Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/17/2002 3:47 AM (GMT -6)

I figure that it's pretty clear to me that before I go any further that I NEED to get some clarification here. Bottom line is this: Since we are going to say that God is love, we are pretty much going to end up "constraining" God's thoughts and actions by this concept "love". This is NOT to say that God is metaphysically constrained to love. It is a self-limitation, a choice. But we ARE going to say that God, from God's own choice, ONLY acts in accordance with LOVE, right? Ok.

Ok. This is what I'm hearing about love:

1) Love NEVER meets it's ends by any UNLOVING means.

2) For love, ends NEVER justify the means. THis means that if the ends cannot be met by completely using loving, good means, then the ends will NOT be achieved. Period.

3) Love is the highest estimation of the essence of the other. Not conditioned by anything.

4) For love there is only two options when facing an evil opponent:

--non-violent resistence (however that may be facilitated)
--STOPPING the evil

How this works out is that love (at the extremes) will either DIE at the hands of evildoers...or STOP them (ie terminate), but love will NEVER go along with evildoers plans at any time.

5) Love will not USE people against their will, for any reason. Love is all about choice.

6) The only ways that love may SEEM "bad" (meaning perhaps promoting suffering, pain, or death) are

--judgment
--"setting a bone"

7) Love is not collective, but ultimately individual. This means that love doesn't see people in collective terms (like humanity) but ONLY as persons.

8) Love NEVER visits evil on another, but can ALLOW evil in order NOT to visit evil on an evildoer.

9) Love promotes ONLY good, never evil.

*******************************************

This is what I am currently understanding about EVIL:

1) Evil has to deal with the OBJECTIFICATION and/or MANIPULATION OF LIFE (including persons). (This INCLUDES using living things as tools or pawns, I'm thinking)

2) Evil has to deal with NEGATIVE VALUATION or INDIFFERENCE towards persons.

3) Evil has to deal with the CESSATION OF CHOICE.

4) Evil has to deal with destruction, suffering, pain and death either FOR ITS OWN SAKE (not like "setting a bone" or whatever)...OR to promote #1-3 above.

5) Evil is "an objective quality of a pattern of events." This means that evil is more DISCERNED than JUDGED. By placed abstract standards of judgment, we are not able to PERCEIVE the way that we should to truly discern evil.

6) Evil acts like a contagion, meaning that it has a CORRUPTING factor that not only SPREADS, but taints as it does so. Thus to the extent that one participates in "evil", one becomes corrupted by it.

**********************************

For my purposes, I am basically assuming that GOODNESS is the OPPOSITE of what we find in EVIL.

Ok. Let start here. These are ideas that I have largely compiled from posts on this board from various people. Have at this, because I think that this will get us started. Critique my understanding. Add things. Subtract things. Whatever. Personally, I think this is VERY important! I especially think that this will definitely be important to the "GREATER GOOD"/ABIGUITY discussion. Hmm..

Give me some GOOD stuff here, y'all.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/17/2002 09:08:04 AM

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 9/17/2002 4:01 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I figure that it's pretty clear to me that before I go any further that I NEED to get some clarification here. Bottom line is this:

Mephi, I love it when you get to the bottom line in the second sentence of a post! Just joshing dude. Good thoughts. Challenging. Gotta think on it a bit!

quote:
Since we are going to say that God is love, we are pretty much going to end up "constraining" God's thoughts...

Actually WE aren't saying it. The Bible says it. Right?

Back under water!

Tom

"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 9/17/2002 5:39 AM (GMT -6)

From Peck's book, People of the Lie

It is a reflection of the enormous mystery of the subject that we do not have a generally accepted definition of evil. Yet in our heart I think we all have some understand of its nature. For the moment I can do no better than to heed my son, who, with the characteristic vision of eight-year-olds, explained simply, "Why, Daddy, evil is 'live' spelled backward." Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder-namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not require for biological survival.

Let us not forget this. There are some who have written about evil so intellectually that it comes our sounding abstract to the point of irrelevancy. Murder is not abstract.

When I say that evil has to do with killing, I do not mean to restrict myself to corporeal murder. Evil is also that which kills spirit. Evil, then, for the moment, is that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness. And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness.

