In about 300 B.C., Epicurus eloquently summed up the problem of the existence of evil. It has come to be known as the Riddle of Epicurus or the Epicurean paradox. It was translated by David Hume in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Sam
The word "Evil", when used as a noun, refers to a state of mind or attitude where personal gain is acquired through hostile or malevolent actions.
Whether, you believe in the supernatural or not has nothing to do with it. Many of the greatest acts of evil have been committed in the name of religion, by believers of God.
Consider the Spanish Inquisition, the brutal murder by torture of Egyptians by Christians after the fall of the Roman empire, the use of thermobaric and "daisy-cutter"-like devices against Palestinian civilians (including toddlers) by the IDF in Gaza, and the actions of America's premier terrorist group, the KKK, all in the name of God and the bible.
Karl…(sigh)
Somebody else? (head desk—thump)
The postulations by Epicurus have an inherent error in them that make the suggestions meaningless. That error – or assumption or belief if you prefer – is that God is some separate being who created this world. I believe along with many that this world is illusion based on the idea of separation, and the belief that material conditions define us. This in itself is "evil" in that it doesn't reflect the truth many believe where it is spirit or consciousness that creates our illusory experiences here. The fallacy of the external/separate god and of this world being cause rather than effect of consciousness it the major fault with the question of evil. Epicurus was speaking from within that limited paradigm, so his observations will be likewise of limited use.
That said, what we call evil is anything build on the idea of material "reality". Separation is itself an idea that is inherently violent contrasted to Oneness. In separation-mindedness there are the ideas of threat, fear, hate, loss and many others generated. In Oneness such are meaningless and amusing fancies. Only love and peace mean anything.
The perennial challenge has been to believe in the inner cause being consciousness instead of what constantly meets our senses from the material world of separation. The Buddha said what meets the five sense will lead us astray from the truth and peace. Being defined by the world is materialism and could be called evil. Defining your own self by your facility in consciousness and what is true to your heart and sense of highest value regardless of what meets the senses – that is spirituality and certainly good. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "I have overcome the world." He didn't let it define him, and thus he had the power of God (the creating consciousness) fully supporting him.
So, if you want to know what good and evil are just look at the source of your motivations and definitions. Is it matter and separation or spirit and unity? If you want to know the nature of God, look within. There is no outside God to rescue us or fail us, to be benevolent or malevolent, and all power we assign to Him he has secretly assigned to us.
I answer Epicurus:
God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
because he has given that job to us. We are omnipotent because our consciousness creates our lives.
We are able, but not willing
Not because we are malevolent but ignorant of our power and responsibility. We keep waiting for God to do it.
Then whence cometh evil?
From the belief in separation. All fear, hate and guilt come from this. We then imagine gods – others – to create, bless, abuse, neglect and save us.
Our truth is that we are both able and willing
But constantly let our senses distract us from our inner truth and deepest values. We believe them and let them define us, and lose sight of our God-given power. Were we aware of that we would not point to external God as the source of our problems and our salvation. We would know that God is the reality of our oneness beyond all matter.
ericjt:
Absolutely fantastic job. It is very nearly exactly the point I was alluding to concerning the inner spirituality of the human creature. I daresay that, should science focus its resources on investigating the natural implications of these claims, we may finally discover our evolutionary end point and realize a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe, of existence, and of ourselves.
In response I only have one thing to say.
"You must go on, I can't go on, I'll go on."
Hence cometh evil?
What to one person is a gladly chosen choice to be supportive/helpful to another person can easily be viewed by others as an immoral recommendation to put one person under the control of somebody else. Thus even a good intent can be labeled as an "evil" atrocity.
Can anyone tell me how to keep these clear in everyone's thinking?
Karl writes: "What to one person is a gladly chosen choice to be supportive/helpful to another person can easily be viewed by others as an immoral recommendation to put one person under the control of somebody else. Thus even a good intent can be labeled as an “evil” atrocity."
I really don't believe that it is as simple as that. I doubt that ANY choice to be supportive to another person can automatically be construed as some sort of evil act. It is true that some of the worst imaginable atrocities have been done with "the best intentions," but if you really break down those actions you will easily be able to surmise the true intentions and purposes of the actions.
