The Problem of Evil (in a Deterministic Universe)

[c0de]

I have noticed a recurrent theme across different threads on this forum. The question keeps coming up 'is there free will or not?' But this is not the real issue. NOTE: This thread is created specifically for people who have move past that question, and are now dealing with the implications of Determinism and what it means for people who believe in God that is All Knowing & All Powerful.

So very quickly, a quick recap of the problem:

The Problem Of Evil
​

If there is a God, and He is All Knowing, and All Powerful, then the Universe, by definition, is Deterministic, i.e. there is no 'free will'. So if the Universe is deterministic and there is no real "free will" how can Man be responsible/guilty of Evil/Sin, also, how can God be considered Good in such an evil universe?
​

First of all, let us break down this question into parts:



Part 2:

If There is No Free Will, How Can We Understand the Issue of Moral Responsibility for the Individual?


But first we must answer another question:


Part 1:

If the universe is Deterministic, then how is God not evil? (considering all the evil that exists in the universe?)




Part 1:


Premise 1: God Himself is Good:

Premise 2: God allowed for Evil

Conclusion: There is a purpose for Evil, and that purpose will eventually bring about Good.

Explanation: Compare this with Utilitarianism. What is it? It is the man-made system of determining right and wrong. But what is the difference between God's application of Utilitarianism, and man's? There is only one Key difference and it makes all the difference: God has full knowledge for ALL the factors involved. Man... does not. So when man tries to play God's role by deciding right/wrong for himself, he will inevitably fail. But God can do that because he knows Everything.

Practical Example:

You see a train full of people about to speed off a mountain side and kill everyone on board. You have the choice of switching the tracks, but on the alternative track there is a baby in a crawler stuck. If you switch the tracks, you kill the baby, but save the train. Decide.

A utilitarian would, without hesitating, decide to kill the baby and save the train. Why? Because he has 'calculated' the 'good' that will come from saving the loads of people on the train and has sacrificed the 'little' good saving the child would have brought.

The problem with this is that it is a perfect example of man, trying to play God. Because in this case, man is trying to judge what is right and what is wrong. Question: How does the man know, that saving the train will equal more "good" then saving that baby? How does the man know that the baby will not one day grow up and invent a perpetual motion drive, freeing the world of all its energy needs? He does not.

This is why, God, in his Wisdom, can do no "evil". Only man can do evil, out of A) Rebelliousness or B) Ignorance. God can not rebel, because He has no one to rebel against, and He can not be ignorant, because He created the concept of ignorance, and knowledge.





Now, coming back to the original question:

If There is No Free Will, How Can We Understand the Issue of Moral Responsibility for the Individual?


The individual is responsible for his actions because God has told us that we are. But how can we be responsible if God is the source of all actions?

Part 2:


Premise 1: God knows Everything (Omniscience)

Premise 2: If God knows everything, then he knows the outcome of all actions in the universe

Premise 3: If God knows the end of all things, and (from argument #1) God is Good, that means that the end of all things God created, must be Good.

Premise 4: Therefore end of all evil must also be good, (i.e. evil can be seen a tool which ultimately facilitates the coming about of Good.)

Conclusion: Evil was created, so that God could redeem the world.


Problem: There is one very obvious problem which is picked up often with this thesis. People invariably ask the question, Why would God make the world go through such pains in order to prove a point? Why could He not just create everything good, and be done with it? Why do we have to suffer for some cosmic philosophical lesson?

Answer: God has promised an infinite life (eternal bliss) to everything that He redeems. All the pains that you suffer, are finite. Mathematically, nothing infinite can ever be compared to anything finite. Because the infinite, totally eclipses the Finite. This means, that even if you burned in hell for a billion trillion years (which won't happen because it is reported in my religion at least that the longest time spent in hell would be the span of a human lifetime on earth) but you ended up in Heaven and living forever in bliss, it would never be comparable to any amount of pain you suffered in a finite existence.




... Questions? Comments? .... Personal Attacks?

 

[farhan]

You didnt define evil. How exactly did you differentiate it from good? Its a fundamental question that gets overlooked.

 

[c0de]

You didnt define evil. How exactly did you differentiate it from good? Its a fundamental question that gets overlooked.

Hello Farhan, (I think this is the first time we have been addressing each other directly after much time spent on the same threads.) You raise a very valid objection, however it is one which is actually being dealt with in a thread in the Islam section labeled The Secret Behind The Creation Of Good And Evil. Incidentally, that discussion directly interrelates with this one. But since that discussion is already under way, I think this question would be better dealt with over there.

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

So very quickly, a quick recap of the problem:

If there is a God, and He is All Knowing, and All Powerful, then the Universe, by definition, is Deterministic, i.e. there is no 'free will'.

That's a false premise — The fact that God is omniscience and omnipotence does not necessitate determinism.

