Whence Then is Evil?

Re: # 50

Farzana:

“…then why do many Muslims who say `I am a Muslim` have to go through racial profiling?...”

The answer, Fazrana, you know it too. You may not remember Hare Krishna antics had brought unwanted exposure only in the last decade. There antics were only limited to their acts on the streets, malls and airports. Now if bajrang dal rams planes in Pentagon and World Trade centers, we all would be asking the same questions but for different set of people.

My personal opinion is that such humiliating profiling will continue until people like yourselves and Hamidm from within will forcefully reform that book and that notion of finality to get rid of justification of violence under any circumstance against any people (believers or non believers). My views are on God are clear to me and my friends for a long time. Yet I am labled as liberal hindu, as if my friend knows what it means. A couple of days ago, my daughter and I were invited over for the dinner at a friends home. We know each other for almost 20 years, yet she and her father were insisting that for the work I do, I believe in God more than them (both certainly are very pious and God fearing). She was insisting that the second lease of my life is because God wanted me to do more.

What else can I say except that it is all relative. Evil is the what we humans create to make ourselves look better, which some would say itself is evil. Otherwise there can be no good, no one will need it. So much for philosophy for now.

Re: # 50

Farzana versey

(((((you will find to your utter surprise that they aren`t burping some ayat into their beards after saying Alhamdollilah following the tequila shot))))))

If i had a beard i would have taken it as an `offensive statement..

Re: # 50 FV
[....why is it okay if a Hindu believes in rituals and passes it off as religion but a Muslim doing a bit of bending and stretching is considered `jaahil`?...]

You tell us...

re. #28
``you have yet to understand strong arguments for the proof of existence of god.``

Yeah, me too, Philoo. Care to enlighten?

philospher, gill saheb,

Phlioo, you post #2 is excellent in explaining the phenomenological nature of belief. I wonder if this debate is a non-starter for Muslims in the first place because, to the best of my understanding, God is never said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient. (Someone correct me if I`m wrong.)

The paradox that Gill cites is an almost valid debunking of the Christian idea of God, (or more correctly, SOME Christians` idea) which, far from having ``merely`` phenomenological value and pointing to ``something intuitive deep withing man``, has a supposedly rational, logical basis.

Quite apart from the issue that the untestability of the statements regarding God`s essential, ``omni``, attributes renders these statements unsicentific, it may still be possible to apply a logical positivist approach to any such claims or statements coming together, and possibly demonstrate their collective tenability or otherwise.

If put it simply, Gill`s treatment of the God-question is fair game as long as God is being sold with rational arguments. But let`s look at the arguments, none of which, of course, are original.

Acutally, let`s just look at the last of them, against Free Will, with which I take issue. This is what Gill writes:

``Another escape route from such a paradoxical fix that is provided to omnipotent and omniscient God is that of Free Will. The argument goes that God created man with a free will – he has a choice of doing good or doing evil. Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts. In this way, God has a
basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in the Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers. No matter, how you cut it, if God is indeed omnipotent, He is also responsible for creating evil directly or indirectly by endowing the human beings with free will.``

I find this line of arguement quite ridiculous. God seems to be indicted for evil-creation even if the evil is an outcome of His granting Free Will to man. The absurdity is readily apparent when you consider that,

i) Free Will automatically-- logically if you might-- implies the possibility or existence of evil, and,

ii) In the absence of Free Will, the entire concept of evil becomes nonsense (in the philosphical as well as common sense usage of the word.)

To better grasp this absurdity, consider having free will without the existence of evil. Now THAT`s a paradox if there ever was one. And that`s also the flaw in Gill`s argument on Free Will. The following statement simply does not stand up to logical scrutiny:

``Thus God created a potential for evil in the form of free will and man is the actual committer of evil acts.``

Apart from the fact that, as Philo said, any sophomore could point out that the creation of a potential for something isn`t the same as the creation of that thing itself, in the context of free will, evil is as necessary, as coulours are to a pallette. Those that would like Free Will without the possibility of evil want to eat their cake (of ``innocence``, or amorality) and have it too!

The statement following the one last quoted is logically even weaker:

``In this way, God has a basis for rewarding the good with eternal bliss in Paradise and burning the evildoers in the eternal fires of Hell. It is implicit in this argument that God created evil so that He could sadistically burn the evildoers.``

Omigod!! Could Gill sahib be any more absurd?!? Never mind that the question of consequences is extraneous to the debate at hand, which is whether the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good being is compatible with the existence of evil (which is a given)-- no, now Gill sahib is suggesting that:

i) Free Will itself was an evil plan hatched by God to ``exact`` reward and punishment on its agents, (Again, I suppose Gill sahib would like CHOICE without RESPONSIBILITY) and,

ii) God`s own evilness is sufficiently demonstrated in his willingness to consign evil-doers to eternal damnation.

