The Greatest Paradox

"Since supreme omnipotence and perfect holiness are incompatible attributes, there is a note of rational absurdity in all religion, which more rational types of theologies attempt to eliminate. But they cannot succeed without sacrificing a measure of religious vitality."
- Reinhold Niebuhr

To reiterate the stale argument once more: how can a good God tolerate evil? Is he impotent, or mean? Those are the alternatives the former question allows. Most of us at some point in our lifetime play the fool and make some meager attempt to reconcile the two. To do so demands one to naively reduce either the experience of evil in our world or the horrid implications of a universe with no Ultimate Meaning.

If God is holy, then he should do something about evil. If he is omnipotent then why precisely doesn't he?

All eventually must stand in the midst of this great incongruity where Truth seems to fall apart at the seams. In former ages this was the precipice where justice stood in lurch. But perhaps now we have come to an age where this paradox merely marks the beginning of justice.

Wittgenstein was fond of pointing out that the great paradoxes of philosophy were little more than disguised nonsense: a state of being entranced by our own language. Humans have an uncanny ability to talk in elaborate circles about a topic that has no connection with reality; all the while assuming they are really getting down to the heart of things. We must begin with the realization that all our theological meanderings about God's holiness or omnipotence probably amount to little more that idiotic babbling that fails on all accounts to connect to the reality.

First we should begin with a little negative theology and admit that God is not a person, nor is he not a person. Contrarily, we are all persons, and therefore relate to everything personally. This is evident in the fact that we talk to our plants, treat animals like people, and endow everything under the sun with characteristics that are not inherent in them. And still, we project these in order to see them, so we can proceed to relate to them.

It is totally natural, and horribly problematic, that we do this with God. For millennia we have cultivated a spiritual experience that is alingual, and tried to pass it on in language. The contradiction should already be apparent, but I'll proceed.

We are totally confined by language, but God is not. This reveals a huge problem in the desire to attribute structural superlatives to God. When we speak of 'omnipotence' we are attempting to ascribe a greatness to God that is superior to all human qualities, but the structure of the term is still very human. Even for a more religious term like 'holy', we still structure the concept around a human idea of holiness. To proclaim that God is Omnipotent and Holy is one thing. I'm not saying we should abandon the terms. I'm saying the concepts which ultimately stand in conflict, rest on the idea that God is like us.

"Omnipotent and Holy!" are adulations of human persons, who can only praise personally. Yet, the descent from this doxology into speculation and conjecture on how the two can coincide is a symptom of our own idiocy. The most grandiose of words are still small, and still human.

Whether they measure as buckets or bathtubs, the ocean will not deign to be confined to either. When we feud over how he can occupy two buckets at one time we have allowed our language to mesmerize us into absurdity. Buckets vanish in the ocean all too easily. Our words are nothing.



p.s. Lately, my attitude toward the Trinity reflects what I've just said. Trinitarian language is the core of Christian praise. Yet, in regard to the theological dogma of the Trinity that proceeds into ontological syllogizing, I still reserve a deep pessimism that shows no sign of decrease.