Why Does God Hate the Poor: Does He Will This Hate?

Why does God hate the poor? Does he will His hate of the poor?

 
Almost universally among continental philosophers, they see the human will as the driving force of human nature. Among many it is also the driving force and even the substance and essence of reality. For example, the idealism of Hegel with its dialectical logic of the spirit of history eventually became both the world concept of the fascists and the material class struggle of the communists. For Schopenhaurer, man’s will was the substance and driving force of reality. For Friedrich Nietzsche, it was the will to power that was a driving force of nature and humanity. Even the leap of faith that is the basis for Kierkegaard’s Christian theology was a leap of the will. Existentialism depends on the will to give meaning to the meaninglessness of the universe in which existence comes before essence. However, other than the concept of ethics, there is probably no word that is more distorted and practically meaningless in the working class perspective of life — which is the perspective of these essays and this blog.

 
The word “will” as it is usually used and for which it is useful and therefore as is its meaning cannot be applied to God. Theological talk treating the will of God and free will as if they were the same type of word is one of the biggest cons by theology on the poor and the working class. To will something requires one lacks it and wants it. God is omnipresent, all powerful, and the source of what there is instead of nothing. He needs nothing. He is complete and whole, always was, is, and will be. Therefore, this meaning of will cannot be applied to God as an omnipresent all-powerful being because She does not need anything.

 
“Will” however also describes wanting to continue. At least for the moment, I am alive and want to continue living instead of committing suicide. This existential reality is different from wanting something such as meaning for my existence: the will that leads to hope. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, hope is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.

 
However, at least this concept of will involving only existence does not entail lacking something and therefore, at least in theory, can be applied to God. Or can it? If God exists and continues to will his existence, such implies that He could commit suicide by not willing to exist. Ontologically, this seems to be a possibility. God got the poker game of the universe going but do we need Her around any longer to continue its existence? He is the reason there is something instead of nothing, but now that there is something, does the something need Him to continue? The Dealer calls the game but can we now change the dealer?

 
We are forgetting in this paradox our philosophy of language reality and getting caught up in our own words. These questions ignore the ontology that we are talking about because they assume or imply God acting in time. We exist. We continue to will our existence. One day we may not exist. We exist in time. Time is our relative perception of the possibilities around us and their coming to life around us. God does not exist in time. He is omnipresent by the definition of the concept of God, that is why we have the ontological proof for Her existence. The something that is now includes time because we our conscious of it and perceive it and thus create changing relationships based on our needs, but God has no needs and is the source of time and therefore is outside of time. By the definition of God, if She existed in time then we would have to ask why is there this something god in time instead of nothing. That would lead us again by necessity to the reason there is something instead of nothing: God — outside of time. Time is a meaningless word when applied to God.

 
Everything is a “now” to the God of the ontological proof — there is no past or future. The concept of will only applies nominally to God in the sense that He is the reason there is something instead of nothing. He wills the something and continues it by definition. But this use of “will” is not will in the sense of a choice. A choice would mean that God has options between one thing or another, that He is incomplete in some way, that He exists in time in some way. Only incomplete beings have options or choices because they are incomplete. That is not ontologically possible for the concept of God. As the ontological proof goes, God is the perfect omnipotent omniscient originator of the universe, the reason why there is something instead of nothing. There is nothing God lacks requiring a will for it. God does not exist in time, so He cannot will existing now and not later or vice versa. Thus, whether He wills the poor and His hatred for them are meaningless questions that only apply nominally to the question we are asking. Nominally, God does will the poor and His hatred of them in the same way that He wills all creation: by necessity.

 
In summary, we have reached a point of having numerous answers. In our contemplation of the question of why God hates the poor, we know that God knows and thinks about the poor and His hatred for them in an analytical completely ontological sense and wills it in the sense that His will is also his existence and by necessity the existence of something instead of nothing. The poor and His hatred of them are a necessary part of the something for which He is the reason that exists. Also we have been able to conclude that neither justice, morality, ethics, or fairness bars such hatred of the poor. The poor and God’s hate of them exists necessarily but why? Why not love them necessarily?

 
Before we go further to answer the question of why, there is the question of hatred itself. What does hate mean? Does God hate in the same way we hate? Does God love in the same way we love? Could He love the poor instead of hating them and treating them in the way He does? These will be our final questions on this issue.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Does He Know and Think About This Hate?

Why does God hate the poor? Does God know He hates the poor and does He think about it? As we contemplate the issue of God’s hate for the poor, you must continually remember and keep in mind what our concept is of God. It is the God of the ontological proof: God is the answer to the question of why there is something instead of nothing.