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 9/17/2002 3:49 PM (GMT -6)

More from Peck (1983):
"There are three major, different, “living” theological models of evil. One is the nondualism of Hinduism and Buddhism, in which evil is envisioned simply as the other side of the coin. For life there must be death; for growth, decay; for creation, destruction. Consequently the distinction of evil from goodness is regarded by nondualism as an illusion. This attitude has found its way into supposedly Christian sects such as Christian Science and the recently popular Course in Miracles, but it is considered heresy by Christian theologians."

"A second model would hold that evil is distinct from good but is nonetheless of God’s creation. To endow us with free will (essential for creating us in his image) God has to permit us the option of the working choice and hence, at the very least, to “allow” evil. This model, which I term “integrated dualism,” was the one espoused by Martin Buber, who referred to evil as “’the yeast in the dough,’ the ferment place in the soul by God, without which the human dough does not rise” (Good and Evil, 1983).

The final major model, that of traditional Christianity, I label “diabolic dualism.” Here evil is regarded as being not of God’s creation but a ghastly cancer beyond his control. While this model has it’s own pitfalls, it is the only one of the three that deals adequately with the issue of murder and the murderer."

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/18/2002 8:28 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Springs for the interaction. Anyone else?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/18/2002 12:19 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

7) Love is not collective, but ultimately individual. This means that love doesn't see people in collective terms (like humanity) but ONLY as persons.

Iconoclast

Love is BOTH collective AND individual. Love understands that these two are integral. One does not exist without the other. Thus love knows that even the smallest individual has as much worth as the collective and the collective has as much worth as the individual. To sacrifice the individual FOR the collective is to do the exact same violence to the collective as to the individual. ONLY the individual can freely choose to sacrifice himself FOR the collective without causing this very same violence to the collective.

Thus, in a situation where only half of the collective can survive love requires the half that will be sacrificed to freely choose for themselves. If half of the individuals do not volunteer or more than half volunteer the group may freely choose to determine a decision mechanism. If some individuals refuse the decision mechanism they are of course free to leave the group. An army may be required to sacrifice a platoon as in the example of General Patton. An army has a decision mechanism that all have agreed to for the good of the individual AND the good of the whole. And notice that this cohesion of the whole only works to the extent that the individual soldier cares deeply about taking care of the guy next to him – to the point of risking his own life for him.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 9/19/2002 5:48 PM (GMT -6)

Peck, S. (1983) People of the lie: The hope for healing human evil.

“It is not an easy thing to embrace ugliness with the sole motive of hope that in some unknown way a transformation into beauty might occur thereby. But the myth of kissed frogs turning into princes remains. Yet how does kissing the frog turn it into a prince? How does the methodology of love work? How does it heal? I don’t know exactly.”

“I don’t know because love can work in many ways, and none of them are predictable. I know that the first task of love is self-purification. When one has purified oneself, by the grace of God, to the point at which one can truly love one’s enemies, a beautiful thing happens. It is as if the boundaries of the soul become so clean as to be transparent and a unique light then shines forth from the individual.”

“The effect of this light varies. Some of their way toward holiness will move more swiftly by its encouragement. Others, on their way toward evil, when encountering this light will be moved to change their direction. The bearer of the light (who is but a vehicle for it; it is the light of God) most often will be unaware of these effects. Finally, those who hate the light will attack it. Yet it is as if their evil actions are taken into the light and consumed. The malignant energy is thereby wasted, contained and neutralized. The process may be painful to the bearer of light, occasionally even fatal. This does not, however, signify the success of evil. Rather, it backfires. As I said in The Road Less Traveled, “It was evil that raised Christ to the cross, thereby enabling us to see him from afar.””

“I cannot be any more specific about the methodology of love other than to quote these words of an old priest who spent many years in the battle: “There are dozens of ways to deal with evil and several ways to conquer it. All of them are facets of the truth that the only ultimate way to conquer evil is to let it be smothered within a willing, living human being. When it is absorbed there like blood in a sponge or a spear into one’s heart, it loses its power and goes no further" (p. 268-9).

