Whence Then is Evil?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Gill sahib

May i reproduce my thread on this issue here which i had written in an another article in response to an interacter`s Question. It was written in haste and a bit carelessly therefore it is not well organized but i hope it will start a debate here. I have briefly touched the `nature of religious language` as well because any theological debate is incomplete without it.

---

here it is.......


The problem of eveil that you are inquiring about is dealt by a branch of theology which is called `theodicy`. Most of the problems of our thinking are because of a misunderstanding that logic can give all answers or every answer Must be logical.
It might be surprising to most of you guys that there is no such thing as ``logical answer`` nor does logic try to answer anything.Logic is only concerened with the ``Form`` of thought not the content.Whatever content you put in it it will give you the answer according to its formal nature not the content.The compatiability[of religious assertions] that you are taliking about is meanigless.because its not religion which would give logical its `you` [the person who is applying logic`] will apply logic to find out the logical consistency of religious assertions.Logic wont give you answer it will only whether the assertions are consistence are not.Now as for as consistency is concerned,first you have to know what is consistency is or is there anything such as consistency?

Ironacally the inconsistency that you are taliking about is the inconsistency of Logic not the religion for such is the nature of logic.There are many logics it implies that there is NO logic.
All you can find out is,the religion,s stance on evil.There is no such thing as absolute evil.the evil that we see in the world is actually a kind of``possibility`` of natural events. We call it evil acccording to our impression of certain events and their consequences on our life,individualy or collectively.Religion`s stance on it is that the difference between this world and the hereafter is that ``possibility`` of different events.
Now Logic itself has NOTHING to do with good or evil in the world.You have to rely on religion for that.Now you may ask what religious assertions are.

Religious assertions are not `logical.` they are PHENEMONOLOGICAL` i.e there is function is to instill in the reader the general awareness of Man_God relationship.The infinitude and supermacy of God and finitude of human beings.this language[religious]is couched in a terminology which human beings could easily understand.because there is no common ground between the divine reality and the human reality.The language of religion ,thus, plays a role of inducing the ``intutive`` awareness of Divine reality. It is the menifestation of the experience that our Holy prophet[ PBUH] acquired.Its finction is to address the inner core of man.Its the language of personal dedication and participation. It is there for Guidance that only by following these principles can you be able to comprehend the divine reality.Like the Glorious Quran says``its the guidance for people who are conscious``.

So in that way religion itself is a kind of epistemology.its functions starts from where other epitemologies fail.But Quran does not undermine other sources of knowledge. According to Quran they[reason,experience etc] play equally important role along with the ``immediate comprehension`` to unravel the mystry of being.


So religious assertions induce you to think with perspective of Divine reality.There You experience that reality on ``personal`` level.the moralities(social dimension of good and evil) that religion exhorts are for the preparation of the soul[mind] to face the magnificence of ultimate divine reality.There Quran says;the one who has discovered his own self is succefull.But first you have to participate in the divine purpose.you have to live in that climate of opinion.like you have to work in a laboratry to understand physics and sciences.only than can a person be able to find the truth.The Holy probhet[PBUH] says that the true MOMIN[faithfull] sees with the light of God. Religious assertion deals with reality in a kind of ``visionary`` way rather than `this-therfore-this, kind of relation.there is no process of implication.

Gill saab has scoured the world religions in search of God, did not look at the next door religion, Hinduism.

Good and evil are only a human creation, world is amoral, there is no good or bad. Good of today could be the bad of tomorrow, ask the spanish evangelist who went to Peru to lead men to God.

Ask the world whether Nelson Mandela should have been imprisoned for 20 years. When the kalifayet is established through out the world and milk and honey in the gutters, think of Osama.

When Pakistan has conquered India and made into an islamic state, think of YLH

Here the problem we end up with is looking for the answers in religion where as I can only see the questions. We need to look at religion for the questions then seek the natural world for the answers. You look to the Bible for how man was created and end up with a list of questions, then you look to evolution and you questions are answered. Same as the universe, Questions like how could god create the universe in a day well the answers are in astronomy and as you gaze into the sky and study you will find out one day turns to billions. People are getting closer to understanding that the answers are not in scripture but with pressures from Families and already implanted religious thought it is still hard for many to over come. Pressures of cultural attachment to the laws of religion in some parts of the world are just too strong and fearful for someone to step out of a religious mindset and into a free thinking environment and understand life as it should be.

Gill saab:

I would want to explore the concept of evil outside of the realm of god. Once we bring in god, then evil or good take on a moral dimension and there is more to these attributes than morality.

The paradox lies not in the ‘person’ of god but in the perception of godliness, as I see it. If god created evil, then must god be evil? Not necessary. Does a mother who produces a physically disabled or mentally unstable child become either of these? You might argue that motherhood is not omni anything, it is not empowered with supra powers. But a mother is a creator too.

The concept of god “doing everything” essentially means that the believer plays the subservient role. Many believers today may be considered ‘evil’. In some cases it is indeed true. Therefore, would we assume that such evil challenges godliness and has nothing to do with god? And isn’t that possible if we go by the theory of god as creation/imagination of the human mind?

