Whence Then is Evil?

dm sahib

With all pleasure, call anyone foolish you wish to, and they would call you foolish back. That`s what joy of life, and Indian freedom, is all about. Since we don`t have true knowledge, this foolishness fest is very very precious. Let`s celebrate all our foolish gods and goddesses; and live and laugh with them, at them; making sure they get due respect, but never get too big for their godly boots.

And hopefully, you don`t mean you would rather have people ignorant so long as they don`t vote BJP (if there is any coneection between the two at all).۔۔۔ this is rank communalism of the worst sort.

---

beej

Then we would be truly left with nothing.

kaalchakra:


I am sure that you know the difference between Normative and Descriptive statements.

#66:

Just so there is no confusion, sending invitation cards to deity ``foolish`` was a normative statement, stating that the religious serials added to the BJP votes was a descriptive statement.

DM-ji,

Never, in the wildest of my dreams would I call you a ``pinko``. Any inadvertent misconstruing is sincerely regretted.

BTW, the circle of time knows it all and only pretends to limit his knowledge to the timeless oval of a number. Pay no attention to his cloak of humility and do watch out for that sharp dagger of intelligence - moving ever so rapidly! :)

BJ Kumar

Hope we didn`t hijack the board with all this godless talk. DM ji, (I think) I understand and empathize with you. But there have been educated, grown-up Hindu men on Chowk claiming that Gandhi`s Ram Rajya meant giving high caste men freedom to kill ``low-caste`` men.

You can see what ignorance does and why it is so harmful to everyone. Khair, apologies for this brief detour into irrelevant topics.

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: # 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

re. #71

Philo sahib,
Thanks for exhausative response, which was quite enlightening too.

Your point about the inapplicability of formal logic to non-propositional language was noted at the start of my previous post, where I repeated what you`d said about religious statements being phenomenological in nature.

As I said earlier, the problem arises in a context in which Religion claims internal logical coherence for itself, and thus becomes fair game for the ``logicians.`` I said that I did not believe that there was any movement in Islam, let along the Qur`an itself, that made such a claim, but that Christian scholastics did `indulge` in such tautologies. As such, Gill`s debate would be more relevant to a Christian audience than to Muslims. (Though it must be added that very few scholarly Christians nowadays take such a propositional, as opposed to transcendental, apporach to belief anyway.)

re. `` ....contrary to the common view about logical positivism [LP],it has never rejected the validity of religion or religious assertion.``


I didn`t suggest that LP did so. If you re-read my statements, I said that the LP method may be used on religious assertions coming together, or in other words, deliberately forming a propositional, pseudo-logical `whole`y. Otherwise, of course, religous statements are, ndividually, outside the scope of logical positivism.


AS regards the possible connection between faith and skepticism, suffice it to say that I have read quite a bit of A.K. Soroush and am deeply impressed. Erich Fromm too, has written on this connection between faith and a healthy skepticism.

I`m gals someone point out the difference between Russell`s philosphy and his polemics. finally someone who actually understands russell!

regards,

Re: # 72

PM

join me here tomorrow 6th july....

philosopher: #2 and 71

I don’t have any problem with your assertion that “Logic is only concerned with the ‘Form’ of thought not the content,” (I hope by content you mean content of the premises). This is true. If your premises are wrong, your inference cannot be true (although it may be consistent with the premises). Logic only ensures that the inference is derived with a logical consistency. I stated in my essay that since the premises of an omnipotent God and “Good God” are wrong (mutually contradictory), they lead to an inference which contradicts at least one of the premises. There is nothing wrong with the method of logical deduction.

Incidentally, the example that you gave of a husband and wife is interesting to make my point. Your deduction there is not logical because your premises do not talk about any God which your inference describes explicitly.

I suggested in the essay that a lesser deity than the Almighty God can possibly exist. Simply by stating that “religious assertions are not logical; they are ‘PHENOMOLOGICAL’ doesn’t prove that they are necessarily infallible and correct.

The traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and good are not only confined to Christian God. They are the traits of Allah also. In Quran, God is said to be “al-Azeem,” (also al-Kabeer), “al-Hakeem,” “al-Barr (the Source of all Goodness).” There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Man by definition is finite. God by definition is infinite. The infinite is beyond the comprehension of the finite.

Good luck, you assholes.

gill sahib,

......... just a thought : does this problem go away if we assume that god is evil instead of good? ........ since he is omnipotent, for all we know ,he could be the biggest jerk of them all .......... my personal opinion is that if god does exist, he is one mean son of a gun - all this talk about his goodness is sheer speculation and wishful thinking ......... anyone who can come up with the concept of hell has to be exceptionally cruel and mean ..........

........ i hope i have solved your problem .........

hamidm2: #76

No, because there is a lot of goodness in the world also. There can probably be a tentative resolution if it is assumed that Devil is a god of evil and Allah, for instance, is god of ``all goodness.`` The two are equally mighty and one can not overpower the other.

But there is a simpler solution. Assume, like Darwin, that there is no god. We, including everything else, are just evolving. Gooodness and evil are both part of the evolution process and they are in balance with each other. But there is a difficulty in this solution also. Evolution began with something that was already existing, which then started evolving. Who created ``that something?``

Science does not have answers for everything. We still do not know for sure if there was anything before the big bang. There has to be because after all big bang was an explosion of energy that was already existing.

I, for myself, am content with partial but consistent knowledge. The knowledge that religion provides us to fill the gaps is not credible.

Mohammad Gill

The problem is that people ascribe human emotions and values to God. If God exist then
HE/SHE/IT should be above and beyond all this. If there is a force/entity responsible for this somewhat ordered universe, then it is not the God of the Organized religions. This God is at best the attempt of the human mind to define an ideal.

It is like the blind men trying to define an elephant by touching its various limbs, but in this case the men are not only blind but really have not other senses either.

#75 klpd

Here is a parting image for your viewing pleasure - how your Mullah Aziz was unable to fool the sharp eyes of the ever alert Pakistani khakis.

Let nobody tell you that you have no useful purpose in life!! :)

re. freethinker #77:

``Gooodness and evil are both part of the evolution process and they are in balance with each other. But there is a difficulty in this solution also. Evolution began with something that was already existing, which then started evolving. Who created ``that something?``

Gill sahib, looking for a First Cause, which is essentially the `problem` you recognize here, will always be a futile exercise for man-- at least with his present level of mental capacity. This, of course, not to suggest the introduction of a Superior Being, which would only reproduce the problem at an atecedent step. But the recognition that, with out present capabilities and emotions it is in fact absurd to look for a First Cause (since our emotions will lead us, if we`re honest, to ask ``But who made that?``) might lead us to consider that our slavery to the cause-effect paradigm of reality is what`s causing us problems in the, er, first place.

Mathematicians are comfortable with the idea of infinitude and the non-necessity of an origin. Maybe the common, modern, man could, with some training, develop a similar non-linear concept of time and events.

But now I`m ramnbling, I think.

By the way,Gill sahib, you didn`t comment on my critique of your rejection of the `free will` thesis as a reconciler of the seeming contradiction in question. But it`s not important, since I was limiting the argument to `evil` caused by individual actions (no matter how far down the chain of events) and not to `evil` such as a child born a parapleigic, or developing some horribly painful disease. I am absolutely unable to reconcile a Good God (in any sense-- phenomenological, transcendental or logical) to the existence of such `evil`. In this sense, if I believed in a God, I would have to conceded that he/she/it possessed a sadistic streak.