I like Sathya Sai Baba, read a lot of His stuff.
He knows where it is.
Love
Leroy
Hola!
We live in a world of opposition. Up/Down, Left/Right, Man/Woman, Loud/Quiet, Beautiful/Ugly, Dark/Light. plus probobly a hundred more (at least.) I teach English as a foreign langauge in the People’s Republic of China, and I enjoy playing an opposition game on the blackboard to get my student’s thinking.
I think that ancient man, especially the Roman people see their lives in opposition and wishing to discard their old religion which gave them no direction nor an answer to why yesterday was such a pretty day and today was the day a volcano buried their reletives (Vesuvuis 79 AD) or any other disaster for example. So hear co0mes the Christian religion in the first and second century to tell the people that yes, life is in opposition and the light force is governed by God/Jesus and the dark by Satan and his boys. The Romans, dissolutioned by the other BS that was their religion, threw this away for the faith of opposition and 2000 years later it works today, although it is wheaker because of scientific thought and exploration,. even though even this path is still filled with contradictions and opposites.
SENOR
this is usually called “the problem of evil”. i’m sure if you search for those words, you can find many people who attack and defend it. generally, it goes like this:
A. God is wholly Good.
B. God is omnipotent.
C. A being that is wholly Good would stop evil when he could.
D. God Created a world with Evil in it.
conclusion:
~A v ~B
several denials of the logic used here exist. one says “god created evil so we could know what good means.” to that, i’d say, if he is omnipotent, surely he could create a world without evil in which we knew what good was.
another says “god created man with free will so they could decide between good and evil for themselves.” i have many problems with this one. first of all, whence comes this “free will”? how is it that we are somehow independent of the universe? and what gives that independent entity its free will? second, god created man with ability to do evil.
another says “evil does not really exist in the world. rather, it is a lack of goodness that is perceived as evil.” this is a bit tougher to respond to, as it is a bit of a red herring. it’s basically a semantic battle, so i’ll skip it here.
perhaps the trickiest argument is the “the lord works in mysterious ways” or “we cannot understand god’s logic” response. this is hard to argue against because it attacks the very means we use to argue. neither, then, does the arguement “god is bound by a different logic” hold any water in arguing against the logic of “the problem of evil” since it denies the very foundations on which it stands. if god is not bound by logic, we ought not even talk about him at all, and wait until we are familiar with that logic before we talk about him at all, in any sense (as benevolent or otherwise).
my personal question (and one asked in another thread that i quickly lost track of) is why did god create man at all? for someone who’s all omnipotent and stuff, we sure seem like a lousy means to some end.
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
Sister Miriam Godwinson
“But for the Grace of God”
HennaDancer wrote:
I don’t believe that He must. I believe that He chooses to, freely and willfully.
similar recent thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=147039&highlight=perfect
I am not sure that this is an obvious fallacy, but laying that issue aside, here is my take on why societies might view God as good from a sociological perspective.
- God is omniscient.
- Man is not omnicscient.
- Therefore God knows more than man.
- Therefore God is better to judge what is good and what is not.
- Since God has more knowledge than man, what is good and what is evil is ultimately defined by what God considers good and evil because he knows better than man.
- Since God can define what is good, he would naturally be good because he would not define characteristics that oppose his character or actions to be evil.
- Therefore God is good.
I am not saying that this is logical proof that God is always good, I am simply suggesting it as a possibility as to why a monotheistic society might view God as good. If God is to be worshipped, I suspect that what is good ultimately becomes defined as what pleases God, which in turn leads to the conclusion that since good is what pleases God, God must be good.
As an aside, I don’t see the fact that there is evil in the world as proof that God is not good or benevolent.
Because nobody would like to believe there’s an evil or mischievous, or indifferent god. Such a depressing mythology wouldn’t have any success.
Try to say you can communicate with the deads, and tell your public that the people they loved are currently suffering horribly in hell, or that they hate them for whatever harm they did to them during their live, and see if you’ll find a lot of “customers”…
—I don’t believe that He must. I believe that He chooses to, freely and willfully.—
Why does he?
