Whence Then is Evil?

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”.

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...

Re: # 37

Hamidm sahib:

Could it be that Hinduism is not a religion in the sense you were brought up to believe a religion. Its followers are not required to even remember the names of four vedas, simply saying to yourself that ``I am a Hindu`` is its Kalima (??), after that you are free to choose.

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

Yeah, me too, Philoo. Care to enlighten?

#37 by hamidm2:

You have got a few things wrong. Perhaps you should hang out with Muslims too occasionally and you will find to your utter surprise that they aren`t burping some ayat into their beards after saying Alhamdollilah following the tequila shot. For a people with rather well-defined jawlines it is a pity that they choose to cover their chins, isn`t it? But then we assume they all do so.

Your query has been answered by all the nice, liberal Hindus here. This `karma` business is such a fright. It isn`t, as DMji suggests, all about taking responsibility for your actions. It is about sowing what you reaped in the last birth. So, your friends at the bar were probably amnesiacs in their last birth and forgot all about their religion in this one. Besides, reciting something by rote does not constitute religiosity. It is about how you have internalised your conditioning.

I don`t understand this: 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`? Only because the Muslims have one book and the Hindus have like four Vedas, a few epics, and the Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita? That is a hell of a lot of written material to go through to call a religion a ``way of life``.

If some Muslims behave like idiots it is because they have not got those choices.

If, as Anil says, simply saying I am a Hindu is enough, then why do many Muslims who say `I am a Muslim` have to go through racial profiling? Two goddamn Indian doctors are suspected in the UK failed bombings and it becomes an issue about 160 million Indian Muslims. I know, I know, this is seen as more whining from IMs...but isn`t it `evil` (to return to the subject being discussed)?

Re. your # 13:

[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 !``]

Unfortunately, I have got to hear more often that she is so bad she couldn`t get any worse!

Be well...
- - -

PS to the one who is concerned: One does not degrade oneself by where one is but what one is and how one conducts oneself. I am okay; it is indeed the power of my will that makes me do what I do. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

It`s an essay - of whatever quality - about God, and we can`t discuss it without calling one another a-holes, idiots, super-idiots, feeling offended, being guilty, making others guilty, throwing petty tantrums etc etc. :)

God does have a strong effect on some people.

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...

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

I have already provided atleast 50 `proofs` for existence of God on the Chowk on other boards - and all of them were `good` enough for any looney who wants to buttress his faith through `proofs`.

The issue of ``faith`` versus ``reason`` has been the centre of debate in christian theology since ages and the only honourable solution for those who want to keep their faith is by not indulging in sophistry. One can understanding God and his message only through the language of ``metaphors`` as Gill Saheb rightly suggests and not through ``science``.

Theology and spirituality can never be a ``science`` and hence trying to construct ``proofs`` is a futile excercise.

Masadi,

You cannot create a coherent argument without throwing in jargons and indulging in ad-hominems.

If you have a GUTS theory that you think has been revealed in the message then tell us how, than trying to abuse Gill Saheb and others.

Till then we can only laugh at your self conceited `knowledge` about your ``truths``.

hamidm:

I should have added. The nouveau-religiosity among Hindus, especially among the younger folks, is in part due to television. In particular, the two serials - Ramayana and Mahabharat - inculcated a new sense of pride (bigotry?) among Hindus and probably contributed significantly to the vote bank of the BJP. So, people may still not know about their Vedas but they do so about Ramayana and Mahabharat. Also, I have noticed that TV serials and Bollywood are really into religious rituals, which seems to be having their influence; recently I did not receive an wedding invitation until it was too late, apparently, there is a new custom in India whereby the first invitation has to be hand-delivered to your favourite deity (Vaishno Devi in that particular case). Yes, Farzana, we too have our share of Jaahils - Ek dhoondo hazaar miltay hain!

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: dost-mittar # 55

May such jaahilpana increase din doona raat chaugana :)

Seriously, I have a mind to buy a few ramayana/mahabharata video/dvd series sets and gift them to friends with kids.

---

If simply knowing your own tradition is jaahilpana, then down with all engligtenment and all knowledge.

hmm eng-lightenment is not a bad word......

kaalchakra:

When did this tradition of delivering invitation cards to the deity start? Before or after the invention of printed invitation cards?

dm sahib, this is what I don`t get. What difference does it make? How about if I start sending out invitations to dogs (I often do)?

What happened in the case was sheer inefficiency, mismanagement, or just chance that the card did you reach you. If they had planned their foolishness well, they would not have been late in sending you the card.

Don`t people have a right to be as foolish as they want so long as they don`t hurt you and expect you to be as foolish?

I don`t get this Nehruvian desire to rid India of all foolishness. What would we have left to celebrate?