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 9/19/2002 5:49 PM (GMT -6)

Peck cont.:
“The healing of evil – scientifically or otherwise – can be accomplished only by the love of individuals. A willing sacrifice is required. The individual healer must allow his or her own soul to become the battleground. He or she must sacrificially absorb the evil.”

“Then what prevents the destruction of that soul? If one takes the evil itself into one’s heart, like a spear, how can one’s goodness survive? Even if the evil is vanquished thereby, will not the good be also? What will have been achieved beyond some meaningless trade off?”
“I cannot answer this in language other than the mystical. I can say only that there is a mysterious alchemy whereby the victim becomes the victor. As S. S. Lewis wrote: “When a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor’s stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start to work backwards.”

“I do not know how this occurs. But I know that it does. I know that good people can deliberately allow themselves to be pierced by the evil of others – to be broken thereby yet still survive and not succumb. Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world” (p. 269).

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/19/2002 7:01 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

2) For love, ends NEVER justify the means. THis means that if the ends cannot be met by completely using loving, good means, then the ends will NOT be achieved. Period.

Springs

M. Scott Peck:

“The process may be painful to the bearer of light, occasionally even fatal. This does not, however, signify the success of evil. Rather, it backfires. As I said in The Road Less Traveled, “It was evil that raised Christ to the cross, thereby enabling us to see him from afar.””
…
“The healing of evil – scientifically or otherwise – can be accomplished only by the love of individuals. A willing sacrifice is required. The individual healer must allow his or her own soul to become the battleground. He or she must sacrificially absorb the evil.”
…
“I do not know how this occurs. But I know that it does. I know that good people can deliberately allow themselves to be pierced by the evil of others – to be broken thereby yet still survive and not succumb. Whenever this happens there is a slight shift in the balance of power in the world” (p. 269).

Iconoclast

Great quotes Springs!

For love the only “end” is love. Love uses love to overcome and heal evil in the beloved – to turn him or her to love. If in the face of total love the beloved refuses to love is love no longer love – has love lost its “end” of love – or is it still love? Is the only way for love to not achieve its “end” of love to lose its way in seeking love and to use evil in order to achieve its “end” and therefore become evil and no longer love?

Love is its own end and it is its only means, else it is not love but evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/19/2002 7:10 PM (GMT -6)

Charles Sanders Peirce from "Chance, Love and Logic"

Pg. 268

"God is love. There is no logic in this, unless it means that God loves all men. In the preceding paragraph, he had said, “God is light and in him is no darkness at all.” We are to understand, then, that as darkness is merely the defect of light, so hatred and evil are mere imperfect stages of love and loveliness. This concords with that utterance reported in John’s Gospel: “God sent not the Son in to the world to judge the world; but that the world should through him be saved. He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already. . . . And this is the judgement, that the light is come into the world, and that men loved darkness rather than the light.” That is to say, God visits no punishment on them; they punish themselves, by their natural affinity for the defective. Thus, the love that God is, is not a love of which hatred is the contrary; otherwise Satan would be a co-ordinate power; but it is a love which embraces hatred as an imperfect stage of it."

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/19/2002 7:15 PM (GMT -6)

Charles Sanders Peirce - from "Chance, Love and Logic"

"Everybody can see that the statement of St. John is the formula of an evolutionary philosophy, which teaches that growth comes only from love, from – I will not say self-sacrifice, but from the ardent impulse to fulfil another’s highest impulse."

"The philosophy we draw from John’s gospel is that this is the way mind develops; and as for the cosmos, only so far as it yet is mind, and so has life, is it capable of further evolution. Love, recognizing germs of loveliness in the hateful, gradually warms it into life, and makes it lovely. That is the sort of evolution which every careful student of my essay “The Law of Mind,” must see that synechism calls for."

Christopher Alexander - from "The Nature of Order - The Phenomenon of Life"

These two things are true of every living center:

1. Each center gets its life, always, from the fact that it is helping to support and enliven some larger center.
2. The center becomes precious because of it.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/20/2002 3:48 AM (GMT -6)

Ok.