God could equally be omniscient, omnipotent, and entirely disinterested. This is the Deist view, for example.

+++

Part 2:
Premise 1: God knows Everything (Omniscience)

OK

Premise 2: If God knows everything, then he knows the outcome of all actions in the universe

OK

Premise 3: If God knows the end of all things, and (from argument #1) God is Good, that means that the end of all things God created, must be Good.

No, premise 3 does not necessarily follow from 1 and 2. You have not proven that 'freedom' is ruled out.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

Hello Thomas,

I was actually hoping you would join this discussion after our brief encounter on the omniscience vs free will thread. I think the other person was Dogbrain on another thread.

Hi c0de —


That's a false premise — The fact that God is omniscience and omnipotence does not necessitate determinism.

God could equally be omniscient, omnipotent, and entirely disinterested. This is the Deist view, for example.

+++

Very true. This argument only applies to the God of Abrahamic Religions. However, there is also a way to show why God would indeed be interested in the affairs of the universe. It requires a separate argument of course, and I think that would be the next logical step we should pursue. I do admit that I have not fully developed that approach in my head at this point, but I will ponder on it.

No, premise 3 does not necessarily follow from 1 and 2. You have not proven that 'freedom' is ruled out.

But that is a given, for a God who is interested in our affairs, and is All Knowing and All Powerful. This is the God of Abraham.

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

Very true. This argument only applies to the God of Abrahamic Religions.

But then the data we have regarding the God of the Abrahamic Religions clearly shows that although God is interested in human affairs, and indeed involves Himself in human affairs, that does not make the universe deterministic, nor does it assure man that whatever he does, he will realise the good that God intended for him.

As I understand Scripture, the implication is a God who will 'honour' His creature's wish, even if man chooses perdition ...

Matthew 12:32
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

Mark 3:29
"But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, shall never have forgiveness, but shall be guilty of an everlasting sin."

Luke 12:10
"And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven."

Among traditional commentaries on these verses is the idea that by 'speaking against/blaspheming' is implied one who rejects the offer of salvation, in which case man chooses not to be saved ... the Parable of the Prodigal Son is a wonderful example ... if the son had died during his riotous living away from his father ... then the ending would have been tragic.

The point is, in the end man has to say 'yes' to God ... and in so saying discovers God has been saying 'yes' to him all along ... but God will not make man say yes, because that would require He destroy the very thing He has created.

There is and can be no no coercion in the Divine Life, it is freely offered, and must be freely accepted ...

Thomas

 

[c0de]

@Thomas,

But then the data we have regarding the God of the Abrahamic Religions clearly shows that although God is interested in human affairs, and indeed involves Himself in human affairs, that does not make the universe deterministic,

Hello again,

How can it not? If God knows what you are going to do, and has Full control over your actions. Then how is that universe not deterministic?

But we are getting sidetracked Thomas. I am sorry to be the one pointing this out but this thread deals with the implications of determinism, not whether this universe is deterministic or not. However, I would be glad to take up this discussion again in the other thread: http://www.interfaith.org/forum/omniscience-and-free-will-can-5822-3.html#post167089

If you are intent on retaking up this question on this thread, well then I guess I can't stop you. But as far as I remember, when I replied to your post in that other thread, you did not post anything in response, so I assumed that we were past this question. It is a very valid point in any case, and it definitely deserves attention. Personally however it does not interest me as much because since I am a Muslim, and the Quran makes it very clear that the Universe is deterministic, so naturally I am more concerned about the implications thereof.

....nor does it assure man that whatever he (man) does, he (man) will realise the good that God intended for him.

....the implication is a God who will 'honour' His creature's wish, even if man chooses perdition ...

....There is and can be no no coercion in the Divine Life, it is freely offered, and must be freely accepted ...

That would contradict the Abrahamic God. Observe:

If God created everything for a Good purpose, then to assume that He created a man who will never be (or want to be) redeemed, is to say that God created a creature that was no good. That would contradict the Abrahamic God right there, because He only does good, which means, He only creates Good. (Even evil, if it ultimately brings good is good, but only God has the authority to exercise such means which bring pain and suffering because only He knows everything and can make the call)

Also, if what you say is true, then that creature would be punished for eternity. But if this was true, then what you are actually saying is that: God created a creature, for the sole purpose of receiving punishment. That would also falsify Premise 1, from Part 1. And that premise is an integral part of the Abrahamic Religions. And again, we are only dealing with Abrahamic Religions.

Finally, the implication that any man will be stubborn enough to reject redemption even when thrown in Hellfire.... It just doesn't really sound very reasonable, to me at least. Besides, in the Quran it is stated that every man, no matter how hard hearted he might have been in this life, will immediately realize his error when he faces God on Judgement Day, without any need for coercion at that point, because on that day, everything will be "made plain" to us.

