Dualism: A solution to the problem of evil

[bartdanr]

Hi All,

One of the thorniest problems in most theistic systems is the problem of evil: that is, if God is all-powerful and all-good, then why does s/he allow evil to exist?

Various solutions are offered, such as:
*God has a reason to allow evil to exist that ultimately will result in a greater good. This could be called "the ends justify the means", but it also suggests that God is not "all-powerful" as traditionally believed. His/her power is limited by the inability to produce good ends without going through evil means.
*The evil we see is actually good, or the least evil possible. This argument might be along the lines that God, who has infinite knowledge, is able to see results that we cannot see, and s/he choses the path of the "best of all possible worlds" by allowing what we might consider evil. For example, perhaps a child that dies would otherwise grow up to be the next Hitler. (Of course, God would have allowed Hitler to survive infancy to create some good or stop an even greater evil.) This is slightly different than the first argument, but it too essentially limiting on God's power--s/he could not produce the "best of all possible worlds" without some (at least limited) suffering.
*God has a different standard of mortality than we do. The argument would be that we as fallible humans might have distorted visions of good and evil, and thus our judgments on "good" and "evil" are fallible. This argument tends to deny the existence of "evil", in that what we call "evil" is really "good"--from God's perspective. But this makes God's goodness a tautology, and the terms "good" and "evil" lacking in any meaningful content so we cannot objectively speak about them.
*God has other concerns that sometimes outweigh her/his desire for goodness. This would hold that some other divine attribute, such as the desire for human freedom, would outweigh his/her desire for a good world. This is nearly identical to the first argument, and the same criticisms apply: God is unable to achieve a perfect world and has to "make do" with the tools s/he has.

Some might simply dismiss God as being "good", and state that s/he is "beyond good and evil". A pagan approach might end here (though not all pagans might accept this idea), where God is closely tied to nature, which often does not pity or have mercy.

Others might dismiss God all together, as a materialist might.

However, there is another path that others follow, denying that God is all-powerful, but is all good and evil does, in fact, exist. (As I indicted above, even those who say God is all-powerful but offer solutions to the problem of evil often put limits on that power--i.e., God cannot achieve his/her "good" ends without "evil" means.) Cosmic dualists (not to be confused with the dualism of Taoists) believe that God is all good, but not all-powerful, and works against evil to the upmost of his/her ability.

The idea that if God had the power to destroy evil and did not strikes cosmic dualists as absurd--as absurd as saying that you wish that your child wouldn't starve but then do not provide food for her. (In the human realm, James in the New Testament chastising his readers for having faith but no works would apply to God as well.)

Historically, Zoroastrianism has believed in cosmic dualism. (Some modern Zoroastrians reject this, and believe only an ethical dualism, but they are faced with the same "problem of evil" as other theists. There is no "problem of evil" for the cosmic dualist). This is one reason I hold Zoroastrianism in a special place in my heart, because its God (Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord) is not aloof in the heavens, watching some grand drama unfold, but rather intimately cares about the material world and fights against evil. IMO, the "war" against evil that those who believe in an all-powerful God is a sham war.

Thoughts, anyone?

Peace

 

[ChrisP]

Dualism is something explored most fully by Ghandi, I think anyone with in interest in this direction would benefit from his work, or studies of it.

The points you raise are extremely interesting, some of which I have been thinking over myself for a while. I've found the Tao te ching most helpful in this area, but only when read as a philosophical document. I recommend the Stephen Mitchell version for those who have not read it before. This is because many other translations have a very Bhuddist/Confucian slanting due to millenia of mixing with these other schools of religious thought.

The Tao te Ching is more a short series of poetic questions and philosophy designed to make the reader think about the nature of God and how this affects the world, leading to a greater understanding of the balance of all things. i.e Good/Evil. Incidentally neither of these exist from a Purist Tao perspective, with both being part of the balanced whole.

Perhaps that is why God prefers evil to exist. To provide balance.

After all if there was no evil how would we know good?

 

[Katzpur]

One of the thorniest problems in most theistic systems is the problem of evil: that is, if God is all-powerful and all-good, then why does s/he allow evil to exist?

Hi, bartdanr.