I appreciate the thoughts here, but I can't help thinking something...

If this is the defintion of love, then you have just turned one of the very premises of theodicy on it's head, namely that MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE evil may exist with a self-existent God of love.

Hmmm...

Issue: From what I'm hearing, perfect love never uses "evil" means, right? Love's only end is love...and if it cannot meet that end by perfectly loving means, then the end will not be met. This means that for LOVE, using evil is NEVER justified. [Note: Using evil, as described here is DISTINCT from REDEEMING evil. This will be discussed later] Ok, then...

From what is STILL my favorite philosophy text: Philosophy for Dummies by Tom V. Morris. I like the simplicity. Page 266...

quote:

Moral justification in the face of evil:

A moral agent A is morally justified in bringing about or allowing an evil E if, and only if, either:

E is necessary for the prevention of some greater evil

E is necessary for the occurance of some greater, overwheming good

or

A's bringing about or allowing E is itself, as an action, necessary for the occurance of some greater good or the prevention of some worse evil.

To Morris, this leads to the following idea:

A morally good being prevents all the MORALLY UNJUSTIFIABLE evil that he has the power and opportunity to prevent.

As I see it this is the FUNDAMENTAL BASIS for doing theodicy. This is the premise from whence the "soul-making" and "free-will" theodicies emerge.

Now, check it out...

Using what I've been told about "love" and "evil" on this thread...while applying Morris's idea:

E = the inevitable emergence of "evil" known to God via God's infinite intelligence. (meaning death, suffering, pain, anti-life stuff)

E' = the VERY strong possibility that at least ONE being will eternally be separated from God in a hellish/non-existent state (qua Doc's definition of hell)...a being whom God would INFINITELY value!

Potential "some greater evil" = the continued NON-EXISTENCE of sentient beings; the absence of non-God LIFE; the inability to share love with non-God beings.

Potential "greater, overwhelming good" = Non-god sentient beings experiencing and reciprocating God's triune love.

Let's do the math, people. For God to show and receive love from NON-GOD creatures, there were some NECESSARY EVILS that God had to be willing to accept. And God was willing to accept these things...BECAUSE GOD SAW A "GREATER GOOD" IN DOING SO. Think about why in "Satan and the Problem of Evil", Doc talks about God's creation ultimately being "worth it" OVERALL? Because theodicies are ALL variations "greater good" arguments at base. They all end up saying that there is a JUSTIFIABLE REASON for the evil being allowed or brought about. That the "greater good" ends that God intends JUSTIFIES all the evil that we see. Theodicy = justification of God!

This shows that for the God of Love, sometimes ends CAN justify means. Otherwise, it would be the case that the divine/human love relationship would NOT exist! Remember, God was doing JUST FINE before God created Creation! [We've been down this road before, y'all!!]

Now let me try to anticipate something:

But Meph, the sacrifice that God made on the Cross shows the suffering that God was willing to take for this venture. He absorbed ALL the evil back onto himself...just like we said that love does. In this case, the Victor becomes the ultimate VICTIM for the sake of love's existence! Doesn't this mean something?

Hey, this is cool...and I like it. However, this misses the point. As y'all indicated, evil is objective...and is NOT just MORPHED to a GOOD away by sacrifice or whatever. Quote from Morris. Page 266 (emphasis mine):

quote:
Evil is never justified unless is is necessary in the ways outlined. And that doesn't turn it into good. It is still evil, and it may still be unfortunate and regrettable, but if it is necessary, and it, or its allowance, participates in bringing about a morally more preferable result that would otherwise have happened, it is not UNREDEEMED evil incompatible with the existence and oversight of a morally good being who could have prevented it.

The Christ Work REDEEMS the evil...but doesn't eliminate the evil IN ITSELF. Just like LOVE , as you've said, may internalize and redeem the evil brought against it...but NOT change the evil to a good.

**************************

Next consideration...because I see it coming already:

But Meph, there is a BIG difference between ALLOWING something to happen and BRINGING IT ABOUT, isn't there? Remember the difference between your wife-torture analogy and Doc's runaway train analogy?

