Whence Then is Evil?

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?

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: # 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

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.

#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.

``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: 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.