A Defense of Theodicy

[lightgigantic]

Why would a good God allow evil in the world? This problem, one that Judeo-Christian man had created for himself by his belief, has haunted Western thought for millennia. It is plainly a by-product of ethical monotheism—“a trilemma” created by the three indisputable qualities of an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-benevolent God...Not until the 18th century did Leibniz give a name to this troublesome problem—Theodicy, from the Greek theos (God) and dike (Justice)...This question has not equally troubled people everywhere. Religions in the East have provided plausible theological explanations for divine punishment and retribution in the concept of karma (the accumulation of debts from earlier lives) and the work of Kali and other destructive divinities.

Daniel J. Boorstin, U.S. Librarian of Congress Emeritus

So we have two view points

1) Atheists presume there is no justification for evil. This rules out, according to them, the possibility of a God being perfect (meaning all-wise, all-powerful and all-good).

2) Theists presume evil is justified. They argue that God has neither created evil at His own whim, nor is He powerless to stop it.

A defense of theodicy—the justness of God—requires a sound explanation of how evil is part of God's plan for everyone's ultimate good.

Vedic philosophy has three contributions to make here.

1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature.

2) Material nature has two aspects: one that binds us (thus giving rise to evil), and one that releases us (thus ending evil).

3) The medium of our bondage is our own desire. Under the thrall of desire, we pursue material objects that we are convinced are good.

In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

One slight correction. The majority of Atheists don't think that 'Good' or 'Evil' exist; rather, they are seen as subjective tolerances to behaviors / events that change throughout a persons life and can be influenced by anything from instinct, family, indoctrination, education, to society.

 

[lightgigantic]

One slight correction. The majority of Atheists don't think that 'Good' or 'Evil' exist; rather, they are seen as subjective tolerances to behaviors / events that change throughout a persons life and can be influenced by anything from instinct, family, indoctrination, education, to society.

regardless, it remains a common atheistic argument why god does not exist

 

[Crunchy Cat]

regardless, it remains a common atheistic argument why god does not exist

You are right that it does get used as an argument by Atheists and the view point of the Athestic majority is probably just as relevant to Theodicy.

 

[one_raven]

The majority of Atheists don't think that 'Good' or 'Evil' exist

You are right that it does get used as an argument by Atheists

So, the majority of Atheists are intellectually dishonest?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So, the majority of Atheists are intellectually dishonest?

Is it intellectually dishonest to pit imaginary concepts against each other to demonstrate a contradiction within the framework those concepts were spawned from?

 

[one_raven]

Is it intellectually dishonest to pit imaginary concepts against each other to demonstrate a contradiction within the framework those concepts were spawned from?

Sometimes, yes.

If one does not believe that "Evil" exists, yet argues that God could not be Omnimax because Evil exists, that person is most certainly being intellectually dishonest.
Apologists come in all forms, including atheists Atheists.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sometimes, yes.

If one does not believe that "Evil" exists, yet argues that God could not be Omnimax because Evil exists, that person is most certainly being intellectually dishonest.
Apologists come in all forms, including atheists Atheists.

Then yes, if an Atheist implies / states he personally thinks that Evil exists (but really does not) and uses that position as part of an argument against the existence of 'God' then that person sounds quite intellectually dishonest.

 

[KennyJC]

LG:

It appears that 'materialism' is once again something you want demonise. You see a material desire as something that is selfish and takes us further from this god of yours. You even go as far to suggest that this is why 'evil' exists. But what about the animals? Those with a lower degree of consciousness and intelligence to understand all this philosophizing - They get torn apart and eaten alive which is as much suffering as one living thing can go through whether it be classed as 'evil' or not. It is quite clear that is the way it was meant to be since the food chain was pretty much set in stone from the very beginning.

 

[one_raven]

I don't understand your argument at all.
A "lower" animal's existence is entirely materialistic.

 

[one_raven]

If anything, KennyJC, you just helped prove his point.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't understand your argument at all.
A "lower" animal's existence is entirely materialistic.

I'm going to need further clarification on this, because I thought LG's slant was that all we have to do is be a little less materialistic in the sense of the seven deadly sins and just be a bit more spiritual. Yet animals have no notion of these things and suffer just the same.