Well, here's my perspective, for what it's worth:

Various solutions are offered, such as:
*God has a reason to allow evil to exist that ultimately will result in a greater good. This could be called "the ends justify the means", but it also suggests that God is not "all-powerful" as traditionally believed. His/her power is limited by the inability to produce good ends without going through evil means.

What is "good" anyway? It's a state that is in opposition to "evil," just as good health is the opposide of sickness, light is the opposite of darkness, prosperity is the opposite of poverty, etc. I don't believe good could even exist independently of evil. At least it would be impossible for us to recognize it as good. So the fact that both good and evil must exist in order for good to triumph is, to me, obvious, and in no way reflects upon God's power or lack thereof.

*The evil we see is actually good, or the least evil possible. This argument might be along the lines that God, who has infinite knowledge, is able to see results that we cannot see, and s/he choses the path of the "best of all possible worlds" by allowing what we might consider evil. For example, perhaps a child that dies would otherwise grow up to be the next Hitler. (Of course, God would have allowed Hitler to survive infancy to create some good or stop an even greater evil.) This is slightly different than the first argument, but it too essentially limiting on God's power--s/he could not produce the "best of all possible worlds" without some (at least limited) suffering.

While I would agree that God's infinite knowledge allows Him to see things from a more perfect perspective than we as mortals can, I don't see this as limiting God's power, either. After all, it would be impossible to progress from point A to point B if we were already at point B. I believe that progression and growth is all part of God's plan.

*God has a different standard of mortality than we do. The argument would be that we as fallible humans might have distorted visions of good and evil, and thus our judgments on "good" and "evil" are fallible. This argument tends to deny the existence of "evil", in that what we call "evil" is really "good"--from God's perspective. But this makes God's goodness a tautology, and the terms "good" and "evil" lacking in any meaningful content so we cannot objectively speak about them.

I'm sorry, but either I'm missing something, or this is just another way of stating your first two points. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

*God has other concerns that sometimes outweigh her/his desire for goodness. This would hold that some other divine attribute, such as the desire for human freedom, would outweigh his/her desire for a good world. This is nearly identical to the first argument, and the same criticisms apply: God is unable to achieve a perfect world and has to "make do" with the tools s/he has.

My own belief is that free agency (i.e. free will, freedom of choice) is a critical component in the growth process. If we were prohibited the freedom to make decisions, we would be stagnant. However, free will does enable us to make decisions that will impact people other than ourselves. But again, even those things we see as having a negative impact on us provide us with opportunities to grow, learn, progress and better ourselves.

I guess, to me, the whole thing gets down to what you consider good and evil to be. I don't think that my definition of good and evil is necessarily the same as God's. I realize that you probably aren't going to buy any of what I have said, and that's okay. It's the best I can do, though, and I will probably not stick around to hash this whole thing out as I've said pretty much all I have to say. If I can clarify anything, though, let me know, and I'll do my best.

Kathryn

 

[bartdanr]

Dualism is something explored most fully by Ghandi, I think anyone with in interest in this direction would benefit from his work, or studies of it.

The points you raise are extremely interesting, some of which I have been thinking over myself for a while. I've found the Tao te ching most helpful in this area, but only when read as a philosophical document. I recommend the Stephen Mitchell version for those who have not read it before. This is because many other translations have a very Bhuddist/Confucian slanting due to millenia of mixing with these other schools of religious thought.

The Tao te Ching is more a short series of poetic questions and philosophy designed to make the reader think about the nature of God and how this affects the world, leading to a greater understanding of the balance of all things. i.e Good/Evil. Incidentally neither of these exist from a Purist Tao perspective, with both being part of the balanced whole.

Perhaps that is why God prefers evil to exist. To provide balance.

After all if there was no evil how would we know good?

Hi Snale, thanks for your post.

The dualism of the Tao is somewhat different than the dualism of Zoroastrianism. In the Tao, both Yin and Yang contain a bit of the other, and they are bound up with each other. However in Zoroastrianism, they are polar opposites and can exist independently from each other. The idea that evil "balances" good has no place in Zoroastrianism.

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Hi Katzpur, thanks for your post.

Hi, bartdanr.