 

[Thomas]

How can it not? If God knows what you are going to do, and has Full control over your actions. Then how is that universe not deterministic?

False premise again ... you have not proven that God determines man's every action. I suggest there is a surfeit of evidence that points otherwise.

The burden is upon you to prove that God wills mans' every action.

Then explain why God holds man accountable for something for which he is not responsible and over which he has no control.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Hi cOde

I'm trying to think of how to respond to you but in order to do so, I must ask you how you define "evil" and if you believe in objective good and evil as something beyond are normal subjective comprehension of good and evil.

 

[c0de]

@ Thomas + Nick A




Thomas

False premise again ... you have not proven that God determines man's every action.

Hi Thomas,

Remember that I never intended to prove that God determines man's every action on this thread. But it looks like you really want to have this discussion here, so let us begin.

My first question to you is this: Do you believe that God is All Powerful and All knowing? If you answer No to this question, then there is no point in advancing the discussion any further because we would basically be talking about different entities. The God that I know is All Powerful and All Knowing.

If you answer Yes, then we can talk about whether this universe is deterministic or not. So I will assume you answered Yes. Therefore, I assume that you accept that God has the power to control each and every action of our lives correct? You also would agree that since He is All Knowing, He is aware of our future end right? (If you disagree with any of those points, again, we would not be talking about the same God.)

Moving on, the question that you might raise at this point (if you have willingly followed this far) is: Does this necessarily mean that God is controlling all our affairs. Is it not true, you might say, that He gives us the choice to do good or evil. I agree with that... to an extent. However, my scripture says very clearly that even though man chooses himself, he can never make the choice which is against God's Will.

Now, is this something you agree with? In other words: Do you believe that man has the power to choose anything which is against the Will of God? Yes or No. If you say Yes, that man can choose something outside of God's Will, then once again we are not talking about the same God. For an All Powerful entity, nothing can take place in His universe without His explicit permission.

If you agree with this and say that man indeed can not choose outside of God's Will, then we move forward. So if we have come this far, let us go a little further: The next question one can ask is this: Does not being able to choose outside of God's Will necessarily mean that one has no choice? After all, one might say, that God created us with our potentials, but designed the system with "free will" as being part of the system so that He can still be All Powerful, and All Knowing, while at the same time allowing us "choice". Do you believe this? and I suspect that you do.

Well then Thomas, look again, because we have just described a deterministic universe. If no action of yours can take place outside of God's Will, that means that every action of yours is within God's Will i.e. Willed/Allowed/Sanctioned by God.

Then explain why God holds man accountable for something for which he is not responsible and over which he has no control.

This is what the argument at the top of the thread deals with. I hope that we are at the point where we can now deal with this question directly.







Nick A

Hi cOde

I'm trying to think of how to respond to you but in order to do so, I must ask you how you define "evil" and if you believe in objective good and evil as something beyond are normal subjective comprehension of good and evil.

Hello Nick and welcome.

Even though this question requires a detailed explanation, (check my reply to Farhan), I will say that the definition of Good that I am working with is: Good that is eternal, the ultimate source of which is God Himself. This "Good" by such a definition is not dependent upon Evil. What I mean by this is that we are not working with the popular "Yin/Yang," or "light/dark" conception of Good vs Evil. For the purposes of our discussion, Good is Eternal and has no counterpart, because God has no counterpart and God Himself is the real source of Good, while Evil, is a temporary illusion which is present in this life for purposes which are ultimately benevolent. I hope this helps. I look forward to your opinions on the issue.

 

[c0de]

@ Nick A + Farhan

You know, I just realized that my explanation of "good" and "evil" are not satisfactory. I have been over-complicating the issue. So in very simple terms: Good, is anything which God says is "Good". And "Evil" is anything which He forbids.

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

Remember that I never intended to prove that God determines man's every action on this thread. But it looks like you really want to have this discussion here, so let us begin.

I only make the point because it appears to be axiomatic to your argument.

My first question to you is this: Do you believe that God is All Powerful and All knowing?

Yes.

If you answer Yes, then we can talk about whether this universe is deterministic or not.

Precisely.

I assume that you accept that God has the power to control each and every action of our lives correct?

I accept that God has the power, but that does not require that He must exercise that power. He might have a greater vision of the world in mind.

You also would agree that since He is All Knowing, He is aware of our future end right?

Yes. I believe He is aware of:
The end for which we were created (our 'real' end).
Every contrary end — every possibility — to which our will can be directed.

Does this necessarily mean that God is controlling all our affairs.

No it doesn't.

Is it not true, you might say, that He gives us the choice to do good or evil. I agree with that... to an extent.

My God is not subject to relative conditions.

However, my scripture says very clearly that even though man chooses himself, he can never make the choice which is against God's Will.