 
As shown by Descartes, other than the knowledge of our own existence while conscious of it and the ontological existence of God, we have no rational knowledge we can call truth as that word is classically and usually defined: knowledge about the world that is indisputable in all possible worlds. All rational truths are pragmatic and the word “true” is merely a “syncategorematic term” as called by the Scholastics as the philosopher Hilary Putnam sarcastically calls it. For example, saying “it is true the car is green” does nothing to the sentence “the car is green” other than allowing us to transition from talking about green cars to talking about sentences about green cars. Twentieth Century philosophy has successfully shown that the old distinction between synthetic and analytic truths in reason is no longer valid nor sound. All rational knowledge is ultimately synthetic. That is, its initial foundation is in our consciousness and perception plus our sense experience interaction with the world and our intentional synthesis of the struggle between these two forces.

 
This is even true of mathematics that used to be considered an example of undisputed analytical truth that is true in all possible worlds. Despite the protests of rationalists and idealists and of philosophers and most mathematicians who say they discover mathematical truth independently of the world, the reality is that no one discovers or has discovered mathematical truth a priori or simply by thinking about it without sense experience interaction with the world as a foundation for that discovery. Geometry came into being as a result of the need for ancient Egypt, Samaria, and other ancient cultures’ need to measure and describe land for tax and sale purposes. Algebra came into existence based on a need for traders on the spice routes to keep track of their accounts. Reason is a tool for solving perceived problems. Once this tool develops basic rules for solving problems, through induction and deduction or other logic, it can derive an infinite number of variations and inferences from those premise rules to become analytic knowledge or tautologies that are true in all possible worlds once the initial premises are accepted. But such does not change the initial synthetic nature of that knowledge that can change if the assumed premises are changed.

 
Reason is the mind’s tool for solving problems. Truth and knowledge only exist pragmatically. If a statement works to solve a problem, it is true until it stops working, at that point it becomes false. Scientific statements can only be proven false but never true. That is why they are scientific statements instead of statements in practically any other field that are never proven either true or false.

 
However, reason is not the only possible source for knowledge. We know it is not because reason contradicts itself when it makes a statement as I just have that it is absolutely true that all truth is relative. By stating such a conclusion, reason states there is absolute truth and contradicts itself. Reason, unless dealing with pragmatic truth, always winds up contradicting itself and therefore proves it cannot achieve knowledge of any truths other than pragmatic truths. We exist, therefore we think. Once we know we exist, then through the ontological nature of such existence we know God exists: a reason for there being something instead of nothing. What about God? Does He know things in the same way we do, purely by interaction with the world and the need to solve problems caused by that interaction? Does She exist, therefore She thinks? Does She reason to solve problems while thinking of Herself and while perceiving reality?

 
We cannot ontologically apply the meaning of the word consciousness to God in the same way that we apply it to ourselves or to the animal world or to any life. We are not a necessary being that is the reason for there being something instead of nothing. He is. God is. We exist, therefore we think, because we may not have existed before and we may not exist later. It is possible that we think while not conscious of existing. For example, we know there exists something we call subconscious thought that we cannot talk about. Is a misnomer to call it “subconscious thought”. Since we cannot talk about it, it is not really thought. Thought and language are the same thing. “When I think in words, I don’t have ‘meanings’ in my mind in addition to the verbal expressions, language itself is the vehicle of thought.” — Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is simply one of those things “whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent” of Wittgenstein. However, we never are silent and always try to talk about it anyway because it is so important in life. Without talk, we know it by action. It is often pragmatically better and faster than conscious thought, such as when athletes go into the zone and become the ball or whatever they are doing or when mathematicians come up with intuitive creative proofs out of apparent nothingness.

 
However, for us to know we exist, we must first exist. This is not the state of affairs of God. His existence and knowledge of His existence cannot be separated. Otherwise, He would be in the same position or in the same state of affairs as us and will need a reason for existing instead of not existing — which would be God. So for humans, the knowledge or absolute truth we have is that if we exist then we think, that is, the logical statement if a then b. For God, knowledge is simply the principle of identity. Existence equals thought, a = a. Unlike for us, in which all knowledge is synthetic, God’s knowledge and thought are all analytic.

 
The best way to view this problem is to go back to our earlier poker game example. Reality is a poker game in which God created the cards, bets, ante, game rules, and thus all the probabilities and created the players and then let things play out. In substance, He is not the game and does not control the outcome, though in essence He is the game because He can do or He can think all the probabilities and knows how the players will play and thus the winners and losers and the eventual outcome. The players are desperately trying to figure out what hands will be played but never can figure it all out. That is why life is a gamble. The players are in the game therefore they think synthetically. They induce and deduce to try to win as they are destined to try to do. Meanwhile, from the first ante, God standing outside the game knows every hand and outcome because He can analytically figure them out. He knows it all while simultaneously the entire time the players are ignorant of the outcome.