Whether or not one agrees with the last contention (personally, I would agree, except that I`m agnostic, both on the question of God and of Free Will), the fact is that that last argument is NOT a logical argument against the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent and All-Good God. It rests on the acceptance of the proposition that punishment for evil-doing is also a form of evil itself.

Now, that is only as `true` as one feels it to be. But whatever one feels about it, it`s not open to logical scrutiny, and using it to argue God`s evilness, or God`s impossibility, is just not on.

Re: # 48

PM ji

One of the best posts i have read on chowk.

PM said....;

(((((((to the best of my understanding, God is never said to be Omnipotent and Omniscient. (Someone correct me if I`m wrong.)))))))

My response.....;

You are right religion has never constructed the concept of God on logical basis....the attributes which God is said to possess or the ones that consitutes our concept of God have no `formal` nature neither in religion nor in humans.....this thinking or the concept of God is the product of the the ``conceptualization`` or the anthropomorphic view of God....
This is the product of derivative thinking which has direct relation with authouritarianism on the social level(Note:Islam has abolished clergy...kuchh samjhay? It points to its ``non-formal`` concept of God)

The formal Logic ,that Gill sahib is applying, has become irrelevent a long time ago.....It converts every kind of language into propositional statements and than studies it....because this is its basic requierment to study any thing......Now if you apply this language,say, on poetry,the entire poetry and literature would look a load of crap.....

The language of the religion is the verbal expression of ``religious experience`` therefore its multidimensional.....terminologies used in religion have non-propositional nature(read # 2)
The attributes of God mentioned in the religious language have been given a bit too importance....becuase of the propositional analysis they almost become the ``ineveitable categories of thought`` through which other things are seen....i have already discussed the problem of logic in # 2......As a student of philosophy, it is ,in fact, a kinda shock for me to see that this is kinda analysis of still going on in our academic circles.....Gill has mixed up not only different epistemological frameworks and their context but also he does`t seem to be having no clue of different methodologies...Gill sahib`s approach seems to have(at least unconsciously) ``reductionistic`` approach based on the traditional laws of thought.....this is the problem with agnostics who are sincere in their pursuites but technicaly are not the students of philosophy......Another point you would observe,is the concept of ``unity of truth`` again based on the formal logic`s theory of truth i.e. ``coherence theory of truth`` without even anlysing the validity of this theotry of truth or for that matter the formal logic in general.....they always demand religion to satisfy their basic(prmitive) notions of thought......Ridiculous part of this thinking that people, who demand that ``internal coherence`` from religion based on formal laws of thought , denies religion on the the grounds its not being according to their ``moral ideal`` on the social level.....the ``moral idealism`` which is the ``tarka`` of selective values,picked and chosen from anywhere they see something ``irreligious going on``......e.g.

`` in religion husband is supposed to be the head of the houshold``

I am a feminist

``therefore``

there is (can be) no God....blah..blah


there is another problem which stems from the misunderstood concept of ``oneness`` of God especialy in Islam....in mathematics `one` is the double of half and half of 2 but we can not make such analogy in the matter of God....for we don`t know what kind of ``oneness`` God possess...The Quran has always mentioned it in ``negative`` sense i.e. to deny worshipping of anything except God...(Masadi can explain it better).....Most of the times Quran condemns ``shirk``(associating partners with God)....

Devoloping analogical view of God on the basis of attributes and to worsen the situation makes it a proposition is the product of the complete ignorance of the methodological differences of various domains of knowldge in general and methodology of religion in particular.......

PM said....;

((((Quite apart from the issue that the untestability of the statements regarding God`s essential, ``omni``, attributes renders these statements unsicentific, it may still be possible to apply a logical positivist approach to any such claims or statements coming together, and possibly demonstrate their collective tenability or otherwise))))))

My response....;

No you cannot apply `logical positivistic`(((if you mean the 20th century philosophical movement)))) approach because it is irrelevent(not invalid) to what `logical positivism` determines the criterion of the proposition to be true.....coz neither is it a tautology not a factual statment in the strict sense of the word......the attributes of of God have transcendental nature and logical positivism doesnt deal with it....contrary to the common view about logical positivism,it has never rejected the validity of religion or religious assertion. A logical positivist e.g. A.j.Ayer would not deny the ``religious experience`` or the validity of religious assertions,all he would ask you is the ``the nature of religious language`` i.e. what is it dealing with and how is it different from the proposition ,say, logical positivist would deal(remeber:this movement was finally failed...coz they didnt have the gem like hamid)...the justification of independent(in the loose sense)) epistemology is based on its function of dealing with the ``existential`` and transcendental chrachter of the ultimate reality.....in that sense the agnosticism and scepticism of a philosopher is different than of the layman....this agnostcism and ``faith`` are not mutually exclusive....on this issuei would Quote something from my another post....(its tone would sound a different coz its taken from another article where i wrote this)........;