My Scripture says otherwise ... What Scripture are you referring to?

If man cannot make a decision against God's will, then God has pre-determined the decisions he will make. Therefore God is ontologically responsible and accountable for his actions, not man.

If such is the case, man man cannot sin which, by definition, requires a free act of the will, and if such is the case, then the God of the Abrahamic traditions is fundamentally unjust ... if not cruel and capricious.

Now, is this something you agree with?

No. I find your arguments somewhat limited with regard to the nature of the Deity.

In other words: Do you believe that man has the power to choose anything which is against the Will of God?

Yes ... obviously ... because God is free, and God chooses that man should also be free.

Yes or No. If you say Yes, that man can choose something outside of God's Will,

I would say 'outside' is rather inaccurate, as it might imply something God had not thought of or allowed for.

I am saying that God, who grants His creature freedom, has accounted for every possibility of action deriving therefrom ... including an action that is in direct contravention of the Divine Will ... that is what Salvation History is. Were it otherwise, man would not be free ... and we're back to the pointlessness of the creature.

then once again we are not talking about the same God. For an All Powerful entity, nothing can take place in His universe without His explicit permission.

His endowing His creature with a rational intellect shapes everything that follows ... even sin ... God allows it, but that does not mean that God wills it for its own sake.

I am saying God allows sin and suffering, but does not will it.

If you agree with this and say that man indeed can not choose outside of God's Will, then we move forward.

No I don't agree ... I think the logic is flawed, I think you have placed a limitation on what God can or cannot will.

I think the difference between us is that my God allows 'freedom' as an absolute — which boils down to obeying the Divine Will or not — the one and only 'real' choice that exists. Freedom as seen by the RC, EO and OOC.

Your God allows freedom only as an illusion, a relative condition within the confines of a deterministic universe in which man's every action is pre-ordained anyway. So 'freedom' has no real or ontological meaning. Freedom as seen by Luther and the Reformation denominations.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

@ Thomas,


Good Mourning Thomas

I only make the point because it appears to be axiomatic to your argument.

But the title of the Thread has the word "deterministic" in it. But never mind that now.

God allows it, but that does not mean that God wills it for its own sake.

In a philosophic debate, Thomas, this statement of yours, can not be considered valid. You have to realize that I am not making up these issues myself. Just look at how deep this issue goes: Problem of evil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Read the "specific arguments" section.

I started thinking about this issue after I took Philosophy 101 and 200 (which is the reason I hate philosophy by the way, precisely because I find philosophers the most pretentious/arrogant people in the world! present company excluded of course )

In class, I was told that you either have free will, or you have an Omnipotent God. There is no way to have both. For a time, I tried to reconcile free will with an All Powerful God, just like you. But in the end, I realized a way to move beyond the entire argument by formulating a new hypothesis. You see, the greatest argument the philosophers have against God is that He allows evil to exist. I say that Evil, is not eternal, and therefore, a temporary illusion. This is the whole point of my argument here: I want to show that even without Free Will, God can still be proven to be Good, but ALSO because I want to refute the standard arguments these unbearable philosophers have against God. (OMG I can't stand 'em!!!!! )

However, I understand the point which you are trying to make as I was trying to make that same point up until even a couple of months ago, but in a philosophic argument, it would not be accepted as valid. It was then however, when I realized what the words of my own scripture really signify on the issue, and that just "opened my eyes" and blew me away:

My Scripture says otherwise ... What Scripture are you referring to?

These are the words of the Quran:

*(Say I seek refuge in Allah, from the accursed Devil)*


And whomsoever it is Allah's will to guide, He expandeth his bosom unto the Surrender, and whomsoever it is His Will to send astray, He maketh his bosom close and narrow as if he were engaged in sheer ascent. Thus Allah layeth ignominy upon those who believe not. 6:125

And He it is Who has brought you to life, then He will cause you to die, then bring you to life (again); most surely man is ungrateful. 22:66

"Those before them did (also) devise plots; but in all things the master-planning is Allah's...." 13:42

"Now surely they are in doubt as to the meeting of their Lord; now surely He encompasses all things." 41:54

 

[Thomas]

Hi C0de —

But the title of the Thread has the word "deterministic" in it. But never mind that now.

I have just realised I thought this thread was under the Abrahamic Religions, so that's my error, and i apologise for my oversight ...

... in which case, I think there's no real reason to push this further? It's obvious in my tradition at least, and pretty evident from Judaism, that we hold the universe is not deterministic.

+++

In a philosophic debate, Thomas, this statement of yours, can not be considered valid.

Actually, I believe it is. Look at Aquinas.

In class, I was told that you either have free will, or you have an Omnipotent God.

Well presenting that as either/or is an error.

There is no way to have both.