Suffering in the sense of a Lion killing a Gazelle is just as valid suffering caused by 'Evil' in the sense of human behavior.

 

[lightgigantic]

I'm going to need further clarification on this, because I thought LG's slant was that all we have to do is be a little less materialistic in the sense of the seven deadly sins and just be a bit more spiritual. Yet animals have no notion of these things and suffer just the same.

Suffering in the sense of a Lion killing a Gazelle is just as valid suffering caused by 'Evil' in the sense of human behavior.

its still not clear what you are exactly trying to say that might challenge


1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature.

 

[KennyJC]

its still not clear what you are exactly trying to say that might challenge


1) Evil is the consequence of one's desire in connection with material nature.

I'm not sure what you are challenging either. What is the wisdom behind big fish eating little fish being for the good of everyone?

 

[SnakeLord]

Let me try and clear this up..

(I think)..

It seems lg is advocating that us people choose to be material and thus evil exists. Kenny is arguing that fish do not have the level of intelligence etc to make such choices and yet evil exists for them regardless.

If I'm correct I would need to add that the thing Kenny forgets is that lg believes that the fish is a human that wanted to be a fish and was reincarnated so. Daft as the notion is, it had to be added.

 

[lightgigantic]

Let me try and clear this up..

(I think)..

It seems lg is advocating that us people choose to be material and thus evil exists. Kenny is arguing that fish do not have the level of intelligence etc to make such choices and yet evil exists for them regardless.

If I'm correct I would need to add that the thing Kenny forgets is that lg believes that the fish is a human that wanted to be a fish and was reincarnated so. Daft as the notion is, it had to be added.

hot so much that the fish is a human but that both fish and humans are forms of life, and life, being the symptom of the soul, is what finds its expression in the material (world (according to the laws of karma) due to the desire to be separate from god - thus sometimes the living entity exists as a human, sometimes as a fish, etc etc

 

[SnakeLord]

due to the desire to be separate from god

You said: "the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers".

Seems needless to say that this 'relationship' isn't a very good one given your above quote. People, fish, hedgehogs - indeed all forms of life have this desire to be away from this god. They would rather go through an existence that you state is evil and full of suffering than be with this god that you would claim, (while being away from him and thus not know), is a nice entity.

Seems nothing in the cosmos actually likes this being. That speaks volumes.

 

[KennyJC]

I think it's safe to say that everything in this universe that has ever lived has not even had a mental capacity to understand the notion of a god let alone all the semantics that people like LG come up with... A cow seems utterly noble, just eating grass and farting a lot... why does this cow have to suffer as a result of it's own material existence which it can not help purely because of the 0.00000000000000001% of species that have any notion of god.

There are not enough animals in the universe that can be the reincarnated souls of living things that once had a notion of god and betrayed him for materialism. Seems like a dumb reason to allow suffering because living things have no option but to follow a way of life god himself designed.

 

[lightgigantic]

You said: "the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers".

Seems needless to say that this 'relationship' isn't a very good one given your above quote. People, fish, hedgehogs - indeed all forms of life have this desire to be away from this god. They would rather go through an existence that you state is evil and full of suffering than be with this god that you would claim, (while being away from him and thus not know), is a nice entity.

Seems nothing in the cosmos actually likes this being. That speaks volumes.

probably not many people in jail are too fond of the law either - still you find that in society at large (or at least those that are not criminals) are quite satisfied with the presence of law and order

 

[lightgigantic]

I think it's safe to say that everything in this universe that has ever lived has not even had a mental capacity to understand the notion of a god let alone all the semantics that people like LG come up with...

if you mean to say it is not a popular topic amongst football commentator broadcasts, yes I would agree

A cow seems utterly noble, just eating grass and farting a lot... why does this cow have to suffer as a result of it's own material existence which it can not help purely because of the 0.00000000000000001% of species that have any notion of god.

erm - previous karma - what else?

There are not enough animals in the universe that can be the reincarnated souls of living things that once had a notion of god and betrayed him for

(sigh) and how would you know?

Seems like a dumb reason to allow suffering because living things have no option but to follow a way of life god himself designed.

god didn't design that you be a criminal