Well, here's my perspective, for what it's worth:


What is "good" anyway? It's a state that is in opposition to "evil," just as good health is the opposide of sickness, light is the opposite of darkness, prosperity is the opposite of poverty, etc. I don't believe good could even exist independently of evil. At least it would be impossible for us to recognize it as good. So the fact that both good and evil must exist in order for good to triumph is, to me, obvious, and in no way reflects upon God's power or lack thereof.

I've heard this before, and I really don't believe it. I don't think good requires evil to exist. I don't think that both a thing and a polar opposite must exist in order for the first thing to exit. For example, the fact that I exist does not mean that there must be an "anti-bartdanr" somewhere in existence.

While I would agree that God's infinite knowledge allows Him to see things from a more perfect perspective than we as mortals can, I don't see this as limiting God's power, either. After all, it would be impossible to progress from point A to point B if we were already at point B. I believe that progression and growth is all part of God's plan.

Take a look at my "Does God have a free will?" thread. If God's knowledge is truly infinitie, then it includes the foreknowledge of his/her own actions, and God can never be said to "chose" anything--and s/he would then not have a free will.

I'm sorry, but either I'm missing something, or this is just another way of stating your first two points. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.

It's a subtle difference. Some assume if we had the same level of knowledge that God has (which isn't necessarily infinite), that we would say "oh, of course I understand why God allowed this to take place, because it is a much better [i.e., more good] result than otherwise." But others would say that even if we had that same level of knowledge, God has a different standard of "good" and "evil", and we would still be confused as to why God allowed something to happen--we still might not see the end result as "good." Does that make it clearer?

My own belief is that free agency (i.e. free will, freedom of choice) is a critical component in the growth process. If we were prohibited the freedom to make decisions, we would be stagnant. However, free will does enable us to make decisions that will impact people other than ourselves. But again, even those things we see as having a negative impact on us provide us with opportunities to grow, learn, progress and better ourselves.

I also believe in free will, and agree that it is a good thing. However, free will cannot explain all evil in this world (for example, was human free agency responsible for the Tsunami?). In addition, depending on how extensive God's foreknowledge is, couldn't s/he have chosen to just create those beings whom s/he knew would only chose good? Not making them robots, but simply refraining from making people whom s/he foreknew would make evil choices? Finally, if God is all-powerful, regardless of evil choices individuals make, could s/he not step in and prevent those evil choices from harming the innocent?

I guess, to me, the whole thing gets down to what you consider good and evil to be. I don't think that my definition of good and evil is necessarily the same as God's. I realize that you probably aren't going to buy any of what I have said, and that's okay. It's the best I can do, though, and I will probably not stick around to hash this whole thing out as I've said pretty much all I have to say. If I can clarify anything, though, let me know, and I'll do my best.

Kathryn

I think your view that God's defintion of good and evil is different from our own is a common reaction to evil existing in this evil. But then speaking of things like "God is good" (or even "God is evil") become meaningless statements, because we're never really certain what "good" and "evil" really mean. In other words, the phrase "God is good" and "God is blark" are equally meaningless.

Hey, it's ok if we disagree--that's one of the reasons we have fun on this forum!

Peace

 

[Aqualung]

I've heard this before, and I really don't believe it. I don't think good requires evil to exist. I don't think that both a thing and a polar opposite must exist in order for the first thing to exit. For example, the fact that I exist does not mean that there must be an "anti-bartdanr" somewhere in existence.

Haven't you ever had a particularly bad experience, and then a normal, though not bad, experience, and were struck by how good the "normal" experience was? You can never fully comprehend what "good" is unless you suffer some sort of "evil." Just like you could never really comprehend how "bartdanr-y" you are unless there is you opposite. Like, when I try to define myself, I say stuff like, "I am like this person because..." but if that were all I could say, that would do me no good. I also have to say "I am not like this person because..." Now, that would be most expedient if there were an anti-bartdanr, but there isn't. But of course, most people will never see anything that is 100% good or 100% evil. But "goodness" requires perspective.

Take a look at my "Does God have a free will?" thread. If God's knowledge is truly infinitie, then it includes the foreknowledge of his/her own actions, and God can never be said to "chose" anything--and s/he would then not have a free will.