Uh, yeah. But what's the essential difference? In EITHER case, one is seriously participating in the evil. One is just (arguably) partaking in it MORE than the other. The "allow/bring it about" distinction is not enough for this stuff. Remember what's been said. Love CANNOT and DOES NOT use unloving, evil means...AT ALL. This means by allowance OR bringing it about. And please don't forget, Creation was NOT NECESSARY! God would have done just fine without it because God had relationship within Godself. So ULTIMATELY Creation was gratuitous, yes?

**************************

But let me use something else to drive this point home. Your own words. Iconoclast said:

quote:
Love never visits evil on another. Yes, love allows evil on another. Love even allows evil on a loved one in order NOT to visit evil on an evildoer. For love knows that to visit evil on another is to accelerate evil infinitely, and ALL will then be swallowed up.

Using the same terms as above:

E = ALLOWING evil to be visited on another

"Some greater evil = BECOMING the evil you are opposing

Therefore,

Allowing evil to be visited on another is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE in order to prevent the "greater evil" of EXACERBATING evil, becoming the evil that you are opposing.

As you can clearly see, even by your own LOGIC, it is possible for a loving being to participate in some way(by allowance, at least) in MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE evil!

We've talked about this before. (Remember, Brett??) There's no real way that you can say that the PRINCIPLE BEHIND the "greater good" idea is false. Not and assert what you do about the self-existent, Triune God! The only things that one can do is dispute whether or not a given evil is truly morally justifiable or not. THAT'S all!

**************************

One more thing. The ideas of "judgment" and "setting a bone" presuppose the "greater good" idea AND the MORAL JUSTIFICATION of evil means! Think about it. A doctor can bring pain that is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE. God can use horribly evil means to judge others because its MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE.

***************************

Having said all that I've said above, let it be known that I do understand what you guys are saying...and largely agree. I do believe that love can ultimately conquer evil with good. I believe that evaluation of means are important so that our ends being met aren't devalued by how we got there. But I'm just trying to show you some issues I see. Hey, if I'm wrong, show me. Lord knows I've been wrong before!

Let's see where we go from here.

Holla,

PS: Brandi, you're the next thing I'm on, ok?

Edited by - Mephi2K on 09/20/2002 08:53:21 AM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/20/2002 4:33 AM (GMT -6)

Just a little more.

The question keeps getting asked:

Meph, isn't there some type of LIMIT that we can think of, dealing with moral justifiability? Isn't there just SOME evils that are not morally justifiable?

Why, yes, there probably is! But friggin guess what?

1) We don't have the knowledge or even the MEANS to ascertain fully whether or not a particular evil event that God allows or brings about is morally justifiable. You can use your little perspective to try to ascertain it (ala Doc's "little hut" idea) but, we are UTTERLY handicapped to discover this...which leads to...

2) RADICAL FAITH in the character of God revealed in Jesus. We trust, BY FAITH, that whatever evils that God uses as means, they are ULTIMATELY morally justifiable. All these issues MUST be seen as epistemological limitation!

Friggin BOOYAH!

Off and up out,

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 9/20/2002 4:47 AM (GMT -6)

I really do think Sir Mephistopheles has it pretty right on here. Sorry I don't have time to comment more extensively. Maybe later---

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 9/20/2002 6:49 AM (GMT -6)

I used to think that "evil becomes good." For an example, murder is NOT murder under certain circumstances. This was part of what I was trying to get at on the "Ethics thread." Although one may argue degrees of killing, (1st, 2nd, manslaughter, etc) either way, the killing itself is an "undesirable affect" which one would not want to commit. But in some cases it is "the lesser of two evils" that one would necessarily have to do and is therefore JUSTIFIABLE. That is, it doesn't become good? It simply becomes justifiable.

And this is why I said that we are doing our theology through our ethics. Get our ethics straight and then other things will fall into place. Get our ethics screwy and sometimes this is why we have can't even imagine some things being appropriate...even for God. This is sum'n Greg is always talk'n 'bout. Meaningfulness. If something is not meaningful to us, if it doesn't make sense to us, then it is understandable why it isn't so for God. If we can't believe in the "lesser of two evils" for ourselves, Shirley, we won't for God. Good stuff Meph.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/20/2002 11:51:05 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/21/2002 4:04 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi

This shows that for the God of Love, sometimes ends CAN justify means. Otherwise, it would be the case that the divine/human love relationship would NOT exist! Remember, God was doing JUST FINE before God created Creation!

