The Unthinkable Improbable

Scientists, liberal theologians, generals, detectives, liberal politicians, mainstream university professors and many judges all tend to share a similar proclivity. They are usually completely willing to engage in unproven and unprovable speculation. They will, for the sake of argument or as a preliminary thesis, think the unthinkable (and the unknown) just to cover all the “worst case scenarios”, all the possibilities, and even the improbable but remotely possible solutions.
Scientifically and in several other areas of the real world, as the term is understood in politically correct circles, this is probably a useful technique. It allows, hopefully, for thinking “outside the box”, and it may open the mind to unusual possibilities and solutions to a problem.
As A. Conan Doyle wrote in the words of Sherlock Holmes, “When you have eliminated all other possibilities the remaining one—however improbable—must be the answer.”
But there is one improbability that remains universally out of bounds to most of the above practitioners of the fine art of speculation. There is one subject in which one is either not allowed to speculate at all or is deemed unprofessional or, at best, only moderately sane if one does.
It is the subject of conservative Christianity (or of any other religion, for that matter). I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, “God is too big to fit in any one religion”. It sounds nice, even rather profound until you think about it. If God is in all religions, then the beliefs about the characteristics and nature of God of any one faith are rendered invalid. They tend to contradict.
God becomes simply an unknowable entity. Taking into account the beliefs of all religions, we can’t know if He (or She) is even aware of us. So there’s nothing to pray for, nothing to expect, and there are no consequences for offending or ignoring Him (or Her).
But just in the interest of the kind of free ranging speculation allowed in nearly all other disciplines, let’s indulge in a bit of speculation ourselves—about God.
Speculation one: Suppose such a being exists. Two) Suppose he takes a proprietary interest in the universe and creatures he created? Suppose—in the interest of fomenting sanity and good hygiene among the creatures he made—he has set up some behavioral standards for those creatures? Suppose that if those standards are ignored, he doesn’t punish but merely allows the natural consequences of injurious behavior to run their course?
These are no more irrational suppositions than those made by natural and behavioral scientists every working day of their lives. They’re merely in a taboo area.
But having established these suppositions about a deity, one is then face to face with other questions. (I suspect that a significant reason God is not permitted in the speculative arena is the nature of the following necessary questions that must follow if he were.)
Suppose we then have a nation of people wracked with their own greed doing utterly foolish things to satisfy their covetous cravings. Huge, unsupportable homes with ridiculous mortgages, bundled securities with no proven value, rampant sexuality (that does damage participants by diseases, by regret—have you ever watched someone weep AFTER an abortion; I have more than once—or by a hardening of once innocent and natural affections), a thirst for an ever greater variety of truly appalling perversions inflicted upon children, women and each other.
Then let us suppose that the deity who established certain behavioral rules feels that it is time to call a halt to the hurtful and foolish behavior. Suppose then that he leaves the fools that indulged in the behavior to cry unto the only God they acknowledge, “Save us! Bail us out!”
A thought that will be regarded as insane in any academic or intellectual circle: Do you suppose there could be an offended God element in our present difficulties?
And, if so, is there anything we should do about that? Like that old word we never hear in “The Wall Street Journal” or “The Washington Post” or any other part of the media—repent.
All that really means is to say you are sorry for being so stupid—and promise to do better next time.
Even an atheist might agree that a degree of repentance and a few heartfelt promises to do better might not be a bad idea.
I don’t expect to see this any time soon. It’s much, much too unthinkable.