 

This concept is beautifully expressed in the prologue to the Gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.” Logos is the word from which we derive our word logic. In some translations, Logos is written down as “Word”, “Word” is used for Logos. Either way, whether you use Logos or Word, this prologue is consistent with our ontological proof for the existence of God and is a beautiful shorthand expression of it.

 
So does God know He hates the poor? Yes. Does God think about hating the poor? Yes, in the sense that He knows about everything. Knowledge and thought are the same with God, always analytic and tautological in the mind of God.

 
The next question is the Will of God, the Will of God is something that religion is always talking about. Does God will His hate for the poor?

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is It a Universal Hate?

Why does God hate the poor? Is this a universal hate? As we contemplate the issue of God’s hate for the poor, all of our answers so far have negated possible explanations based on human excuses for hate that cannot be applied to God. The meanings of “good”, “evil”, “morality”, “ethics”, “justice”, and “fairness” are all human constructs, created to give us meaning in life. None of these words can serve as an explanation, justification, or excuse for God’s varying treatment of His creations. The individual creates a morality to give meaning to life and a social group creates an ethics to maintain the group’s power structure. “Good”, “evil”, “justice”, and “fairness” are all terms that describe other humans or things in reality that either help or hinder our created morality or ethics. These words do not apply to God, God can do whatever He wants and is not limited by our concepts. None of these human words explain why God prefers some humans over others.  How far does this preference go; does it go beyond humans? The question of God’s hatred for the poor, is this question limited solely to humans? Do concepts and questions such as these that we are asking apply only to humans? I’ve been treating them as such, but in order to avoid confusion about what we are contemplating, I want to be clear that the issue of God’s hatred for the poor is not simply a human issue but one of the natural order of reality and of all life.

 
I will clarify what I’m doing by using an example that I recently came across. A bunch of Yale University economists, with the aid of anthropologists and other academics, have been using an island of monkeys near Puerto Rico for social experiments. One test involved giving the monkeys pretend money that they could exchange for food from one of two persons. One person would show the monkey a cup with one grape but in exchange for the coin would give the monkey two grapes. The other person would show the monkey three grapes but then in exchange for a coin would give the monkey two grapes. So in both situations, the monkey would get two grapes. As you would expect from academics not skilled in analytic thought, the Yale professors using illogical or unsound assumptions went on to make a series of illogical conclusions. The unsound and illogical assumption they used was that the rational thing to do would be to take grapes randomly from either tester since the end result is the same — one will always wind up with two grapes regardless of which tester one picks. However, the monkeys almost universally always picked from the tester who showed one grape but gave them two. The Yale academics went on to make the unsound and illogical conclusion that the preference was irrational and that this universal irrational preference is ingrained and explained in the monkeys by, as always, the universal academic religion of evolution. Reason abhors arbitrariness and randomness.

 
Without getting into the philosophy of science and theory of knowledge at issue, based simply on clear logical reasoning that I’ve been trying to delineate in these essays and not on the prejudice and bias of academia, hopefully you will see how irrational their conclusions are and what they miss in terms of learning and knowledge from their experiment. Imagine having an employer who offers you one of something in exchange for doing a small job. You then do it and he gives you two of that thing. Imagine another employer who offers you three of something in exchange for the same job. You do it but then he gives you two of the same thing instead. In both cases, for the same job, you get paid two grapes. So given the choice of employers next time, for doing the same job, which employer would you choose? The rational choice is the one who gave you the extra thing, not the one who took away one of the offerings. Playing the odds and appearances, the one who gave you something extra, based on your needs and desires for as many as possible of whatever is being offered, appears to be the more trustworthy individual; that is, appears to be the person most likely to give you what you want and thus from the rational perspective is the person who is more moral, ethical, just, and fair. Since you know the other person will most likely take at least one thing away, they might take more away given the chance and thus there is a greater danger of their denying you what you want. So why give that cheat a chance? Based on the facts and rational concepts of good, morality, justice, and fairness, the rational choice is the person that adds a thing.

 
In reality, both of the Other may be scientists who may one day kill you to autopsy your brain regardless of the rationality of your choices. Until then, the rational choice is to pick the one giving you the extra thing based on concepts of morality, justice, ethics, and fairness and good and evil or whatever rational analysis is used for the choices. The human rational concepts of good, evil, morality, ethics, and justice and fairness based on getting what one wants are universal, not only to monkeys but to all life. There is a natural law in the universe: anything that gets us what we want is normatively what ought to be. Even at the level of quantum physics, the randomness of nature disappears once an observer is added and when observations get large enough. At that point, the randomness disappears and deterministic classical physics kicks in and everything appears orderly and beautiful. At that point, you can read The Consolation of Philosophy by the Roman philosopher Boethius and you can be impressed by the beauty and order of the universe and then concepts of good and evil and other norms start to make sense.