If God were purely mechanical, I would agree, but as by definition God is not, I think the error in that assumption is evident? It is quite possible, indeed logical, to argue the case for a God who knows everything, but doesn't give a fig for what happens, so doesn't interfere.

"Do what you like," such a deity could easily say, "nothing you do matters to me either way." That is the Deist position, which is a permissable philosophical position.

I realized a way to move beyond the entire argument by formulating a new hypothesis ... I say that Evil, is not eternal, and therefore, a temporary illusion.

There's the rub, though, isn't it?

Evil is an illusion in that it presents itself as a good, otherwise no-one would ever do anything evil. I could agree with that, on the Christian basis that evil is always a lesser good, the absolute evil condition being non-existence ... but for someone on the receiving end, the victim of a rape or murder, for instance, evil is very real indeed.

So although evil is false in the sense that it has no ontological source in the good, the real, the true, etc., in a relative sense, as far as we are concerned, it is very real indeed. All Scripture points man towards understanding the error of his ways.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

cOda

In class, I was told that you either have free will, or you have an Omnipotent God. There is no way to have both. For a time, I tried to reconcile free will with an All Powerful God, just like you. But in the end, I realized a way to move beyond the entire argument by formulating a new hypothesis. You see, the greatest argument the philosophers have against God is that He allows evil to exist. I say that Evil, is not eternal, and therefore, a temporary illusion. This is the whole point of my argument here: I want to show that even without Free Will, God can still be proven to be Good, but ALSO because I want to refute the standard arguments these unbearable philosophers have against God. (OMG I can't stand

'em!!!!! )

One person actually made a website on Simone because he was turned off to philosophical BS until reading Simone


I do appreciate your passion to wish to understand rather than to justify a belief system. I'd like to add a few things into the mix. The first is what God's will actually means. Does God's will refer to desired result or sustaining a process? We have become culturally more and more concerned with results so that process is purely secondary. The old slogan that it is not whether you win or lose that counts but how you play the game is now an absurdity where the result is of primary importance.

But if God's will is expressed through the process of the interaction of universal laws without result in mind, is this evil because results don't necessarily benefit us in the moment? From this perspective evil is as you say a subjective temporary illusion for Man. It is a value judgment placed on subjective mechanical reactions to universal laws. Mechanical reaction and conscious action are mutually exclusive. Free will is a function of conscious action while responding to desires is a function of mechanical reaction. It seems to me that we lack conscious self awareness that we commonly believe we have so free will is a potential for Man but as fallen man, we don't have it. This is why to me the essence of religion has the unenviable task of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear or the change of being through gradual awakening from fallen reactive man to awakened conscious Man.

I agree with you that God is the greatest good but question God's will as result oriented as is common during these times. Even war itself can be seen as an unconscious expression of God's will. Yet if conscious evolution is a response to God's love, for some it may alter the expression of God's will. Read how Simone puts evil into the light of a higher conscious perspective. Read how she alludes to consciousness as being able to put evil into a different perspective and allow reactive man to become conscious active Man.

“The sea is not less beautiful to our eye because we know that sometimes ships sink in it. On the contrary, it is more beautiful still. If the sea modified the movement of its waves to spare a boat, it would be a being possessing discernment and choice, and not this fluid that is perfectly obedient to all external pressures. It is this perfect obedience that is its beauty.”

“All the horrors that are produced in this world are like the folds imprinted on the waves by gravity. This is why they contain beauty. Sometimes a poem, like the Iliad, renders this beauty.”

“Man can never escape obedience to God. A creature cannot not obey. The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity. If he does desire obedience, he remains subject to mechanical necessity, but a new necessity is added on, a necessity constituted by the laws that are proper to supernatural things. Certain actions become impossible for him, while others happen through him, sometimes despite him.”

Excerpt from: Thoughts without order concerning the love of God, in an essay entitled L'amour de Dieu et le malheur (The Love of God and affliction). Simone Weil

 

[c0de]

@ Thomas + Nick A

I have just realised I thought this thread was under the Abrahamic Religions, so that's my error, and i apologise for my oversight ...

... in which case, I think there's no real reason to push this further? It's obvious in my tradition at least, and pretty evident from Judaism, that we hold the universe is not deterministic.

+++

Hey Thomas,

You know the fault is not all yours, I admit. I should have been more clear in establishing beforehand that the mainstream Christian thought might not fit in this argument. I do believe that you are right in saying that the concept of salvation (through Jesus, Peace Be Upon Him) is present and part of the Christian faith, and that this has some deep connection with this issue here. Judaism also has messianic ideas which are not part of Islam. You see, for us Muslims, salvation comes through the Quran, which was the primary objective of the Prophet to deliver. For Muslims, our Prophet was the long awaited Messiah foretold by Moses in the Old Testament.

Actually, I believe it is. Look at Aquinas.

