17 August 2010

Theodicy. Sorted.

For centuries, theologians have wrestled with the central problem of their odd assumption of a benevolent god - why is there so much *death* in the world? Why would a loving god create a world in which everything *died*, often in pretty horrible ways? What could such a designer have been *thinking* of? Explanations such as "original sin" have been proposed, but have been dismissed as philosophically infantile. A slightly more grown-up (but still utterly flawed) proposal has been to regard evil as the consequence of free will - if death didn't happen, our free will would be impaired. That makes no sense at all, and again most philosophers regard it as silly.

But now I will reveal the answer. Why all the death?

Answer: SEX, SEX, SEX.

God must simply *love* sex. Lots and lots and lots of sex. Bat sex, whale sex, ragworm sex, crab sex, duck sex, cheeky monkey sex. Lemming sex, octopus sex, snail sex, caddis-fly sex. The animal kingdom is tripping over itself with the kinkiest, wildest, wettest, hairiest, horniest, craziest sex you could ever imagine. Some birds do it while they are flying; in some spider species, the female eats the male after sex. Some nematode worms practically envelop each other during sex, while some frogs display spectacular acts of acrobatics to fertilise their spawn. No need to go on. No need to over-egg the pudding.

God made death to clear the stage for a gigantic explosion of critters gettin' it on. A benevolent god, who wants his creatures to shag the living daylights out of each other. Which he can (presumably) watch from on high.

And thereby theism is rescued. I wonder why Cecil Frances Alexander didn't include sex in "All Things Bright and Beautiful"?


  1. hey shane,
    "Why would a loving god create a world in which everything *died*, often in pretty horrible ways?"

    as usual, you manage to ask good questions, it's just your conclusions which are pretty sorry - though i join with you in reocgnising that god loves sex!

    however it's your initial question where the problem lies:

    the right q is not

    "Why would a loving god create a world in which everything *died*, often in pretty horrible ways?",


    "what is so serious about sin that would lead such a loving god to allow death into the perfect deathless world he created?"

  2. Nice one, Jeremy, v funny. Now try that again without preloading it with unsupported premises! :-)

  3. nope. i don't have to be able to support my premises in order to successfully undercut your argument. which also, btw, has unsupported premises. :-)

  4. Er, Jeremy, you haven't undercut my argument! You can't "undercut" something by piling up a load of unsupported mince against it :-)