 
The difference between humans and monkeys and other non-human life is that we can be irrational. Instead of always acting in our rational best interest, we can reject the rational choice of the tester that gives an extra grape and, irrationally, instead pick the other tester intentionally: out of spite; rejection or protest of the testing situation; to mess with Yale testers; out of hope that the other tester will give us all three grapes; or out of an almost infinite number of reasons for acting irrationally — whereas there is usually only limited reasons to act rationally. As Wittgenstein’s Rule Following Problem conceptually analyzes, unlike computers, monkeys, and other entities, there is no such thing as “rule following” for humans other that a specific instance of following a rule — we can always create new rules and not follow those we create or already have.

 

As humans, we can look outside the game and ask the question that other life cannot ask. Why does God hate the poor — including poor monkeys and the uncountable number of other lives and beasts of burden varying from abused animal prey to worker bees dying for a queen out there who have lived and live their entire existence only as a struggle to exist or are forced to live their existence in servitude to the Powers who not only control them but decide whether they are to live or to die. So this question we are asking, of why does God hate the poor, is important not just relative to us but to all of reality that is unable to ask it.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Fair?

 

Is God fair?

 
I ask this question because fairness and its use seem to connote a different meaning than justice, so much so that the present ruling class glorified philosopher John Rawls wrote a book entitled A Theory of Justice arguing a rationalist foundation of “justice as fairness”. Fairness implies a certain simplicity and mathematical balancing that appear to be much more accurate and honest than the concept of justice. For example, if you have three starving people and three apples, fairness would dictate that each person gets an apple. If you are playing football, you expect the referee to be fair to all players, that is by applying the rules and making the calls the same for all players.

 
This type of reasoning creates an illusion of rational rules that creates an illusion of justice but ultimately, when critically and analytically examined as they pragmatically work in reality, it still leads to the same uses and usefulness as the words ‘justice’ and ‘injustice’ contemplated in prior essays. For example, if you try to factor into the three- hungry-people-decision the different ages, weight, metabolism, health, and almost infinite number of other factors that differentiate people, it becomes a rationally unsolvable problem of “justice”. Do you give a young, fat, healthy child, with a much more likely chance of survival more than one apple or the sick, skinny old person who needs it more but most likely will die anyway? The same types of problems arise in the football example. If a player is viewed as an asshole, especially playing in an away game, the fans expect more calls to go against the player and the calls will go against the player more often. Such unfairness in the rules — or such unfairness in the application of rules — is actually seen as justice, punishing the player for being an asshole (however the Powers-that-be or the fans define being an asshole). So much so that if the player is seen as an asshole because of actions off the field when not even playing football, such as for example he beats his wife, then the fans, the league, and the referees expect that the player will not even be allowed to play but will be suspended or thrown out completely out of his playing job and salary. Thus, in this latter case, the Powers will deny the player, his wife, and their family any income from the only employable skill the player has and bankrupt them as an act of justice. Such unfairness in the game is seen as justice in society.

 
Ultimately, as with justice, anything that helps get the individual or social group ruling  class ideology what they want as meaning in their life is fair and also just. What hinders that goal is unfair and unjust.

 
Therefore, in substance, analytically, there is no difference between the use and usefulness for ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ and neither can be applied to the concept of God. If He wants to give three of his starving creations three apples, one apple, zero apples and just watch them starve to death, or whatever She wants to do with the apples, He is free to do so unhindered by any human created concept of fairness. Ultimately, the answer to the question asked by Socrates of whether something is good, fair, or just because the gods’ love it or whether the gods love it because it is good, fair, or just is: neither. If we were to answer this question in terms of human language treating God as a Person, the answer would be that something is good, fair, or just because God loves it.

 
Do our questions regarding God’s hatred for the poor apply also to nature and the animal world, in essence to all of reality or just to humans?

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Just?

Is God just? Can the words “justice” and “injustice” be applied to God?