I would like to know specific examples, for instance, as to what can be deemed in such a way.
It is actually pretty easy to keep the distinction clear in everybody's mind and it follows the "golden rule" and other metrics of moral measurement. If there is something that someone deems morally good but it infringes upon the rights, desires, and human needs of any other person, then that thing is immoral.
It really isn't particularly difficult.
There are countless examples of how a good and noble
intention is seen by others as immoral and more harmful than helpful.
Most "Americans" and western societies believe it is a good thing to help nations establish a democratic form of government. Unfortunately in so many countries, electing the peoples' choice does nothing close to establishing a democratic form of government.
It will be interesting to see how long Iraq makes it before Iranian influence turns the land into another shia Islam Caliphate. I truly hope it doesn't happen but in reality its only a matter of time unless the world steps back in and makes their current constitution unchangeable with a two thirds majority of the people who are allowed to vote in both privacy
and safety.
What were noble, high and lofty goals become just another form of tyrrany when the newly elected leader already had or pursues alliances which will assure them of never having to leave the office that was "democratically" established.
Some forms of cultures with legislative and legal systems tied directly to the religious affliation of elected leaders just never seem to get voted out of office. Islamic governments and other forms of dictatorships are like this – in case you didn't know.
The only times an Arabic leader agrees to quietly and peacefully step aside so that a new popular leader can take their place is to avoid bloodshed. BTW it is not the "fundie" Arab that resigns – it is the "secular" Arab who is driven from the Land that has been defiled by his leadership that others claim has been contrary to the Koran.
All it takes is for some discontent to exist that enables the Shia Islamic leaders to form Alliances calling for the ouster of not only the current leader but then also the current form of government as well.
Whenever a form of government can be established that enables and protects the ongoing voice and vote of the people without intimidation it is a good thing. This usually also includes some form of term limits as well.
However, claiming this exists and then suppressing vocal opposition proves it does not exist. It is very bad thing when deception and intimidation are used in connection to unlimited terms of leadership.
One leader is relaced by another in a fair election that results in a leader being put into office that was the "peoples" choice.
But by some unfortunate happenstance the new leader never seems to have an serious need to turn over the leadership to anyone until they are forced out of office by circumstances and people often more evil then they were.
There are more moderate and loving people of Muslim heritage in this world than we will ever hear about because they know that to express such things as discontent with their unloving terrorist leaning leaders is tantamount to suicide for themseelves and/or some family member(s).
Karl, you are just all over the place on this one. How did you go from explaining how some things can be construed as evil to ranting about political climates in the Middle East?
In terms of the United States involvement in foreign countries, it is true that many people view us as being interfering and sticking our noses where it doesn't belong. We want, of course, to try and show people of other countries the benefits of democracy, but the way that we accomplished those tasks was absolutely incorrect. We cannot hope to gain support for democracy when our troops forcefully oppress the people of another nation just as their tyrant leaders had done. All that does is create more fuel for the fires of the fundamentalists.
Allowing people to help themselves is the best course of action, even though it is the most difficult. For us and for them. Of course we want to offer our help, but that should be through education, information, etc. to these people that need it should they SEEK it. America had to do its own revolution and sought help from other countries. If a democratic revolution is to be successful in another country what we must do is lead by example and allow those people to do it on their own. It may take forever, but it will get done. It is the natural order of things.
Karl said: "Some forms of cultures with legislative and legal systems tied directly to the religious affliation of elected leaders just never seem to get voted out of office. Islamic governments and other forms of dictatorships are like this – in case you didn’t know."
ha
I did know, thank you very much. Like the Church, you mean? Or even Congress.
0_o
I may seem to be all over the place, but I actually only gave only one example of how it is impossible to keep good intentions clear in cases where two completely different ideological systems exist side by side.
You may call this unrelated to the topic of Evil, but it is most certainly connected in my thinking.
One group of people will claim they know the best way to help people to be free from the oppression of their poorleadership. Another groups says they will help people be free from sinful oppressors by controlling every aspect of their lives.
Tell me, who has the moral high ground?