I highly respect Aquinas, don't get me wrong. However, contemporary philosophers would not accept his arguments as valid. Even the ones defending free will... damn I wish I still had my notes. I have forgotten all the names of the recent philosophers involved in the debate.

Well presenting that as either/or is an error.

I bet you would have hated it too if you were sitting in that class with me. Especially considering it was a 6-8PM evening class in the middle of the Canadian winter...

If God were purely mechanical, I would agree, but as by definition God is not, I think the error in that assumption is evident? It is quite possible, indeed logical, to argue the case for a God who knows everything, but doesn't give a fig for what happens, so doesn't interfere.

"Do what you like," such a deity could easily say, "nothing you do matters to me either way." That is the Deist position, which is a permissable philosophical position.

Yea but that is not a Personal God, like I, and I assume you as well, believe in. However, I do believe that the presence of human emotions such as Love, in God's creatures is logical proof that God would indeed be interested. An entity that has created the concept of Love, can not be disinterested in the affairs of His creation. It doesn't make logical sense, to me at least.

There's the rub, though, isn't it?

Evil is an illusion in that it presents itself as a good, otherwise no-one would ever do anything evil. I could agree with that, on the Christian basis that evil is always a lesser good, the absolute evil condition being non-existence ... but for someone on the receiving end, the victim of a rape or murder, for instance, evil is very real indeed.

So although evil is false in the sense that it has no ontological source in the good, the real, the true, etc., in a relative sense, as far as we are concerned, it is very real indeed. All Scripture points man towards understanding the error of his ways.

Thomas

Well finally we agree on something.

I would just like to add, that the point I was originally trying to prove here on the thread that all evil is not just an illusion, but a temporary one at that. There will be a time, God Willing, were there will be no more of it.










Nick A

One person actually made a website on Simone because he was turned off to philosophical BS until reading Simone

Hello Nick,

You know I was not familiar with her work, but I just read the quote you provided and I loved it! I opened her page on wiki and found on it a picture that looks like a mug shot. And you know how cool they are lol. Especially this: "The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity."

Compare this statement by Simone to this verse in the Quran:

To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. All are obedient to Him. 30:26

I do appreciate your passion to wish to understand rather than to justify a belief system. I'd like to add a few things into the mix. The first is what God's will actually means. Does God's will refer to desired result or sustaining a process? We have become culturally more and more concerned with results so that process is purely secondary. The old slogan that it is not whether you win or lose that counts but how you play the game is now an absurdity where the result is of primary importance.

I hate that mentality as well. And unfortunately every society in all the world today is steeped neck high in that same attitude. This is one of the reasons why I believe there is no going back now...

But if God's will is expressed through the process of the interaction of universal laws without result in mind, is this evil because results don't necessarily benefit us in the moment? From this perspective evil is as you say a subjective temporary illusion for Man. It is a value judgment placed on subjective mechanical reactions to universal laws. Mechanical reaction and conscious action are mutually exclusive. Free will is a function of conscious action while responding to desires is a function of mechanical reaction. It seems to me that we lack conscious self awareness that we commonly believe we have so free will is a potential for Man but as fallen man, we don't have it. This is why to me the essence of religion has the unenviable task of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear or the change of being through gradual awakening from fallen reactive man to awakened conscious Man.

Silk purse through sow's ear. Nice. I like that.

I will add that it is only the misguided, and the misguiding leaders of religion (or for that matter, any narcissistic person who wants to lead others) are so eager to step up to this challenge. If they truly understood the grave task that lay before them, they would be much more worried about the effort required, and much less exited about the chance of leading others (to ruin, almost inevitably).

I agree with you that God is the greatest good but question God's will as result oriented as is common during these times. Even war itself can be seen as an unconscious expression of God's will. Yet if conscious evolution is a response to God's love, for some it may alter the expression of God's will. Read how Simone puts evil into the light of a higher conscious perspective. Read how she alludes to consciousness as being able to put evil into a different perspective and allow reactive man to become conscious active Man.

The result orientation is a tricky subject, but this is exactly what the original argument in this thread tries to deal with. The idea that all evil, is working towards some good: The main objection being that God could have made this good come about without the preceding pains and suffering. However, as stated, if the ultimate reward/destination for us is eternal bliss, we can not even begin to question God's methods, whatever they may be. As Infinity always trumps the finite, however large the finite may be. There is no comparison between the two.

btw, thanks for the essay quote, I definitely have to read it in its entirety now.

 

[c0de]

GENERAL APOLOGY
​

I screwed up... (and apparently) Big Time. I went to Friday Prayers today at the Mosque, and before the Azan, I took a copy of the Quran from the shelf and opened it 'randomly' and started reading the first verse my eyes set upon.... this is what I read:


Only argue with the People of the Book in the kindest way - (except in the case of those of them who do wrong) - saying, "We believe in what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to you. Our God and your God are one and we submit to Him." (Qur'an, 29:46)


I froze... I realized I made a pretty big mistake by implying earlier that if Christians do not believe in a deterministic universe, then we do not believe in the same God. This was a HUGE mistake.

