Whence Cometh Evil

By: Jonathan Seidel

Post-holocaust theology

Many scholars have discussed the holocaust philosophically and theologically. Some have placed it at the forefront of their theology while others made passing remarks. I wish to weigh in on the matter and posit the holocaust as a historical event and as an event in history. 

The holocaust was an event like no other. Despite a history of programs and massacres there has been no systematic slaughter like the holocaust. It was a reinterpreted version of anti-semitism. Unlike religious attacks that could be solved with conversion, for the Nazis there was no salvation. Any ink of Jewish blood contaminated the soul for eternity. Fate was damned. Jews were condemned to extermination by mere biology. There was no escape. 

There are a few approaches: why it happened? What was its purpose? What follows from it? The theological paradox of why God let the holocaust happened or how could such evil be allowed to exist is fascinating. Theodicy has stifled scholars for generations. Epicurus’s critique rifled believers and persists to squander optimism. The reliance on a possible insight holds true to a good god who watches over his creations discreetly. Where was God? What was he doing? This position begins with the assertion that God does care for his creations and further suggests an immanent circulator. There are enough passages to go both ways. Biblical and rabbinic literature possess strong immanent vibes but it is not all too coherent. At the same time, the mythical universe is rationalised by the Spanish scholars.

The punishment theory is intolerable. Blaming it on abandoning tradition invokes a heresy-hunting mentality that is un-collaborated. Just as the biblical paradigm shifted so too the suffering responses changed. The absence of god purports a new approach to suffering. Perceiving the medieval scholars as deluded is arrogant. Generations of scholars offered consistent rationalisation. The anti-theodic trend argues the inappropriateness of seeking divine intent. God’s mind is not for the human to comprehend nor insinuate. 

The question of divine relation to the holocaust is not to be understood as lack of divine concern or divine immanence. A God who permits atrocities to occur to educate is parenting but at the same time causing an ordeal of trouble. This a torturous parent who cannot properly teach his children. Teaching a lesson through failure or even less crops is tremendously more viable than the permanence of death. Even to punish his children, the abuse registered is disproportionate. Jews don’t keep Shabbat so annihilate them. It is not a credible nor responsible message specially in an age of reason. 

Divine immanence marks little security and remedy for altruism. Whether in punishment or atonement, the interventionist scheme poisons the freedom and honesty. God’s integrity is matched by collateral damage. If he is puppeteering reality, man is a plaything with no measure of liberty. He is chained to a supernal fate. A deity with human concern plummeting to irrational paranoia. Ceasing suffering should be the first priority. Yet, what is worse than permitting its continuance is choosing the victim. Immanence brings the pain and selects the sacrificial lamb.  

Transcendence does not mitigate divine concern. God’s lack of involvement need not prejudice man. Although the naturalist is attacked for his lack of divine advocation and miraculous sensibilities, it is much easier to answer for the holocaust than the middle ground. The problem of evil is simpler for the naturalist than the quasi-interventionist deity. God’s interventionism is pointless or arbitrary. The naturalist refuses to depend on God as well as seek his salvation. Fear of anthropocentrism is idle to the religiously committed. God is important but his failure to avert the impending disaster either is intentional neglect or spite. 

Naturalism is not a consequence of divine weakness. The inability to entertain reality is stealing freedom. Man must screw up and mature. There is less permission and more standing idly by. God’s goal is not to break up the fight but provide a framework for which this never exists. Ironically, his book is the cause of the mayhem. He created anti-semitism in Jewish difference. Yet, it is the capacity to look beyond the other. The ethical foundation for protecting the stranger is the hallmark of the Jewish outsider. The burden is all too real but it is also the major thrust of moral development. 

God does not wish for man to hunt his own flesh and blood. His “deistic” focus encumbers angelic perfection. God is foreign to man as a rational other, a respected honour. Hierarchies are necessary but they do not possess the babying man hopes God will furnish. God has passed on his will, it is man’s job to reconcile. Direct protection is a threat to human development and correspondence. He is the metaphorical landscape to bridge the wedge between man. Being meets being through the ultimate being. 

Theodicy fascinates the believer as treading in deep waters. The holocaust is a measure of extreme tragedy, though past and present Jewish suffering is insoluble through involvement. A recluse deity is not unconcerned insofar as content. There is an order, imperfect yet progressing. Life is growth and the perfect must keep his distance from the imperfect. Still, his presence is a reminder of peak aspiration. Man alone is a wreck, his mutuality can bring him closer toward perfection. The natural order has its methodology but he can transcend it with divine will. It is man’s opportunity to grow.

Evil is a cancer. It does not end with divine supremacy nor does not end with protest or forced cessation. It plays by its own rules and will push back harder in a survivalist defensive manoeuvre. Its decline manifests in acceptance. Humanity acting with familiarity. Emotions cannot be suppressed. Fury and pride will persist but a little humility will equate a horizontal axis of hope to the selfish species. Man is evil’s greatest enemy. For now the latter brainwashes man. It presents difference in the simplest of cases: race, religion and nationality. How  people look, how they act and where they are from. Variety is special to aid in furthering humanity. It is blessing misconstrued as a curse. Welcome difference and defy uniformity.