That's one of the things I disagreed with in your thread.

also believe in free will, and agree that it is a good thing. However, free will cannot explain all evil in this world (for example, was human free agency responsible for the Tsunami?

How is a tsunami evil?! It's just a bad thing to happen to people. But evil implies some sort of knowledge of good, and an effort to do the opposite of that. Tsunamis can't think! They can't make choices!
[qutoe=bartdanr]In addition, depending on how extensive God's foreknowledge is, couldn't s/he have chosen to just create those beings whom s/he knew would only chose good?[/quote]No. He can't know what we will choose. However, he has created beings, and has put them only in such spots, where they can choose good. Nobody is in a position where they just won't be able to choose good. God never knows what we will choose, so he can't just not make people who won't choose bad.

Finally, if God is all-powerful, regardless of evil choices individuals make, could s/he not step in and prevent those evil choices from harming the innocent?

Yes, he could, but what would be the point of that? Would it make sense for my dad to continually watch over me and prevent me from doing anything that might be harmful, and keep me out of harms reach myself? No, because then I would never learn anything. I would stay, as Katzpur says, stagnant, never learning anything.

 

[michel]

[PART QUOTE=bartdanr]Hi Katzpur, thanks for your post.



................"I've heard this before, and I really don't believe it. I don't think good requires evil to exist. I don't think that both a thing and a polar opposite must exist in order for the first thing to exit. For example, the fact that I exist does not mean that there must be an "anti-bartdanr" somewhere in existence.".......................



Take a look at my "Does God have a free will?" thread. If God's knowledge is truly infinitie, then it includes the foreknowledge of his/her own actions, and God can never be said to "chose" anything--and s/he would then not have a free will.




It's a subtle difference. Some assume if we had the same level of knowledge that God has (which isn't necessarily infinite), that we would say "oh, of course I understand why God allowed this to take place, because it is a much better [i.e., more good] result than otherwise." But others would say that even if we had that same level of knowledge, God has a different standard of "good" and "evil", and we would still be confused as to why God allowed something to happen--we still might not see the end result as "good." Does that make it clearer?



I also believe in free will, and agree that it is a good thing. However, free will cannot explain all evil in this world (for example, was human free agency responsible for the Tsunami?). In addition, depending on how extensive God's foreknowledge is, couldn't s/he have chosen to just create those beings whom s/he knew would only chose good? Not making them robots, but simply refraining from making people whom s/he foreknew would make evil choices? Finally, if God is all-powerful, regardless of evil choices individuals make, could s/he not step in and prevent those evil choices from harming the innocent?



I think your view that God's defintion of good and evil is different from our own is a common reaction to evil existing in this evil. But then speaking of things like "God is good" (or even "God is evil") become meaningless statements, because we're never really certain what "good" and "evil" really mean. In other words, the phrase "God is good" and "God is blark" are equally meaningless.

Hey, it's ok if we disagree--that's one of the reasons we have fun on this forum!

Peace[/QUOTE]Of course it does, bartdanr, otherwise how would you know what good was, and what bad was ? - and yes, there is a good and a bad bartdarn; they are both in you. You habve the ability to be good or bad. (whatever good and bad are - but that's for another topic).

 

[Quiddity]

I've heard this before, and I really don't believe it. I don't think good requires evil to exist. I don't think that both a thing and a polar opposite must exist in order for the first thing to exit. For example, the fact that I exist does not mean that there must be an "anti-bartdanr" somewhere in existence.

Good point.

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

bartdanr, read this article and see if it gives you a different perspective.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211bt.asp

~Victor

 

[Fire Empire]

bartdanr, read this article and see if it gives you a different perspective.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211bt.asp

~Victor

Though not intended for the Fire Empire, we read this article anyway. It contains interesting interpretations of the Bible, notable the use of metaphor to explain what God really wants to say. Three points from the article as they relate to this thread:

1) "[God] does intensely disapprove of sin and, when it is committed, will act. This action may take the form of allowing temporal calamity to befall those who engage in sin."

In other words, God allows calamities as punishment for sins. These calamities tend to fall on both the hard-core, big-time sinners and the moderately innocent alike. Kind of like collateral damage from a rocket strike. We can't believe that an all-powerful being is unable to punish more accurately.