 

The search for justice has been a constant source of injustice in life, especially for the poor and working class from whose perspective we are examining the question of “why does God hate the poor”. Calls for justice are usually the starting stage of the greatest injustices of history. “Justice” has been defined in many ways, by philosophers and theologians, all of which have failed to achieve justice. For classical and for modern philosophers varying from Plato to Karl Marx, justice means “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. As usual, this sounds nice in the abstract, but both for Plato’s Republic and to the other extreme of Marxism and its post-modern progeny, the end result in reality is always the same tyranny of the few over the many that is the class struggle of history. Modern theorists on justice, such as John Rawls in his books A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness and Karl Popper with his book The Open Society and Its Enemies, tried to subsume the Christian Beatitudes into a secular form of social norms but such attempts have failed miserably in making any qualitative improvement in human society. When acting in association with capitalism and science, some calls for justice have at least materially or quantitatively improved the human condition. However, such association qualitatively has served only to replace chattel slavery by wage slavery; all have done nothing to improve qualitatively human nature in any way in relation to any concept of justice or injustice — all such concepts are relative to a given point in history. The lower classes continue to remain slaves and will continue to do so for as long as there continue to be humans in the class struggle that is history.

 
The word “justice” is purely a human creation. In the reality of human language, the meaning of most words is their use and usefulness. In this sense, the meaning of the word “justice” in human reality as used by any individual is “that which gets me what I want”. If the individual wants something to give their life meaning and they get it, the process and result is just. If someone else or something denies them this meaning, this denial is unjust. Assistance in getting what the individual wants in order to give meaning to their life is justice. Any denial is unjust. For a society, justice is anything that maintains order and the status quo power structure of that society, and injustice is anything that threatens the status quo power structure and order of a society.

 
Does the word justice have any inherent meaning when applied to the concept of God? Again, you must remember that God is defined here as the reason why there is something instead of nothing. Based on any purely analytic examination of the nature of God, the answer to the question of whether justice or injustice applies to God is “no”. God is the ultimate power of reality. He can do whatever He wants, whenever She wants, and to whoever He wants. The word justice has no meaning when applied to God, any more than do the words good or evil. The concept of justice does not apply to God and He cannot be described as just or as unjust. Nothing can deny God anything. God does not need anything. God does not owe us anything.

 
This is why religions such as Islam and Old Testament Christianity that make justice the ultimate virtue and aspect of God are so dangerous in life, especially to the working class and the poor, more so than religions such as New Testament Christianity that make love the ultimate virtue. Any religion that gives the attribute “justice” to the absolute power that is God is a dangerous illusion for the working class because it equates the workers’ or the poor’s need for something with God’s need for something. This equating of what the worker wants to what God wants not only weakens workers’ ability to will, work, and fight for what they want and need because they expect God to get it for them but also serves to justify any atrocity that the individual worker wants to commit to their fellow workers in order to get it. This results in the working class wasting a lot of time and energy fighting among themselves while the Powers-that-be stand by and watch the battle — enjoying their power. Once one starts to believe that God will give you prosperity, education, or whatever simply because one wants it and therefore it must be just, one has lost the battle against the Powers in any struggle one is fighting. God may do such for the rich and powerful, but He will not do it for the working class or for those that are not among the Powers-that-be; this is the whole point of this question we are asking of “why does God hate the poor”. He plays favorites. He is entitled to do so. Workers and the poor must work, fight, and struggle for what they want. He is not just or unjust. He is God, He can do whatever She wants.

 
New Testament Christianity tries to get around this aspect of God by talk of love, mercy, the Trinity that includes a Person that is divine, and so forth trying to make love the primary and only attribute of God. However, even according to New Testament Christianity, justice is not a reality in this life and, from my reading of the New Testament, is not a reality in the next either — if there is a next. “Justice” is a minor word in New Testament Christian reality. I realize the New Testament states in the Beatitudes “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. And Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, but these Beatitudes do not say how the thirst and hunger will be filled nor what the reward will be. It definitely will not be by justice because God can do whatever He wants with His creations, either in this life or in the next, if there is any. As Clarence Darrow said, “There is no justice in life, in or out of court.” More accurately, the description should be that there is no justice in this life or the next, if any.

 

This Christian reality is best brought out by the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard at Matthew 20:1–16 that goes as follows:

For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is a householder, which went out early in the morning to hire laborers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. So when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Faced with injustice, essentially God’s answer is: “it is my world [vineyard], I can do what I want with it and with you”.

 
So just to summarize where we are as of now in our contemplation of the question of “why does God hate the poor”, we can conclude that this question is not one of good or evil, of morality or ethics, nor of justice or injustice. None of these human creations apply to God. If He wants to hate the poor, He is free to do so without any limitation by attributes of good, evil, morality, ethics, or justice. What about fairness? Also, is it a matter of free choice? Is God choosing to hate the poor? Does She know She does it? Does God love and hate? Can She really hate the poor? Or, is His mistreatment of them purely business and not personal? I will consider these questions next.

Why Does God Hate the Poor: Is God Moral?

