To my recent post on the internal logic of the Fall, in which I argued that under that logic the Fall was liberation from a cruel delusion that YHWH is anyone special, and so a turn toward hard good solid real truth, in which its advocates, both human and demonic, as basically nice guys, could not but do their best to convince us to follow them in their rebellion against YHWH and his Father El Elyon, our loyal leftist atheist commenter and friend a.morphous had this to say, God bless and keep and save the poor man:
Maybe we differ [about the Fall] because you think it would be better for it not to have happened. I disagree that this is desirable, but I don’t really have an argument, it’s more a matter of esthetics. Sinless and perfect humans would not be very interesting, and would be less than fully human.
He wrote those words in no inimical mood. We were talking together amicably. We were not arguing, but rather only articulating each our different perspectives.
It is worth noting that in that comment a.morphous provided quite a perfect example of the basically charitable motivations of our adversaries, both human and demonic, which in the original post I had noticed. Despite his characteristic snark, a.morphous is a reasonable and fundamentally decent soul, to whom it seems clear that the Fall was to man a great benefit, overall. He thinks then that Satan helps us. He thinks, then – perhaps he has not articulated it to himself in this way just yet – that Satan is man’s great friend and benefactor. He thinks we would all do well to recognize Satan as such. He thinks we would do very well to follow Satan’s lead.
A.morphous is basically a nice guy. So he would like us all to understand Satan, the Fall, and indeed YHWH as he does; not just for his sake, which presumably he has long since quite settled in his own calculus, but for ours. He thinks that if we do, we will be better off. We’ll be more sane, less burdened with childish delusions, better and more rightly fitted to hard reality, and so apter to life’s predicaments, therefore probably healthier and more prosperous – and, not least, more amenable to such as himself, or who think as he does, and therefore more ready to suffer them, and their propagations of the principles of their lives.
So he takes the trouble to comment here, and to respond to my post. He bruits the demonic perspective among us.
Not that I think a.morphous is himself demonic. I think him rather at most under the sway of notions that serve demonic ends. God save the man. I do not blame him. Anyone can err. Indeed, all of us do err, somehow – God help us all. Rather, only, I fear for him.
Spooky is it then, indeed, to have received so soon such a precise, concrete verification of the main thesis of that post.
I do not mean to pick on a.morphous. I like and respect him. Perhaps he shall have much to say in response to this present essay. Indeed, I hope so; for I hope sooner or later to help convert him, and so to help him win salvation and redemption, and so for myself win thereby his everlasting companionship. I would rather not lose a.morphous. I would, rather, gain him.
I hope he does respond to this of me, for I could then respond to him, in all love – albeit, as sternly as need be, again in all love.
I take a.morphous to be fundamentally charitable toward me. So am I, toward him. As he would win me to his notions of truth, so would I him to mine – the difference between the two notions being simply this: that mine is true in fact, and leads to life; whereas his, followed consistently and thoroughly, leads at the last – and so, when push comes to shove, at the first, for those who see things through to their ends – to despair, and to death.
A principle that tends to death cannot be correct.
I know a.morphous does not see things this way. He sees his own way as leading to life, so far as life goes in a universe where everything eventually dies, and that is that.
The practical difference in our perspectives boils down I think to this: he sees everything as tending in the end inexorably to death, whereas I see everything as tending in the end inexorably to life.
If I am right, then as rejecting the Lord of Life, a.morphous is indeed tending inexorably to death – to death everlasting, suffered horribly forever without possibility of surcease by a living avid spirit. In that case, his vision is for him self-fulfilling, and so impermeable. If he is right, then in all my worries and perplexities about theology and metaphysics – and about the myriad defects of my spiritual and moral life (and indeed of his) – I am simply wasting time and emotional energy, and like him I shall soon end up just dead, insensible, gone.
In which case, it is simply stupid for me to spend time or energy talking about this stuff. Or, what is much more, for him. If a.morphous is right, then all the time he spends worrying and writing about this stuff, and a fortiori all the time he spends worrying and writing about my take on this stuff, for Heaven’s sake, is precious scant time utterly, perfectly wasted.
Odd, then, that atheists spend so much time and energy worrying about theism. Methinks they bewray thereby their own uncertainty – and their fear.
I have placed my wager, and come what may I fear nothing, other than my own feeble steadfastness to my bet. So has a.morphous, apparently. Whether or not he is afeared, is another question. No doubt he will say that he is not.
With Pascal, I’ll take my bet over his.