So, to return to just evil, is it a finality? Does it have shades? Can evil transform into goodness at some point in time? Then is evil really evil or a pretence of it? The same would apply to good.

Please remember Cain’s tragedy is greater than Abel’s for he suffered from pangs of conscience. Was he then evil? Or were his circumstances responsible from making him commit the act?

Can whole nations be considered evil because their governments have policies that are not civilised? Then must we include the people living in those societies within this limiting paradigm?

I am afraid there are more questions. To conclude this post, I don’t think god is evil or good. It is what believers – and non-believers – make of her/him that provides those attributes. A creation takes on a life of its own outside the creator.

It could be an ‘evil’ responsibility, but we have got to lump it.

Always look forward to your ‘non-scientific’ challenges posed in these articles. Hardcore science eludes me!

Regards,
Farzana

It is a mistake to expect God to come in and solve the problems created by evil. The problem with that line of thinking is the assumption that God (if He exists) thinks like us men or his purpose for creation (if indeed He created and if indeed He had a purpose) is rooted in the same, petty objectives we men entertain. In this model, evil is there by design – by God’s design – and even though it is evil, it still serves a purpose and God leaves it alone sometimes, by design.

Of course, an alternative argument can be made that man created “God” for his own convenience – perhaps to shirk his/her own roles and responsibilities – to shift blame for the acts done by the evil that is an intrinsic part of him (as is the good).

At this point, I would like to quote the following portion of Tulsidas’ Of the Saints and the Wicked…, translated by yours sincerely. :)

As life and death - turn round and round
So signs of saints - of wicked ones, found
True virtue - see not just one, true
As vice - and as those virtues, too
In body same - do both survive
Ignorant ones - see just one thrive

Farzana: #5

A mother is a creator but is different from God, the creator of everything. She is not ``omni-anything,`` as you have stated and that makes all the difference. If she had the power to avoid giving birth to an evil person, she would do it.

The conclusion of my essay is that the God the theists have defined and continue defining cannot exist. He cannot both be good and evil at the same time if He is ominpotent as well. ``You cannot both eat the cake and have it,`` as I wrote in the essay. I agree with your conclusion which is the conclusion (though worded differently) of my essay also.

Mohammad Gill

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

......... the fact that echoboom and masadi have been effectively stopped from spreading fitna on chowk shows that evil can be stopped if one wants to - it proves that chowk editors have a better moral character than god ..........

Well written article. The basic problem is with the definition of God. Its has inherent contradiction. A God who is ``less than all powerful`` fits in better than the all powerful God.
At present humans have no way to deal with metaphysical statements. Logical positivist like A.J.Ayer described them as meaningless statements as there is no way of proving them either wrong or right. It seems as God is a need rather than objective reality.

Gill sahib

One of the things that have surprised me about you is,your taking seriously the article`God is metaphore` of respected Dr Sohail `(sorry no disrespect intended..i hope you will take it as a postive criticism from a student). Despite being a believer and an ex-athiest I don`t have beef against any agnostic.But that article is so technicaly poor and superficial to the extent that its almost impossible to refute it with serious intellectual discourse. If i go on to refute that article, i will have to start from the fundamentals of philosophy.That article looks a load of rubbish to any student of philosophy on such objective and obvious technical grounds without which it is impossible to get the intermediate certificate in philosophy from sargodha board let alone a phd degree in philosophy from London.

Anyhow sir....you havent mentioned the problems of formal logic and its authenticity as a yardstick to determine the validity of Knowledge. you seem to be sticking to the traditional concept that philosophy is all about `logical` (formal) thinking...i hope you know this is not the case....

sir please do correct me if i have mentioned something incorrect in my #2.

Regards

Re: # 11

philosopher,

....... please stop bothering gill sahib - he has better things to do than read your sophomoric philosophy 101 essays ......... as gill sahib`s assistant, i give your gibberish in #2 a C- ........ now go and rewrite it .......... if you keep this up you will remain a phd candidate for ever and end up on the dole or drive a car into heathrow airport after a night of partying with the boys at the finsbury park mosque .............

Re: # 5

fv,

``Can evil transform into goodness at some point in time?`` ......... of course - haven`t you heard the saying ``she is so bad, she is good !``

regards

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 12

Hamid Maskharay

Yaar....You are funny and i enjoy reading your ``bhaand`astic`` posts when i get tired of reading too much philosophy of some sick philosophers....

But...yaar...i am always ready to learn....let me learn.....there is serious discussion going on here....i know you are omniscient...but man let me learn....i have a long way to go...i am almost half of your age....the youngest chowky on board.....let me become `bada aadmi` and lemme have my bright near future....i am begging here...have mercy please...

I am drinking at the moment and i cannot type such rubbish anymore...

hamid....yaar...you are amazing....hahahah

Re: # 13

hamid

(((((``Can evil transform into goodness at some point in time?`` ......... of course - haven`t you heard the saying ``she is so bad, she is good ))))

yaar khairiat hai...kiya ho giya bhai....where is bhandastic ability???

you said
``she is so bad, she is good`` incorrect

i say

``she is so bad, she is better``

oos ko hasil hai ikhtiaar dau aalim ki tabahi ka

Husn ke saath jawani jisey bharpoor milay

Aadaab