If I thought of God as another being like myself, outside myself, only infinitely more powerful, then I would regard it as my duty to defy him.
— Ludwig Wittgenstein

Is god moral? To contemplate this question, we must have some agreement on the meaning of the words “morality” and of “God”. For simplicity, I will usually use the classical “He” to reference God since I lose track of the present fad of grammatically cycling between “She” and “He” and  because “It” seems to lessen the seriousness of my contemplation. Personally, I do not care whether God is a He, She, or Whatever.

 
I submit the meaning of the word “God” is probably easier to agree upon existentially. We have to contemplate this question in the same way one would contemplate the ontological proof of God: from the perspective of the word “God”, that is of our definition and understanding of the existential meaning of the word “God”. Whatever meaning that word has for anyone regardless of whether they are a theist or an atheist or anything in between, its one necessary and universal attribute would be that the word “God” by definition means the reason for their being something instead of nothing — this is true even of a pantheistic version of God in which the universe and its existence occurs by necessity or simply by luck through the workings of universal scientific empirical laws and thus these laws are your God. Agnosticism is not rational; since this is a rational contemplation, I am not dealing with agnosticism. I am therefore I think — I think in particular and especially about my existence. If I think then I think of the reason for there being something instead of nothing including there being me. It is irrational, delusional, and cowardly to fail to take a position on the reason I or anything exists.

 
For morality, the only attribute for its meaning that is universally agreed upon is that it is an act of will. It is an act of will giving meaning to a meaningless universe. That we “will” may be an illusion and the choices we make pre-destined or pre-determined by empirical material reality but even if such is true, all moral, immoral, and amoral choices would still be called and are acts of will or choices — free or not. Morally, immorally, and even amorally, even if I am pre-determined or pre-destined to be something, I can still reject that something. If there is no free will other than the illusion of freedom, such rejection will only be nominal and a fight I cannot ever hope to win but it is still there as a choice and a powerful one at least existentially if not for anything else. It is a choice that will define me and give meaning to the meaninglessness of my life even if it is a predestined or predetermined life because morality as the absurd hero Meursault of Albert Camus’s The Stranger finally realized as he faced the gallows is “opening [one’s] heart to the benign indifference of the universe” and willing to give its meaninglessness meaning. There is a large existential difference between accepting one’s fate and fighting against it — even if the fight is destined to end in loss. Remember the last words of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus; as Sisyphus looked down and contemplated his meaningless task and became conscious of his wretched condition, in this tragic moment he realized “[t]he struggle itself […] is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy”.  (For a more detailed analytic contemplation of the meaning of the words “free will”, please see Wittgenstein on the ‘Illusion’ of Free Will.)

 
As contemplated earlier, ethics, good, and evil are meaningless when discussing God. But what about morality? Despite His necessary nature, does it make sense to talk about God making moral, immoral, or amoral choices? Or, as Socrates asked, is something moral because God wants it or does She want it because it is moral? If the reason for there being something instead of nothing is simply the universe and you are an atheist or your God is pantheistic, it makes no sense to apply any concept of morality to God — the universe simply is, its meaning is to exist. Its existence precedes its essence and precedes language and thus any wordgame of morality. What if you have a personal God such as the Christian God Who is a Being? He is an infinite, omnipresent, and all-powerful Being but still a Being. As a Being, is He able to will the universe to have meaning and thus have a morality? At first impression, it appears that the concept of morality should apply to a personal God. However, in reaching this first impression, we forget what morality is: willing to give meaning to a meaningless universe. Even a personal God does not need to will anything nor does He need meaning; His existence is its own meaning. She is complete and whole, infinitely and completely in Himself or Herself or whatever your personal God may be and Existence is the meaning of God. Therefore, God is not moral or immoral but the best way to describe even a personal theistic God is to say He is completely amoral. I must say the “best way” or seems because as with the pantheistic God, this existence that is the essence of God also precedes language and thus logically and strictly speaking is something “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”.

 

God being amoral or the wordgame of morality not applying to God makes perfect sense as Wittgenstein’s famous quote above brings out. If God were really just another moral busybody or even the most powerful moral busybody of all telling me how I should be living my life in the short span I have in life, He is no better than any other moral busy body except in degree not in substance or essence.  He is no better in quality than any other existentially created morality that makes my life simply a mascot for its sense of morality; I might as well create my own morality and enjoy being a god myself.