If being such that you consistently choose the good is compeltely compatible with whatever you understand free will to be, then why create beings with whatever you understand free will to be such that they do not consistently choose the good?
—the soul knows that we can’t learn love without experiencing both sides of duality.—
At some point, this, the duality view that there cannot be love without evil, seems straight out wrong. Mothers don’t have to lose their children to love them: they just DO love them. People that live in absolute misery do not necessarily have more capacity for love than those that don’t: in fact consistent misery seems to psychologically damage them. People living in a good society with few tragedies don’t necessarily have boring and loveless lives: in fact they seem to have more capacity for joy, exploration, friendship, etc. Arbitrary violence and chaos are not the only interesting challenges to inspire people to greater things. The depths of depravity aren’t necessary for the heights of human companionship and love, and in many cases they seem more of a hindarence than a teaching tool. Other things equal, there’s not a lot of benefit of living in a lousy world and society when you and everyone else could be living in a good one. So why start with the lousy ones to begin with?
for clairobscur
Maybe that’s why Greek, Roman and Nordic religions gave way so easily to Christianity - they were filled with “evil or mischievous, or indifferent” gods.
On a seperate point, I think HennaDancer has inadvertantly emphasised the essence of this thread
As others have pointed out, our understanding of what constitues goodness or benevolence is both wholly subjective, and stricly limited by human weakness. It is not inconsistent to see something that appears to be evil, but to be able to concede that it may be good. In the end, we have to believe that G-d is good, if we could prove it, then there would be no need for faith.
This is an interesting question, but I’m not altogether sure God is always a benevolent deity outside of a modern Judeo Christian frame of reference. Not only is ‘good’ relative, as has been pointed out, but the Old Testament God could be downright cranky. I’d say he was bit more neutral in his approach, and only recently decided his love was unconditional.
I should also point out, with all due respect to theists, that I believe God is sculpted by his followers. Many people want a kind God, so it is no surprise when they have one.
Apos wrote:
I covered that in this post.
**
Isn’t it obvious?
If I were to only believe in one God then I would want to make sure he was a nice one too.
You can get into alot of circular logic traps thinking about how God = benevolence and his mysterious ways, but at the heart of it, all that is really necessary is the idea that he rewards the faithful. You cannot know benevolence without Him.
Sure it doesn’t make sense, but that’s what they invented the devil for.
Classical Chinese religion is pretty much as described. Darn popular, even today.
I’m glad you’re teaching English, not History. Read a high-school level History of Civilization book and get back to us. Yikes.
—I covered that in this post.—
No, I asked, why does God choose to be good? Or, why is he such that he chooses to do good, instead of evil?
Your explanation of God in that thread begins by explaining why you think god has whatever you understand to be free will, and then continues “…if God has chosen goodness.” The question is, if God is free to make decisions (free from WHAT? his own will?), then WHY did he make THAT one?
It seems to me that answering that question in any fashion is problematic for the very concept of free will (well, i can’t say much about the concept directly, only what I can infer you think its implications are), so either it’s a malformed question, or we have a very serious issue here.
The story goes that God emerged from the abyss and said “I AM”, then He looked around and realized He was all alone. I personally don’t see what is so cool about self-deprecation.
Apos
Free from coercion. (Freedom means the absence of coercion.) And as I said, he chooses it for the same reason we all make our choices — He values it.
But what does God value?
Unless you’re claiming that God values whatever He happens to do (which would require that His values wouldn’t actually determine His choices), you’re suggesting that there’s an underlying pattern. What is it?
Libertarian, why do you insist on describing this Absolute of yours like a mind? You keep saying that it values things, chooses things, feels things. What reason do you have to think that the Absolute would be capable of such actions (or for that matter, any actions at all, since an Absolute would necessarily be changeless)?
Are you all talking about God or Santa?