"One group of people will claim they know the best way to help people to be free from the oppression of their poorleadership. Another groups says they will help people be free from sinful oppressors by controlling every aspect of their lives."
You haven't explained what that first groups "best way" is, so I can only assume that you MEANT exactly what the second group is doing. Thus, you have described only one situation.
Obviously, the moral high ground "" will be the "group" or person whose best way would be to educate the people and allow the people to fix their own government.
Just like the US did, and just like every other democracy has done. More and more people who are learned and understand the power of a democratic process will become aware of this, and as I stated, it follows that they will fix their problems.
If they cannot, however, then the other "group" who wants these people to be free from oppression should not try and step in to fix the problem themselves. Providing help and assistance to the countrymen through food and resources when they are available is the humanitarian thing to do.
So I do not understand your point. Are you trying to say that evil is therefore arbitrary?
What, exactly, do you mean to express?
I should have stated that the first group is the pro-"democracy" groups that often just assist one Islamic group to supplant another. Ideally democracies would just pop up all over, but this will not happen when a land has leaders that presume their right to rule comes from their interpretaion of the law associated with their religion.
Karl wrote: "I should have stated that the first group is the pro-”democracy” groups that often just assist one Islamic group to supplant another. Ideally democracies would just pop up all over, but this will not happen when a land has leaders that presume their right to rule comes from their interpretaion of the law associated with their religion."
You needn't state that as I understood the point of what you were trying to get across. Our land had a leader that presumed their right to rule came from religious law, did it not? The British Empire was ruled by a monarch whose role was supposedly ordained, and whose country had its own church to support and bolster the claims of the monarch.
And yet democracy came.
Lead by example. Force does nothing but add to the claims of the religious fanatics about the Evil tyrant America.
Evolution is a gradual process, indeed.
Something that always—ALWAYS—gets overlooked or ignored when making comparisons between the way democracy emerged here and how it seems to continually fail to emerge elsewhere.
By the time we colonials stuck it to King George and struck out on our own, democracy was part and parcel of a set of cultural norms going all the way back to Magna Carta. England had gradually become more and more democratic and let us not forget that before the French had the audacity to lop the head off their kind, the British executed Charles I after declaring he had violated the rights of the people through his maltreatment of Parliament. The "Americans" in 1776 came from centuries of gradually greater and greater democratic reforms. They were USED TO IT. They in fact didn't even have to change much of the way they'd been doing things, just give the system a few more teeth and accord rights and privileges slightly differently.
Look then at the Middle East. Where has democracy EVER raised its head before the second half of the 20th Century outside of what we know as The West? It is a question, and I think a difficult one, as to whether or not it is reasonable to expect a nation to simply take it up as if it is a natural thing when they have no traditions with it. How many times have we seen a country adopt a democratic process, elect a parliament and a president, only to see the whole thing crumble when it came time to have a new election and the factions took to the streets rather than do the most basic thing necessary for democracy to work—namely, abide by the results of the election?
That does not mean that democracy is therefore never going to happen in those places.
And, even if it never arises, it is never the place of another country to force democracy upon a group of people, for that defeats the purpose.
Eventually, it may arise. It is in Egypt, perhaps that is the start of a democratic rise in the entire region.
Or, perhaps it is not. Regardless, we must allow people to come to these conclusions on their own. When confronted personally with the tyranny of their leaders, then it is justifiable to proceed in stepping in.
It does, however, provide a very difficult moral and intellectual conundrum.
well, in some religions he might say .. i can fight evil but am keepin it to test ur faith and to cleanse ur sins .. lame?
am muslim btw
Hopefully there are enough current younger and secular, i.e. peacefull protestors that the radical strong Islamic faction of the Muslim Brotherhood will not be able to push their way into the leadership of the government and take control of the Army.
Radical Islamic leaders do not let their people say what their Constitution will or will not say. The Clerics in the Iranian Republic decide what the law will be, including the Constitution.
Epicurus was wrong in his musings. To all the tail chasers in the com box, two words: Thomas Aquinas.
