The Problem of Glory

 

 

 

"Ut in Omnibus Glorificetur Deus" 

-Motto of the Benedictines

 
 
There's an ancient theological problem, discussed in a huge variety of different ways by different theologians, known as the problem of Glory.  

Here's one way of getting at it: why does my life have meaning? According to theists, because of God. But how, exactly, does my life have meaning, if God exists? Traditionally the answer is that everything in the universe exists for the Glory of God.
 
Here's the problem. Imagine what it was like before the universe was created. The only thing that existed was God. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, perfect in every way. He is the ground of Being, the essence of the universe. And He was all that existed. So everything was perfect in every way.
 
What possible reason could God have for creating anything at this point? What could He possibly create that would *increase* His Glory? What could this "Glory" possibly mean?
 
Anything that God creates will be less perfect than God - it will not be all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-good. No matter how good it is, it won't be as good as God. After He creates anything at all, the universe will, after that point, no longer be perfect in every way. So everything that exists, other than God, only diminishes the total perfection of the universe. If "glory" has any meaning, it is negative. Your existence, at most, reduces the glory of God. More likely, it has absolutely no effect on the Glory of God - just as infinity plus or minus any finite number is still infinity.
 
And even if he made a universe, including human beings, that were perfect in every way, they still wouldn't be God. They still wouldn't be able to provide their own meaning. God would still be the meaning, the essence of the universe. So they are totally superfluous, totally inessential, totally useless, totally pointless, totally meaningless. Their existence doesn't matter or mean anything at all. You could wipe them all out, wipe the entire universe out, and God would still be God - still perfect in every way. Nothing would be diminished.
 
And if you try to argue that this isn't true, what you're saying is that your life has meaning, a purpose, that anything in the universe can enhance the Glory of God - which implies that there was something missing before creation, that God alone was missing something, that God was not enough, that God is not perfect. That God is not infinite, all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-good. If you define God as an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being, this would imply that God isn't God. Many would say at this point that you are worshiping a lesser idol.
 
So how can God give your life meaning? Arguably your life has even less meaning in a universe with a God than it would in a godless universe.  In a universe where God exists, you are extraneous, excessive, a pointless distraction.

Now I'm not saying that the problem of glory is unsolvable.  Indeed, there have been many ways that people have tried to solve it, which is the subject of the next essay.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Against Curtis Yarvin, a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug

Image
Since 2007, there has been a tiny, marginal movement on the internet, or several overlapping movements, started by a person named Curtis Yarvin, better known by his assumed name, "Mencius Moldbug."  (I'll use that name; it's less obscure.)  Spreading out from Silicon Valley, where it first became trendy, the movement(s) have been known by various names.  Moldbug originally called his political philosophy "formalism" - at that time, he was advocating for the government being run in the style of a corporation - especially a Silicon Valley startup - with a powerful CEO.  But that never caught on, and he abandoned it in favor of "neo-cameralism."  But this turned out not to capture anyone's imagination either, and so other names appeared: the Dark Enlightenment, neo-monarchism, and most famous of all, the "NeoReactionary movement" - NRx for short.  Are all these terms equivalent, or are there subtle distinctions between them?  And what ex...
Read more

Why Sam Harris is Wrong About Free Will

Image
  "Free Will" vs. "Determinism" What does it mean to have "solved" a philosophical problem?  This is, in itself, a philosophical problem.  I don't feel comfortable saying I've solved any philosophical problems, but what if I propose a notion of having "minimally solved" a problem - that is, not necessary coming up with the right answer, let alone an answer that will end the debate for everyone, but coming up with the general shape or framework (perhaps missing some important specifics) of an answer that satisfies me , at least to the point where the problem doesn't endlessly torture me and keep me up at night?  If, by "solved," we mean "minimally solved," then I think I have solved the problem that is usually called the debate between "free will" and "determinism".  Not that my answer is particularly original.  Actually, not I, but modern neuroscience solved this puzzle.  And all I mean is tha...
Read more

Why Capitalism is Ending

Image
THE PRODUCTIVITY BOMB Sorry, Ray Kurzweil , there will be no singularity.  As much as Moore’s Law has become a cliche, it has also become a cliche to point out that exponential growth has no "knee" - that is to say, that an exponential growth curve has no inflection point.  It goes up faster and faster, so that not only is the value rising but the derivative of the value is also rising (that is, the rate of increase is itself increasing) yet at any given point it is still a gradual increase.  Growth that gets indefinitely huger as it approaches a specific point of time, a limit known as a singularity, is not exponential growth but rather hyperbolic growth .  There’s no evidence that technology is growing hyperbolically; it is “only” growing exponentially.  Gordon Moore himself has stated that he doesn't believe in the singularity, or even in the continuation of Moore's Law.   (And Moore's Law is starting to fail, anyway ... ) ...
Read more