2) "The first solution is that God never wills moral evil to anyone. He only allows them to become morally evil. He may positively will physical evil (pain, hunger, sickness, death) when it will serve to achieve a greater good (e.g., repentance, avoidance of danger)."

So God permits people to become morally evil. But couldn't he have pre-programmed a sort of "sickness" into people so that if they start to fall into evil, they suffer a painful, incapacitating stomach ache (like treatments in the movie "Clockwork Orange")? Or maybe make evil people start glowing red depending on just how evil their thoughts are--to warn other people? Neither situation would damper free will.

3) "Statements that he willed or brought about physical evil (e.g., a plague) could be interpreted either to mean that he willed the evil to achieve a good or that he allowed the evil to achieve the good."

Is God incapable of achieving good without evil? Sounds like his power might be limited after all. Otherwise, he might be a sadist. That would certainly explain a lot.

 

[ChrisP]

Zoroastrian Dualism has many similarities to modern Vedan studies. A good website to for this is http://www.avesta.org/ .

Avestan Zoroastrianism comes from a time when Aryans, who are now the people of India and Iran were living as one with one religion.

THE VEDA &THE AVESTA

​

Nagendranath Gupta​

SOME European orientalists and a few Zoroastrian scholars have devoted some study and attention to the very remarkable similarity between the Vedas and the Avesta, but the parallelism has not been explored thoroughly and exhaustively. It is one of the most fascinating and fruitful studies in comparative theology and comparative philology. There was a time when the Aryans of India and the Aryans of Iran were the same people, following the same religion and the same customs. Then at some time in the remote past they divided into two sections and went different ways. Before they parted there was a religious schism of which there is evidence in their scriptures. There must have been considerable bitterness of feeling, though there is no circumstantial or suggestive evidence and no tradition that there was any actual feud or fighting between the two sections of the tribe.

 

[bartdanr]

Zoroastrian Dualism has many similarities to modern Vedan studies. A good website to for this is http://www.avesta.org/ .

Avestan Zoroastrianism comes from a time when Aryans, who are now the people of India and Iran were living as one with one religion.

THE VEDA &THE AVESTA

​

Nagendranath Gupta​

SOME European orientalists and a few Zoroastrian scholars have devoted some study and attention to the very remarkable similarity between the Vedas and the Avesta, but the parallelism has not been explored thoroughly and exhaustively. It is one of the most fascinating and fruitful studies in comparative theology and comparative philology. There was a time when the Aryans of India and the Aryans of Iran were the same people, following the same religion and the same customs. Then at some time in the remote past they divided into two sections and went different ways. Before they parted there was a religious schism of which there is evidence in their scriptures. There must have been considerable bitterness of feeling, though there is no circumstantial or suggestive evidence and no tradition that there was any actual feud or fighting between the two sections of the tribe.

Hi Snale, thanks for the post.

Yes, I frequent the avesta.org site a lot. I've downloaded nearly the entire site onto my HD! I really appreciate all the hard work that went into it.

There are many parallels between Zoroastrianism and Vedic Hinduism, to be sure. But the uniquie contribution of Zoroastrianism is its cosmic dualism. Indeed, it demotes many Hindu gods as "Daevas"--and calls them demons. (Some Vedic gods are still honored, though--for example, Mithra.)

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Hi Aqualung, thanks for your post.

Haven't you ever had a particularly bad experience, and then a normal, though not bad, experience, and were struck by how good the "normal" experience was? You can never fully comprehend what "good" is unless you suffer some sort of "evil." Just like you could never really comprehend how "bartdanr-y" you are unless there is you opposite. Like, when I try to define myself, I say stuff like, "I am like this person because..." but if that were all I could say, that would do me no good. I also have to say "I am not like this person because..." Now, that would be most expedient if there were an anti-bartdanr, but there isn't. But of course, most people will never see anything that is 100% good or 100% evil. But "goodness" requires perspective.

I knew a man who continually banged his head against a concrete floor. When I asked him why, he said "because it will feel so good when I stop."