The wholesale negation of ancient Indian holy books by the Indian pinkos is a matter of absolute shame and disgrace – especially in view of the fact that they reserve such negation to Books of Indian origin only – and virtually pee in their pants when it comes to extrapolating the same criticism to religion at large, including any large elephants in the room! Highly hypocritical!

In particular, those who pooh-pooh the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the cowardly lot. There are many good values to be learned from those Books.

Such books do not try to tell you what to do but in their stories there are morals to draw for an individual who is willing to exercise his/her judgment. There are the examples of both good and evil – it is up to individuals to pick what examples they wish to emulate.

There are acts of selflessness as in case of Bharata. One could emulate those.

But there will always be some individuals who would rather follow Bhima’s example and drink their own brothers’ blood! :(

kaal:

I have no problem with people`s foolishness (and I wouldn`t have gone to India for that particular wedding even if I had received the invitation in time). But foolishness is still foolishness and Nehruvians don`t have a copyright in calling it that.

#60 Circle of Time

[I don`t get this Nehruvian desire to rid India of all foolishness. What would we have left to celebrate]

You would have the LEFT to celebrate.

bjkumar:

``In particular, those who pooh-pooh the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the cowardly lot. There are many good values to be learned from those Books.``

That`s not me. I love Ramayana and Mahabharat. In my childhood, I never missed RamLila and tears swelled in my eyes when I would see Ram crying over his unconscious wounded brother , Lakshman and cheered for Hanuman when he carried the whole mountain to bring Lakshman back to life.

I also feel that these two epics are a masterpiece in literature and equal or better than any other epic produced by any other civilization. And I haven`t even seen many episodes of the serial.

But I do believe that those two serials did add to the vote-bank of the BJP.

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.

re. klpd:
``Man by definition is finite. God by definition is infinite. The infinite is beyond the comprehension of the finite.``


er.. so how did man comprehend his existence or his infinitude, since its impossible to comprehend that which we cannot... er.. comprehend, right?

It`s a little like saying ``The colour of my shirt is ERSEDE. But don`t even try figuring out that colour because its not within the spectrum of light that the human eye/brain can perceive.``


...as I wait for someone now to tell me that shirts can and do contain colours that the human eye cannot perceive, and thus miss the point altogether.

correction to #80: ``But the recognition that, with our present capabilities and emotions it is in fact absurd to look for a First Cause... ``

Dr Saheb,

A good article. But I have doubt about the concept of good and evil. The creator has made everything as he chose to make. There is nothing evil as such. Even if we go with the concept of God as someone doing only good then too we can`t deny Him because he has created everything and has to see the wellbeing of each and every species including the non-living things. So, something that appears to be evil for the humans might be in fact good for some other species. If we judge Him with the sole perspective of humans it will be too selfish for us to do. God should not be expected to take our perspective into account. Therefor on this ground only we can not declare Him to be evil or good.

I have also published a similar article `God, Religion and spirituality` in `self publish`. Will you please read and comment on that. In my opinion, humans have been given limited senses and a limited capacity to use them so it is not possible to say for sure whether God exists or not. For example, it is not possible to explore anything beyond the speed of light. We can`t smell or hear as many animals can. Then, we can`t know what the non-living things are `doing`. As such, it is and it will be a futile exercise to search God. Those religions which believe in God may be spiritually and philosophically true but there are religions, like Buddhism, Jainism and many Hindoo scriptures too, which deny God and can`t be declared wrong. All religions have flourished with the backing of and served the purpose of the power/establishment.

PM: #80

The answer to your query regarding free will was there in my essay; I therefore didn`t think appropriate to repeat it.

Man has free will without any doubt. But it is difficult to square it with the concept of an Almighty and All Good God.

The cause and effect issue that you mentioned is also interesting. It seems to break down in the world of subatmic particles; there all that you can suggest is only the probability of an even taking place.

Einstein had a continuing discussion until the end of his life with Bohr on this subject for 30 years. Neither of them accepted the other`s point of view. Einstein argued for cause and effect (determinism). Evidence so far has vindicated Bohr`s point of view in the subatomic world. Cause and effect prevails in the macro-world, the world of our day-to-day experience.

Thanks for your valueable discussion.

Mohammad Gill

the root of all evil

Brainwashing has taken a new meaning. Not only youngsters, but now
educated people are willing to be brainwashed and `educated` in nonsense
and superstition called religion.


We should recognise religious brainwashing in madrasas, which must be
investigated by Indian intelligence agencies and destroyed with an
iron hand NOW!


If ever there was a blaring call to ban religion - muslim, jew, sikh,
christian or hindu, THIS IS IT! It is high time we banned religion.


Religious brainwashing of youngsters should be made a punishable
offence with immediate effect.