Morris:

quote:

Evil is never justified unless is is necessary in the ways outlined. And that doesn't turn it into good. It is still evil, and it may still be unfortunate and regrettable, but if it is necessary

Iconoclast

What I hear you saying is that God does morally justifiable evil. But since you agree with Morris that morally justified evil is not good but still evil then you seem to be saying that we must conclude that God does evil. Yes, we can have faith that it is for a greater good but none-the-less He does do evil.

How are you not saying this?

Mephi

But Meph, there is a BIG difference between ALLOWING something to happen and BRINGING IT ABOUT, isn't there? Remember the difference between your wife-torture analogy and Doc's runaway train analogy?

Uh, yeah. But what's the essential difference? In EITHER case, one is seriously participating in the evil. One is just (arguably) partaking in it MORE than the other. The "allow/bring it about" distinction is not enough for this stuff. Remember what's been said. Love CANNOT and DOES NOT use unloving, evil means...AT ALL. This means by allowance OR bringing it about. And please don't forget, Creation was NOT NECESSARY! God would have done just fine without it because God had relationship within Godself. So ULTIMATELY Creation was gratuitous, yes?

Iconoclast

In the wife-torture analogy no sensible free-agent would participate in that evil. That is to say no sensible free-agent would torture his wife to save his kids. In the runaway train analogy one is seeking to mitigate the evil not participate in it.

I believe that this whole line of argument misses the fundamental nature of the issue at hand. It misses the dynamic nature of the situation. It only makes sense from a deterministic presupposition where people are not really free-will beings. Once free-will beings are introduced into the mix you must go from linear equations to dynamic equations.

God created free-will beings. Notice He called that “very good”. I would argue that we can trust Him on that assessment. The creation of free-will agents that had the ability to do evil was very good. It was not an evil means to a greater good. It was “very good” in itself. Remember it is NOT necessary that the free-will beings actually DO evil. It is only necessary that it is possible for them to do evil. Thus God doesn’t “allow” them to do evil – if evil was necessary then I would agree that God “allowed” us to do evil – but it wasn’t and He didn’t.

Yes, creation was gratuitious. Gratuitously very good.

Side note: it feels like your line of argumentation makes God fully responsible for US doing evil.

Now, for God to stop us from doing evil is to take away the “very good” gift that He just gave us.

Think about your child for a moment. Having a child is good. Now, if your child does something evil did you “allow” it? The only way it seems to me that one can answer yes to this is to say that you “allowed” it because you had the child. But having a child is good. Therefore “allowing” your child to do evil IN THIS SENSE of “allow” is good.

But notice that this is a completely different kind of “allow” than the kind where you “allow” evil WHEN YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. It is a difference of complicity in the evil. Complicity is a form of participate that is NOT significantly different from “bringing it about”.

The only way God can stop us from doing evil is to take away the “very good” that He gave us. Therefore we are not using the logic of the “greater good” justifies evil (which is basically the same as TSE) to see why God created free-will beings who can do evil. It is really an ontological argument I think. Free-will beings (who can do evil) are by definition very good.

Mephi

But let me use something else to drive this point home. Your own words. Iconoclast said:

quote:

Love never visits evil on another. Yes, love allows evil on another. Love even allows evil on a loved one in order NOT to visit evil on an evildoer. For love knows that to visit evil on another is to accelerate evil infinitely, and ALL will then be swallowed up.

Using the same terms as above:

E = ALLOWING evil to be visited on another

"Some greater evil = BECOMING the evil you are opposing

Therefore,
Allowing evil to be visited on another is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE in order to prevent the "greater evil" of EXACERBATING evil, becoming the evil that you are opposing.
As you can clearly see, even by your own LOGIC, it is possible for a loving being to participate in some way (by allowance, at least) in MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE evil!