Seriously, though, this idea makes about as much sense to me. If this were true, we should all try to achieve the maximum evil in our lives in order to better appreciate the good. I should hope for the death of my son, so I'd love my other children that much more. I should pray for sickness, so I can better appreciate my health. I should seek injustice in order to see the beauty of justice more. Indeed, God would be very cruel to give us an easy life--s/he would be limiting our joy.

That's one of the things I disagreed with in your thread.

Actually, if you look at both threads, I don't believe that God knows the future. Rather, I believe that if s/he does know the future (as many believe), it would mean that s/he had no free will. The person I responded to seemed to believe that God does, in fact, know everything about the future, and I was trying to show some of the difficulties in that position.

How is a tsunami evil?! It's just a bad thing to happen to people. But evil implies some sort of knowledge of good, and an effort to do the opposite of that. Tsunamis can't think! They can't make choices!

Ethically speaking, there is "moral evil" (such as when beings make a choice to cause evil) and "natural evil" (when some natural process causes pain and misery.) Some might not call "natural evil" "evil" in any sense. But really, if you believe that God has the power to stop the Tsunami and choses not to, or even that God chose to directly cause the Tsunami, then all that happens is ultimately his/her responsibility. It's like I had the ability to stop a murderer from commiting his/her crime, and chose not to. I bear at least some measure of the guilt.

No. He can't know what we will choose. However, he has created beings, and has put them only in such spots, where they can choose good. Nobody is in a position where they just won't be able to choose good. God never knows what we will choose, so he can't just not make people who won't choose bad.

I agree.

Yes, he could, but what would be the point of that? Would it make sense for my dad to continually watch over me and prevent me from doing anything that might be harmful, and keep me out of harms reach myself? No, because then I would never learn anything. I would stay, as Katzpur says, stagnant, never learning anything.

It's a measure of degree. I will let my son fall as he struggles to walk or climb, but if it is really dangerous, I will catch him. I could let him run around and do whatever he pleased, run out into the street or whatever, and say "hey, he's going to stagnate if I try to hinder his free actions." That would be crazy. So I let him do what he wishes within limits.

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Of course it does, bartdanr, otherwise how would you know what good was, and what bad was ? - and yes, there is a good and a bad bartdarn; they are both in you. You habve the ability to be good or bad. (whatever good and bad are - but that's for another topic).

Hi Michel, thanks for your post.

See my post above. If evil really produces good, then I should try to maximize the evil in my life so that good might be greater. God would be very cruel if s/he gave me health, long life, a good family life, etc.

Peace

 

[Aqualung]

I knew a man who continually banged his head against a concrete floor. When I asked him why, he said "because it will feel so good when I stop."

Seriously, though, this idea makes about as much sense to me. If this were true, we should all try to achieve the maximum evil in our lives in order to better appreciate the good. I should hope for the death of my son, so I'd love my other children that much more. I should pray for sickness, so I can better appreciate my health. I should seek injustice in order to see the beauty of justice more. Indeed, God would be very cruel to give us an easy life--s/he would be limiting our joy.[/quote]Hmm. I never thought of it that way. I don't think we should go around looking for evil. But I also don't think that the goodness would mean as much without any evil, so God allows us to taste a bit of evil every now and then.

Ethically speaking, there is "moral evil" (such as when beings make a choice to cause evil) and "natural evil" (when some natural process causes pain and misery.) Some might not call "natural evil" "evil" in any sense. But really, if you believe that God has the power to stop the Tsunami and choses not to, or even that God chose to directly cause the Tsunami, then all that happens is ultimately his/her responsibility. It's like I had the ability to stop a murderer from commiting his/her crime, and chose not to. I bear at least some measure of the guilt.

Oh. I see what you're saying.

It's a measure of degree. I will let my son fall as he struggles to walk or climb, but if it is really dangerous, I will catch him. I could let him run around and do whatever he pleased, run out into the street or whatever, and say "hey, he's going to stagnate if I try to hinder his free actions." That would be crazy. So I let him do what he wishes within limits.

Ah, within limits. You probably set your limits based in what it will do to him. For example, you won't let him do things that will cause him to die. Because that would be the end of your life with him. But death is not the end of our life with god. The limits that he sets are therefore much, much wider.