@Jason… Thomas Aquinas had five badly formatted arguments for the existence of God, and last I checked none of them have stood the test of time…
I'm not a Christian (And i'm also not going to bother trying to follow the rest of your comments.. capitalism, marxism, Clerics of Iran (( Who have very little unity, as the Muslim Faith prides itself on having no religious figureheads))) but i fail to see how pretending that logic rules our universe does us any good?
Not cosmo's logic, not physics, not newtons principles, but regular old bend words logic. Ontological Argument type logic, The creative watchmaker logic. We all have a bunch of trivial arguments which we use to pretend that we can prove that god doesn't or does exist….
Its a sad state of affairs.
Evil does not have to be anything we understand.
God allowing evil (Not saying there is for sure a god, but i am saying) If god allowed evil, then it wouldn't be considered "Evil" by definition…
Man Committing Evil Free will is really only possible with an otherworldly presence or substance, at least on the personal level. You might compare this to a soul, or the Hindu word Atman. In a purely physical world we are all a collection of atoms responding to outside stimulus (outside is a term used loosely here, really nothing in this scenario is "outside" the universe) in a fashion determined from the point of inception of the universe… So without evil we are without.. free will… which is… weird…
… You all make terrible points.. Just because you've read Nietzsche, or Rand, or taken a philosophy course doesn't mean you have any idea what you're talking about. With most of the comments it's apparent that very little brain power was even directed at a fundamental understanding of the argument. This is one of the most BASIC questions man has asked itself, and most of you can't be bothered to research it enough to understand one of the most basic arguments that we have for/against god….
AND P.S. if you believe above argument to be a true and accurate way of disproving "God" you are literally only maybe slightly kind of disproving the christian version of God… so really.. why waste your time.
Pffftttt…… fart noises out of all of your mouths.
Willing or able-
If god intervened in human free will then we would be god or a facet of his existence, instead we are given the freewill to make our own choices, it is up to humans to overcome evil if it was up to god then it would defeat the purpose of being human.
'what?' is the meaning of life.
@jussaying, "If god intervened in human free will then we would be god or a facet of his existence.."
Then why bother to care and believe in such fiction when your statement suggests all human's are god? If we are god and no other god can intervene our free will, each of us should worship ourselves, not listen to Government or care to any factors of organized religion. Who's to stop us almighty beings? Stop pondering existence and who/what controls it and live life.
Repent writes, "all human’s are god? If we are god and no other god can intervene our free will, each of us should worship ourselves, not listen to Government or care to any factors of organized religion."
Yes indeed. Very wise. Now just get rid of the '?' and the 'if' in your sentence and I believe you've arrived at the great secret.
Humans = natural limitations = ungodliness.
What he means by us being God is that there would be no individuality. How can we differentiate humans in a world without sin and suffering? We'd all be too dandy and swell with each other to make a damn bad thing happen.
You might scoff the idea of having no individuality, but really, only one human design can be perfect in the sense of there being no evil committed. And if we all had this design, how dreary would life be? This whole free choice thing where God doesn't intervene makes life better. People just never seem to bother to sit down and actually think out the alternative of a world without evil. They just strive for it. And that striving is the best thing we can do, but perspective, people! I used to be atheist. Now I'm agnostic with deistic tendencies like Hawking, but I can say that the presence of evil in the world is among the worst arguments against theism.
Evil is the result of free will, and free will is pretty awesome.
It's a very pretty argument, but barring any logical framework, it's nothing but a huge pile of the stinking either/or fallacy. The first statement is well-framed, since it's conclusion is nestled within the basic definition of the words, but everything that follows rides only on the success of his first statement: no syllogism, no explanation for why non-alignment with demand "a" makes the subject "b," nothing but words, words, words. Whether or not I agree with the words in the conclusion, I must confess, this argument is as useful as a piece of cloth from the same era: delightful to look at and coo over, but just you try wearing it.
Think A Little Bit writes:—"What he means by us being God is that there would be no individuality. How can we differentiate humans in a world without sin and suffering?"
Well…through our own individual creativity and self expression. Unless you consider all creativity and all self expression mere consequences of sin and suffering.
Sorry, but your statement doesn't hold any logic. It would seem to me that being a god would amplify individuality, since you would have far more available resources for individual expression.