In the translation of that Quran, the actual words were that to respond to the Christians/Jews by saying that we muslims submit to God "as muslims" and that being the only difference. What this means, as I understand it, is that we muslims are required to submit entirely to God. The word "muslim" in fact, actually means "one who submits."

I am not saying that Christians and Jews do not submit to God. But the fact that Islam makes a point to carry that submition further, to the point where we are in a deterministic mindset, makes that point clear. So in the end, Jews, Muslims, and Christians, for the record, believe in the same God. Its just our perspectives and obligations are a little different, yet fundamentally the same.

Just had to make this clear.

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

I highly respect Aquinas, don't get me wrong. However, contemporary philosophers would not accept his arguments as valid.

Au contraire, mon ami! ... or rather, some contemporary philosophers, not all of them. The point is, only if you reject Revelation as such (as Aquinas states) can you say he is wrong. Beyond that, his reasoning and logic is a model of the philosophical method, from masters as diverse as Aristotle and Avicenna! They can fault his a priori axiom — Revelation — but not his method, even secular philosophers accept that.

Yea but that is not a Personal God, like I, and I assume you as well, believe in. However, I do believe that the presence of human emotions such as Love, in God's creatures is logical proof that God would indeed be interested. An entity that has created the concept of Love, can not be disinterested in the affairs of His creation. It doesn't make logical sense, to me at least.

I would say it is because of that love that God has for a created nature that He allows it freedom, because he wants to be loved in return, rather than just obeyed. If man is to love, freely as a gift of his own being, he must be free to choose the object of his desiring.

I would just like to add, that the point I was originally trying to prove here on the thread that all evil is not just an illusion, but a temporary one at that. There will be a time, God Willing, were there will be no more of it.

Speed the day! Until that time however, I would still argue that it is an illusion which we are free to choose to live by, and die in.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

@ Thomas

Before I reply, I would like to point out that I posted some important information right above your post. I think I submitted it right as you were typing your post so might have missed it. Also, I might be slow in replying this weekend as I am going on road trip. Just an FYI.

Hi c0de —


Au contraire, mon ami! ... or rather, some contemporary philosophers, not all of them. The point is, only if you reject Revelation as such (as Aquinas states) can you say he is wrong. Beyond that, his reasoning and logic is a model of the philosophical method, from masters as diverse as Aristotle and Avicenna! They can fault his a priori axiom — Revelation — but not his method, even secular philosophers accept that.

I know but that is my main objective. To formulate an argument that even one who does not accept revelation, will have to accept. It is probably a stupid goal in realistic terms, but it is what it is. The first thread I started on this forum, the Proof of God thread, was just the first part of the argument. That part of argument was based in science, this part deals with the philosophic objections. The next part, I suspect will deal with human emotions, and how they serve as proof of a Personal Deity.

I am actually posting this stuff to get as much valid criticism as I can so that I can modify the theories accordingly.

I would say it is because of that love that God has for a created nature that He allows it freedom, because he wants to be loved in return, rather than just obeyed. If man is to love, freely as a gift of his own being, he must be free to choose the object of his desiring.

An important add-on is that in Islam, God makes it very clear that as much as He appreciates and rewards the love that His creatures have for Him, God ultimately stands without any need for this love. What I mean is that God does not need our love, like we need His. We are dependent on Him, while He is dependent on no one.

Speed the day! Until that time however, I would still argue that it is an illusion which we are free to choose to live by, and die in.

Thomas

Amen! That definition of free will, even I accept. Its just when speaking in absolute terms that our definitions start to contradict, but even then the intention of both our faiths, I think, is the same.

 

[Nick_A]

@ Thomas + Nick A

Hey Thomas,

You know the fault is not all yours, I admit. I should have been more clear in establishing beforehand that the mainstream Christian thought might not fit in this argument. I do believe that you are right in saying that the concept of salvation (through Jesus, Peace Be Upon Him) is present and part of the Christian faith, and that this has some deep connection with this issue here. Judaism also has messianic ideas which are not part of Islam. You see, for us Muslims, salvation comes through the Quran, which was the primary objective of the Prophet to deliver. For Muslims, our Prophet was the long awaited Messiah foretold by Moses in the Old Testament.



I highly respect Aquinas, don't get me wrong. However, contemporary philosophers would not accept his arguments as valid. Even the ones defending free will... damn I wish I still had my notes. I have forgotten all the names of the recent philosophers involved in the debate.


I bet you would have hated it too if you were sitting in that class with me. Especially considering it was a 6-8PM evening class in the middle of the Canadian winter...