 

[nutshell]

I believe we lived with God before coming to this earth. That was our "learning to walk" time and God helped us from getting hurt. Now, however, the time came for us to be on our own and learn what it likes to grow up. If I let my kids live with me forever they'll never learn all there is to know about being an adult so, when the time is right, they'll need to leave. Like God, I'll always make myself available for a call if they need help. Sometimes they'll get the help they need and sometimes they'll need to have the experience for themselves.

 

[Katzpur]

I've heard this before, and I really don't believe it. I don't think good requires evil to exist. I don't think that both a thing and a polar opposite must exist in order for the first thing to exit. For example, the fact that I exist does not mean that there must be an "anti-bartdanr" somewhere in existence.

First of all, in case you hadn't stopped to consider it, you are a human being, not a quality.

Yes, something could exist without its opposite also existing. But it could have no relative value. Good could exist without evil, but we could not recognize it as something worthwhile without being able to conceive of its absence.

I also believe in free will, and agree that it is a good thing. However, free will cannot explain all evil in this world (for example, was human free agency responsible for the Tsunami?).

No, of course it couldn't. But are you saying the Tsunami was "evil"? Certainly, from our perspective, it was "tragic." But again, God sees things from a different perspective than we do, so I don't think we can legitimately see everything that appears to have a negative impact on us as wrong, evil, wicked, etc.

In addition, depending on how extensive God's foreknowledge is, couldn't s/he have chosen to just create those beings whom s/he knew would only chose good? Not making them robots, but simply refraining from making people whom s/he foreknew would make evil choices?

No He couldn't have, because, as I said before, it would be impossible for anybody to choose good if there was no alternative.

Finally, if God is all-powerful, regardless of evil choices individuals make, could s/he not step in and prevent those evil choices from harming the innocent?

Are you asking if He could allow John to murder Bob and at the same time prevent Bob from dying?

 

[bartdanr]

bartdanr, read this article and see if it gives you a different perspective.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0211bt.asp

~Victor

Hi Victor, thanks for the post.

I read the article, though to be honest I didn't read anything I hadn't heard before. A lot of the article was devoted to God's "otherness"--that when it speaks of God in an anthropomorphic way, we should not think that God's anger (for example) is like our anger. To be fair, we should also make sure that when we say "God is love", by this measure the divine love is little like our own. In essence, this leaves God's nature largely unknown.

His/her allowing people to be punished for their sin also indicates one possible reason for evil to befall us. That certainly can address some evil, but according to Job (Job's friends tried to say Job had some unconfessed sin that caused his evil, and God told them they were wrong), it cannot explain all.

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Is God incapable of achieving good without evil? Sounds like his power might be limited after all. Otherwise, he might be a sadist. That would certainly explain a lot.

Thanks for your post, Fire.

Yes, I agree--even those who claim God is omnipotent will usually claim that s/he has limitations on power.

Peace

 

[bartdanr]

Ah, within limits. You probably set your limits based in what it will do to him. For example, you won't let him do things that will cause him to die. Because that would be the end of your life with him. But death is not the end of our life with god. The limits that he sets are therefore much, much wider.

Hi Aqualung, thanks for your post.

I agree that having an afterlife mitigates against death being so terrible. However, this brings up some questions:
*What of those who had the briefest of lives, and could not experience good or evil (like an infant who dies shortly after birth)? Would they then have the opportunity to experience good and evil before a permanent afterlife? (A belief in reincarnation at this point would help establish some experiential "balance").
*None of us have had quite the same experience with good and evil. Some have had lives full of more evil than others. Does this mean that their reward will be greater? Does this mean that they have higher spiritual evolution? Will those with little evil in their lives experience some evil in the afterlife in order to "balance the scales" (not necessarily in a judicial way, but in the realm of human experience)? (Again, reincarnation might help here.)
*If the eternal state is eternal bliss, will only those who experienced to most profound pain truly enjoy it more?
*If the experience of pain and suffering (including death) is pedalogical in nature, then how is this needed in an eternal life of bliss? What valuable lesson does this teach us?

These are just some of the difficulties encountered when trying to say that our experience of evil in this life has some kind of pedalogical purpose.

Peace