 
That should answer the question as to whether God is moral for all concepts of God, except for Christianity and its Trinity or any equivalent form of theism or polytheism.  I suggest that the theologians of the early Church came up with the Trinity concept as a way around the amoral nature of God. As always, the ancients were a lot smarter than what we give them credit for being. Since the Trinity includes a person who is human, Jesus Christ, the question of His morality must continue. Given that Jesus Christ — the Jesus Christ Person in the Christian God — is human, is Jesus Christ moral? Regardless of what one might think of Him, there can be no dispute that He is moral. According to the Christian concept of what Jesus Christ is and then on to the Beatitudes and on to anything that can be ascribed to him, this Christ Person does want to give meaning to life and does not exist simply as having the power of His Existence be its own meaning and an end in itself. According to the Trinity dogma, there is a Third Person, the Holy Spirit, that is the relationship between God the Father and the Christ Person. So for a Christian with Faith, the answer is that God, through Jesus Christ, is moral. God loves us, wants us to be happy, will reward us in heaven for following his morality, so on, and so forth. At this point, we are leaving rationality and getting into Kierkegaard’s existential Leap to Faith and of Pascal’s Gamble that are beyond this essay.

 
However, the Trinity problem does not solve the initial question we are asking. So far, there is no problem with the use of words. Like the ontological proof, we are dealing with logically subtle and abstract but sound and valid reasoning derived from the very meaning of the words and concepts used. Morality is an act of the will, not of reason. Morality is an individual willing meaning into the world. And thus, evil is the opposite of whatever this good the individual defines to be. God, in the non-Christian sense is amoral because God just is. The Christian option seems to be that in exchange for accepting as a necessary part of God’s amoral nature all the suffering that has been, is, and will be part of humanity — in exchange for accepting that — we will be rewarded with happiness in heaven by the human person in God: Jesus Christ. By accepting the massacre of the innocents, I will be happy. Such beliefs do give meaning to life and thus are a morality.

 

But it is not one with which I want to be involved. Or, morally should be involved? Why not? Because it is unfair and unjust — it is not a fair and just way of getting results. So what? Again, it is God’s universe. He can do with it as He or She pleases. Why do I not want to be involved in it? Is it altruism on my part or arrogance and conceit? Is it because I want to have greater power than God? Since God is amoral, is He also unjust and unfair? I will consider these questions next.

Why does God hate the Poor? Prologue / Part III

This next essay dealing with this question was supposed to deal with the issue of whether God is moral. However, I’m going out of context for this essay because of comments that I have received. Some still say that the question of why God hates the poor is the same as asking why God allows good and evil. It is not the same question. I’m going to use the argument for “intelligent design” as a means to further explain and differentiate why my question is distinct from and is not the same as the question of why does God allow good and evil to exist.

 
The argument called intelligent design is made by its proponents as an argument for the existence of a personal God in opposition to some evolutionists who argue there is no such God. Logically, in terms of the nature and philosophy of science both arguments are essentially nonsense because neither argument is scientific. Statistical analysis and correlation are all modern science needs to be science. This essay series does not deal in the philosophy of science so I will not deal with the nature of evolution nor philosophy of science but only contemplate the intelligent design argument as a means to specify and clarify the relationship between God and the poor.  The argument from intelligent design is substantively unsound and a fallacy because there is no intelligent design in the universe. From the smallest part of reality and onto the largest and from the smallest event in history and onto the largest historical events, reality and history is ruled by arbitrary and random acts. Everything in life is essentially decided by luck, despite popular opinion to the contrary. For example, even supposed obvious differences in good and evil in popular opinion between a Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and an Adolf Hitler and the events of which they were a part are not the result of any inherent differences in the universe, in their nature, or any intelligent design, but of pure luck. With a change of birthplace, parents, education, and class upbringing, the places of even such obviously different individuals in history as hero or villain would easily have been exchanged. In fact, five hundred years from now historians will treat these three as equals. If anything, historians will investigate and write about how Churchill and Roosevelt got away with their many historical blunders and outright evil acts to cause human suffering that created the power of a Hitler.

