for reasons that are perhaps better left unknown. We too are often tempted to pursue exclusive autonomy. We too often make poor choices and reject a superior good in favor of an inferior good. Perhaps Lucifer’s reasons for rejecting God are so familiar to us, that we’ve forgotten them?

3) Cosmic Fall

When Satan fell from heaven, portions of creation joined in his rebellion. Parts of the universe began to decay, and soon, dissolution began to spread throughout the cosmos like a cancer. Natural disasters, diseases, and destruction of all kinds emerged.

4) Fall of Man

Eventually, God brought about the creation of something called Man. This creature, made in the image and likeness of his Lord, enjoyed a state of original happiness. Man was in harmony with nature, and also with himself. Being either male or female, he enjoyed the intimate communion and complementariness of the opposite sex, without any of the strife we now experience. But paradise wasn’t enough for him. After being persuaded by Satan, Man, represented by Adam and Eve, joined the dark rebellion that was slowly creeping across all creation. Thus, Man lost his immortality, and now he seeks to regain it at any cost. This too is a great cause of suffering.

5) Collateral Damage

Other beings with freewill make decisions that hurt us, either directly or indirectly.

Conclusion

Although we know why suffering happens in theory, individual cases, especially if they involve innocent people suffering, are much harder to deal with. Primarily, this is because such cases hit close to home; our emotions, which have become disordered as a result of the fall of Man, get involved in these cases, and this creates even more suffering.

Contrary to Venerable Master Hsing Yun’s opinion, with which I introduced this treatise, Mrs. Zhang isn’t suffering because of “karmic debt.” Most of her suffering is due to the cosmic fall, and collateral damage resulting from poor decisions made by others.

As for people who do evil, but seem not to suffer any consequences for their actions, a few things must be remembered. First of all, appearances can be deceiving. Such people may look happy on the outside, but be miserable on the inside. Second, the evil one may find such people useful; at least for the time being, he nurtures them, fattening them up for the slaughter. Lastly, as Christ said, God extends mercy and gifts to all beings, no matter what.

The Lord “…makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).

• Spend time in solitude with God.  Search yourself and find out your faults.  Strive for perfection, and remain in awe of your own being, and that of the world around you.

• Avoid people who are worldly, and stay far away from folks obsessed with negativity.  Keep company only with persons who are genuinely spiritual.

• Read the writings of great men, such as the Church Fathers.  Meditate on the deeds of the Saints daily, imploring their constant intercession.  

• Live simply, praying, fasting, and focusing on your salvation and the salvation of those near you.  Witness to Christ always, but do so with a spirit of gentleness that shuns excessive apologetics. 

• If you ever encounter something that seems false, do not be troubled by it; put it aside and think only of what is good, beautiful, and true.  

Do all these things, and you will know the glory of Christ and his love.

We need a Pope who will reiterate the condemnation of the Enlightenment and all the vile democratic republics, constitutionalism, and other “authority comes from the people” nonsense.

Long live the counter-revolution of Christ the King!

Let me be the first to denounce these sentiments as sick, ignorant, and treasonous.  It isn’t the first time I’ve witnessed such reprehensible behavior among people who supposedly share my religious philosophy, namely that of Traditionalism (though recently, I’ve begun drifting away from this particular school of thought).

Mr. Shea has written aptly about such fanaticism.

My greatest fear for the next century is that faithful Christians will suffer a two-pronged attack; from radicals falsely claiming to enthrone Christ the King, and from radicals violently seeking to overthrow God the Tyrant.

Here’s my own take on the matter.

I firmly believe that the Bible is objectively and absolutely inerrant in matters of faith, morality, and religion, and in those foundational truths, namely historical realities, upon which these matters necessarily rest. When I say that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith, I mean that it teaches, without error, the honest truth about God and His dealings in both the spiritual and material realm. When I say that the Bible is inerrant in matters of morality, I mean that it teaches, without error, the honest truth about man’s duties to God and neighbor. When I say that the Bible is inerrant in matters of religion, I mean that it teaches, without error, the honest truth about how man should express his faith in God through acts of worship, whether they be communal or solitary.

Of course, all this assumes a proper interpretation of the Bible, which must take into account various literary genres and differing contexts while also remaining vigilant against the Modernist Heresy.

Let’s see how close I am to the potential future definition.  My bet?  Right on the money.  If not, I’ll need to do some serious philosophical housekeeping, because I trust the Church far more than my own limited intellect.