One more thing. The ideas of "judgment" and "setting a bone" presuppose the "greater good" idea AND the MORAL JUSTIFICATION of evil means! Think about it. A doctor can bring pain that is MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE. God can use horribly evil means to judge others because its MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE.

Iconoclast

Do you not see how this logic leads to seeing good and calling it evil (morally justifiable evil).

You are suggesting here that a doctor causing pain by setting a broken bone is in fact evil. It is not. It is plain to see that it is good. The fallacy here is equating pain with evil.

You are also suggesting that God’s judgement is in fact evil. I disagree. God’s judgement is always good and loving. I also disagree that God uses horribly evil means to judge others. I see no evidence in the Bible of God directly judging by torturing someone. I see language in the Bible about “God’s judgement” where the Babylonians do horrible evil things, but then I see language in the Bible about “God’s judgement” of the Babylonians for doing those same horrible evil things.

Mephi

quote:

Moral justification in the face of evil:

A moral agent A is morally justified in bringing about or allowing an evil E if, and only if, either:

E is necessary for the prevention of some greater evil
E is necessary for the occurance of some greater, overwheming good

or

A's bringing about or allowing E is itself, as an action, necessary for the occurance of some greater good or the prevention of some worse evil.

In my opinion this is the logic of our own knowledge of good and evil. I agree that this is the logic of the world when it comes to moral justifiability. But I also strongly believe that this is the exact logic under which the greatest evils in our world have been perpetrated. As long as I can convince someone that a greater evil is just around the corner (and it may well be!) then I can get them to participate in an actual evil right now. Or if I can convince someone that there is this greater, overwhelming good just around the corner then I can get them to commit evil now. The problem is that committing evil separates us from the other and kills love. And love is the only force that can overcome evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/21/2002 09:08:46 AM

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 9/21/2002 5:27 AM (GMT -6)

Mephi said:

Next consideration...because I see it coming already:

But Meph, there is a BIG difference between ALLOWING something to happen and BRINGING IT ABOUT, isn't there? Remember the difference between your wife-torture analogy and Doc's runaway train analogy?

Uh, yeah. But what's the essential difference? In EITHER case, one is seriously participating in the evil. One is just (arguably) partaking in it MORE than the other. The "allow/bring it about" distinction is not enough for this stuff.

Semeia:

Bold mine.

So, let me get this straight. Giving birth to a child who might grow up to be a serial killer is not essentially different from being a serial killer?

Allowing one’s child to play in the front yard bordering a street is not essentially different from pushing one’s child in front of a speeding car?

Allowing people to fly on airplanes (which are sometimes hijacked) is not essentially different from flying an airplane into a building full of people?

Allowing free willed beings to exist is not essentially different from causing Stalin to murder twenty-five million people?

I fail to see the logic here. There is a HUGE difference between ALLOWING free willed beings (who are capable of evil) to exist and actually BRINGING ABOUT evil.

Thanks,
Semeia

PS, I hope to be back on the other thread by tomorrow if I can get the time.

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/21/2002 6:29 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Iconoclast: What I hear you (Meph) saying is that God does morally justifiable evil.

I threw out "morally justifiable" along with the juridical view of "imputed guilt." (Goodbye! *waves*) It follows an Augustinian view of God and Justice, VERSUS a Pauline view of God and Justice.

There is nothing larger than God, and preexistent, to which he has to hold himself as a standard. (see www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm below)

quote:
Therefore, what man accepts as just and good according to his observations of human relationships within society and nature cannot be confused with the justice of God. The justice of God has been revealed uniquely and fully only in Christ. No man has the right to substitute his own conception of justice for that of God.

Therefore, what man accepts as just and good according to his observations of human relationships within society and nature cannot be confused with the justice of God. The justice of God has been revealed uniquely and fully only in Christ. No man has the right to substitute his own conception of justice for that of God.

To get at the basic presuppositions of Biblical thinking, one must abandon any juridical scheme of human justice which demands punishment and rewards according to objective rules of morality. To approach the problem of original sin in such a naive manner as to say that tout lecteur sense concilura qu'une penalite commune implique une offense commune, and that thus all share in the guilt of Adam, is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny and real power to the devil.