The agnosticism and skepticism of philosophers (ironically) is the prerequisite for religious philosophy (surprised? if you are you are understanding it)

Lets move forward.Skepticism in philosophy has various dimensions. A philosopher can be both skeptic and believer at the same time or it might be his `skepticsim` which would ultimately lead him to believe in God. Funny,isnt it? For example `immanual Kant` is `skeptical` about the certain aspects of knowledge but he is a believer.same is the case with descarte, hume etc. Russelian[of Bertrand Russell] is also a different knid of skepticism from what non..technical minds think it to be. It depends on the ``nature`` of their philosophical pursuits. An ordinary man would think that Iqbal and bertrand Russell can not be true at the same time. This kind of thinking stems from the complete ignorance of philosophical systems. Iqbal and Russell work within two completely different epistemological frameworks which are not by any means mutualy exclusive. They can both be relevent at the same time. Bertrand Russell`s real philosophical work is hell lot of different than the one common man read in the pseudo work of Russell and feel himslef to be ``even greater philosopher than bertarnd Russell by reading the books like ``why i am not christian`` ``A free man`s worship`` etc. These books are nothing more than garbage in the serious philosophical circles. It has nothing to do with his original philosophical position[which is impossible to discuss here]. He starts his philosophical pursuits with a question raised in his first book on philosophy ``problems of philosophy`` that; `` is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?`` after 36 years in his last book on philosophy ``HUMAN KNOWLEDGE....its scope and limitation`` [and the last line of this book] he says`` All Human Knowledge is uncertain, INEXACT and partial and to this doctrine we havent found any limitation whatever``.

Now this is ultimate kind of skepticism. It shows the failuire of epistemology and science in solving the ULTIMATE problems of Knowledge and answering the questions which have been raised by some of the greatest minds of all times.

The religious{especialy Quranic} epistemology already claims the inadequecy of these epistemological dimension and picks the thread from here and develops its own system.``




PM said;...

(((((( Free Will automatically-- logically if you might-- implies the possibility or existence of evil, and,

ii) In the absence of Free Will, the entire concept of evil becomes nonsense (in the philosphical as well as common sense usage of the word.)))))


My response....;

This is an excellent point that you have derived from the Gill`s article (and he has derived it from ..God know where)..... Now if you see it in the context of my response to your post you would find it very intresting.....now you see this the problem with this logic ``its circular`` and if be ``consitent`` even your point can be denied with an arguement which would look equally consistent within that logical framework....(Read my #2) again...

regards

ballukhan writes <<< It is amazing to see superstition of a deity called god running the lives of millions of human beings. >>>

What is amazing to see is that this BS khan was claiming to be an Indian Muslim, and pontificating on God and theology and how he believes in it, when people here knew he was just faking it. Now he comes out in the open, the poor idiot could not restrain himself. God has nothing to do with running the lives of millions, he has everything to do with giving them life, those who have everything to do with designing institutions that govern the life/death and determine the personality of people in the millions,. i.e. the elite are absolved of all evil by a-holes like bs khan and tahmed, while assigning the blame to God. The ``higher superstition`` does not involve God, it involves the mythology and symbolism of advanced capitalism that enslaves the many to benefit the very few...

burpinder writes about Gill <<< It sounds like the work of some first year philosophy major. >>>

Actually it is more like a high-school level essay, my first year students, some of them, those that know how to read and write that is, have come up with much superior work than this pseudo-plagiarized, tape-recorder-esque piece. The guy is spending a meaningless existence in the USA, like most folk over there, working day and night for a paycheck or if retired frequenting restaurants and what not. It is meaninglessness multiplied by meaninglessness and so he sits on his computer and composes this pathetic piece, while trying to censor the writings of others.... and then he has the audacity to claim that this kind of moronic existence is what humanity is all about. If I were Mr.T, I’d say, “I pity the fool”.

Gill quoting Hitchens <<< Is He willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent?
Is He able but not willing? Then is He malevolent?
Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil? >>>

You don`t need to be an Einstein to conclude that the above is based on the ``thinkers`` reductionism, there can be alternative choices, like

He is able and willing but restrains himself till a set time

Why you ask: In order to remain consistent with his nature that of a Just God, after he has determined a purpose for creating the world, not as end by itself but a pathway to the end where evil will then (after a set time) not exist. And why will evil not exist, because ``evil`` is not an attribute of `creation` but going contrary to your nature i.e. not submitting to God; it is therefore relative based on specific criteria...



Quran 16.61] And if Allah had destroyed people for their evil, He would not leave on the earth a single creature, but He respites them till an appointed time; so when their time will come they shall not be able to delay (it) an hour nor can they bring (it) on (before its time).

Why such a long time you ask? ``Longness`` is also relative.



Quran 30.55] And at the time when the hour shall come, the guilty shall swear (that) they did not tarry but an hour; thus are they get misguided.

---

Think Gill and recognize the glory of the Quran