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
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