 
Reading, writing, or crying about genocide, fascism, Nazism, or whatever the latest fad evil political -ism may be and dividing historical individuals into heroes or villains is a shallow understanding of the absurdity of life, history, and the universe. Only those ignorant of history divide history into the good and the bad and into heroes and villains, male or female, of one race or of no race. Regardless of the majestic greatness of one’s heroes or the despicableness of one’s villains — be it a Churchill, Hitler, Muhammad, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, or whoever — the historical good or evil of individuals and of social constructs is not the substance of reality. Such concepts of good and evil, hero and villain in history are purely results decided as a matter of luck and the roll of circumstantial dice. The winners in life need not ever worry about morality, ethics, or the law; such are concerns only for the losers. Simple creation of historical heroes and villains gives meaning to one’s life and creates a simple morality of good and evil that ignores the banality of evil and the haphazardness of both good and evil in daily existence — that is in individual life, the only reality of which an existentialist is certain. If Hitler had died in his youth in the trenches of the Western Front or during one of the first half-dozen assassination attempts upon him, he would be remembered as a courageous recipient of two Iron Crosses who died for his country and for workers’ rights — in fact, if he had died during one of those early assassination attempts upon him, he would probably to this day be remembered as a hero and martyr for socialism. In which case, Churchill — if remembered at all — would be remembered as he was known during World War I: a self-aggrandizing, dishonest, ambitious, political hack psychopath from a rich family whose fortunes he squandered and who was responsible for the Gallipoli Campaign disaster. Muhammad is essentially a 7th Century Hitler who succeeded in creating a one thousand year reich and thus as victor is a prophet instead of a villain. Dr. King and Mandela were lucky to have racism as their opponent. As exhibited by their sexual conquests of women, patrician personal ambitions, and political shrewdness to take credit for the work of others and to let others do their killing and dirty work for them, they would be just another 1984 O’Brien will-to-power conqueror if they had a more sympathetic opponent. Gandhi was a racist patrician wife-beater who was lucky to have others do is killing for him. Such individuals are not really individuals but social construct values created for marketing purposes by patricians.

 
The reality of history is that 90% to 95% of individual humans regardless of status in life as poor, rich, slave, free, beggar, worker, and so forth if put in the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human being or watch idly as others knowing and intentionally kill every other human being — including eventually those watching. The only difference for the modern patricians of our Technological Society is the law allows them the power to have others do their killing for them. The individuals who make up each of these two classes of bound variables arbitrarily and randomly change each moment of life. The heroes who make up the 5% or 10% at any given moment who would rather be killed than kill another or watch another be killed will move over randomly and arbitrarily as a coincidence of sometimes insignificant changes in circumstances to the other set made up of killers. Meanwhile, some of the killers will at that same moment transfer over to become heroes. Thus, the existential reality is that 100% of individuals under the right circumstances would knowing and intentionally kill every other human as a matter of brute and irrational or even rational force.

 
It is pure luck that has made one set heroes and the other villain. And the same is true of all heroes and villains throughout history. The real intelligent design of the universe is more analogous to a poker game in which God is the dealer, calls the games, knows the players, and sets the antes, raises, and bets. Not only does He know the players and the cards, but He made the players, who are what they are because He made them in the same way that He made the cards and thus the probabilities are what they are because He made them. In theory, giving God the benefit of a doubt by assuming that He does not cheat and by assuming quantum randomness not deterministic classical randomness, we can say He does not control the outcome of each hand nor of the game. These are decided purely by the luck of the draw, the probabilities of the given deck, game, and hands, and on each player’s ability to read the probabilities and the other players. In theory, this game universe is an empirically just and fair universe in which there really is no good or evil. The best player wins and deserves to win. No one can say that it is an evil that the best player wins nor in any practical sense can we say that it is unjust that the best player wins and the loser loses.

 
It becomes unjust, unfair, and evil only when we bring morality into the mix and by that I mean we view the game from outside of the game. The best player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but win. And the worst player, given his God-given abilities, at any given time can do nothing but lose. The reality of this card game universe in which the winners and losers are set is really much worse. As the dealer, God is entitled to call the ante and to set the highest bets and raises. If He calls a big enough ante, bet, or raise, many people are excluded from playing, let alone having any chance of winning — even assuming they had all equal other abilities to win.

 
In the big picture of this card game universe, it does not really matter whether player A, B, C, or D wins, as long as they keep playing to keep the universe going. To make matters worse, God creates the players so that they will only play if there are winners and losers. No one who wants to play in this card game universe is going to keep playing if there are no winners or losers. Everyone wants and believes that they can be a winner until it is too late. Why would God design such a universe to favor some players over others? Of course, many noncompetitive altruistic types who may be reading this would see an easy solution to the problem: simply don’t play. But that is equivalent to saying simply do not play the game of life and ignore the way the game is designed. This is easy to say if you want to live the life of a hermit waiting for Christ to return in the Last Judgment, then it’s easy to say don’t play the game. You are essentially choosing death. However, if you want to live, prosper, or at least survive in the real world, you have to play the game, and you have to play to win. Or otherwise, those who only care about winning take everything you have: mind, body, and soul. God is God, so there’s nothing stopping him from creating such an unfair universe. But also, there’s nothing stopping Him from not creating this game, so why does He do it — instead of creating a different one that is fair? Is God moral?

 

In the perspective of my poker game example, it seems that this question is one of justice or fairness because He treats some creations better than others, but it really isn’t. Justice and fairness only have meaning in relation to a morality. Is the question of whether God is moral the same as asking whether He is just or fair? Now that you hopefully understand why I differentiate the question of good and evil from the question of why God hates the poor, I will go back to the intended next question in this series, is God moral?