Yea but that is not a Personal God, like I, and I assume you as well, believe in. However, I do believe that the presence of human emotions such as Love, in God's creatures is logical proof that God would indeed be interested. An entity that has created the concept of Love, can not be disinterested in the affairs of His creation. It doesn't make logical sense, to me at least.



Well finally we agree on something.

I would just like to add, that the point I was originally trying to prove here on the thread that all evil is not just an illusion, but a temporary one at that. There will be a time, God Willing, were there will be no more of it.










Nick A


Hello Nick,

You know I was not familiar with her work, but I just read the quote you provided and I loved it! I opened her page on wiki and found on it a picture that looks like a mug shot. And you know how cool they are lol. Especially this: "The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity."

Compare this statement by Simone to this verse in the Quran:

To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. All are obedient to Him. 30:26




I hate that mentality as well. And unfortunately every society in all the world today is steeped neck high in that same attitude. This is one of the reasons why I believe there is no going back now...




Silk purse through sow's ear. Nice. I like that.

I will add that it is only the misguided, and the misguiding leaders of religion (or for that matter, any narcissistic person who wants to lead others) are so eager to step up to this challenge. If they truly understood the grave task that lay before them, they would be much more worried about the effort required, and much less exited about the chance of leading others (to ruin, almost inevitably).


The result orientation is a tricky subject, but this is exactly what the original argument in this thread tries to deal with. The idea that all evil, is working towards some good: The main objection being that God could have made this good come about without the preceding pains and suffering. However, as stated, if the ultimate reward/destination for us is eternal bliss, we can not even begin to question God's methods, whatever they may be. As Infinity always trumps the finite, however large the finite may be. There is no comparison between the two.

btw, thanks for the essay quote, I definitely have to read it in its entirety now.

Hello cOde

You know I was not familiar with her work, but I just read the quote you provided and I loved it! I opened her page on wiki and found on it a picture that looks like a mug shot. And you know how cool they are lol. Especially this: "The only choice offered to man as an intelligent and free creature, is to desire obedience or not to desire it. If he does not desire it, he perpetually obeys nevertheless, as a thing subject to mechanical necessity."

Compare this statement by Simone to this verse in the Quran:

To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and the earth. All are obedient to Him.

Simone Weil is IMO one of the most exceptional women of the twentieth century only a relative few know of yet serves a vital purpose in reconciling atheism with the trancendent paths such as Christianity. The picture you see is a mug shot since as a communist, atheist, social activist, she was often arrested for promoting awareness of societal injustice. Who else could be simultaneously be an influence on and admired by both Leon Trotsky and Pope Paul VI. Now she is taught in universities in the same breath as Kierkegaard. No other woman has such stature. Consider how she is creating a greater awareness of Christian Platonism. All this from someone who dies at 34 years of age.

E. Jane Doering (ed.), Eric O. Springsted (ed.) - The Christian Platonism of Simone Weil - Reviewed by Jeffrey Bloechl, College of the Holy Cross - Philosophical Reviews - University of Notre Dame

She is a rarity because she lived her philosophy. It is what makes her writings so striking. A sensitive person feels their authenticity and purity. She was free of the phoniness of much of a lot of philosophy since it was alive in her rather than self important BS.

It isn't surprising to me that the Quran and Christianity have commonalities on their esoteric level that can never be appreciated from the frication at the exoteric level so your observation isn't surprising to me.

I hate that mentality as well. And unfortunately every society in all the world today is steeped neck high in that same attitude. This is one of the reasons why I believe there is no going back now...

Collectively it is the mentality of the Great Beast that Simone describes so well:

[SIZE=-1]

[SIZE=-1]"The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics."[/SIZE]

[/SIZE]
I will add that it is only the misguided, and the misguiding leaders of religion (or for that matter, any narcissistic person who wants to lead others) are so eager to step up to this challenge. If they truly understood the grave task that lay before them, they would be much more worried about the effort required, and much less exited about the chance of leading others (to ruin, almost inevitably).


The attraction of the false prophet. This is a topic in itself.

The result orientation is a tricky subject, but this is exactly what the original argument in this thread tries to deal with. The idea that all evil, is working towards some good: The main objection being that God could have made this good come about without the preceding pains and suffering. However, as stated, if the ultimate reward/destination for us is eternal bliss, we can not even begin to question God's methods, whatever they may be. As Infinity always trumps the finite, however large the finite may be. There is no comparison between the two.


Evil leading towards the good is a tricky subject. I've read this following page over and over and always find something new. Simone's purity is beyond me yet I get a glimpse of something that is uniquely human. Even though it is beyond me I feel I profit from being aware of human psychological potential from realistically being open to both ones personal human condition in the context of the human evolutionary potential. You may appreciate it. There is no artificial sentimentality in the way love is described.

Love and Knowledge: Two Paths to the One