The relationships which exist among God, man and the devil are not according to rules and regulations, but according to personalistic freedom. The fact that there are laws forbidding one from killing his neighbor does not imply the impossibility of killing not only one, but hundreds of thousands of neighbors. If man can disregard rules and regulations of good conduct, certainly the devil cannot be expected to follow such rules if he can help it. St. Paul's version of the devil is certainly not that of one who is simply obeying general rules of nature and carrying out the will of God by punishing souls in hell. Quite on the contrary, he is fighting God dynamically by means of all possible deception, trying by all his cunning and power to destroy the works of God. Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power.

Thus, according to St. Paul, it is God Himself Who has destroyed "principalities and powers" by nailing the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, to the cross of Christ. "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their offences." although we were in sin, God did not hold this against us, but has declared His own justice to those who believe in Christ. The justice of God is not according to that of men, which operates by the law of works. For St. Paul, the justice of God and the love of God are not to be separated for the sake of any juridical doctrine of atonement. The justice of God and the love of God as revealed in Christ are the same thing. In Romans 3:21-26, for example, the expression, "love of God," could very easily be substituted for the "justice of God."

It is interesting to note that every time St. Paul speaks about the wrath of God it is always that which is revealed to those who have become hopelessly enslaved, by their own choosing, to the flesh and the devil. Although creation is held captive in corruption, those without the law are without excuse in worshipping and living falsely, because "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead--"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the desires of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves..." and again, "God gave them over to reprobate mind." This does not mean that god caused them to become what they are, but rather that He gave them up as being completely lost to corruption and the power of the devil. One must also interpret other similar passages in like manner.

This giving up by God of people who have already become hardened in their hearts against His works is not restricted to the gentiles, but extends, also, to Jews. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." And, "For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." The gentiles, however, even though they are not under the Mosaic law, are not excused from the responsibility of personal sin, for they, "having not the law, are a law unto themselves, who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and amongst themselves accusing or else excusing their thoughts." At the last judgment, all men, whether under the law or not, whether hearers of Christ or not, shall be judged by Christ according to the Gospel as preached by Paul, and not according to any system of natural laws. Even though the invisible things of God "from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead," there is still no such thing as moral law inherent in the universe. The gentiles who "have not the law" but who "do by nature the things contained in the law" are not abiding by any natural system of moral laws in the universe. They rather "shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." Here, again, one sees Paul's conception of personal relationships between God and man. "God hath shewed it unto them, and it is God Who is still speaking to fallen man outside of the law, through the conscience and in the heart, which for Paul is the center of man's thoughts, and for members of the body of Christ the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

Icon: In the runaway train analogy one is seeking to mitigate the evil not participate in it.

Al: I don't know that one; but I'm guessing it means choosing between having the train run on either of a finite set of tracks to choose.

Your seeking to mitigate the evil not participate in it is a good one, Icon, IMHO.

quote:
Icon: I believe that this whole line of argument misses the fundamental nature of the issue at hand. It misses the dynamic nature of the situation. It only makes sense from a deterministic presupposition where people are not really free-will beings. Once free-will beings are introduced into the mix you must go from linear equations to dynamic equations.

Al: I agree joyously with the "misses the fundamental nature of the issue" part. And the "deterministic presupposition" versus "free-will beings" part. Yep!

BUT, I think that while the "linear equations to dynamic equations" comment is a common one, IT DOES NOT GET TO THE CENTER OF THE ISSUE.

You do touch on that center a few times, Icon. You do point to the "nature" of "free-will beings." BUT, you also stray back to the "mechanics" of choices, versus their nature.

Here is an example: "God created free-will beings. Notice He called that 'very good'." It appears to me that you end up calling the design "good" instead of the creation itself. of course, the design, as the logoi and will of God in creating it is good. But it is the "nature" of the creation of "God's Image" that merits "very good."

So, I would change your comment (if I may) to: "God created free-will beings. Notice He called THEM 'very good'." (Versus: "THAT 'very good'.")

AGAIN, Meph, I've thrown out your "Ambiguity." I think it has problems. I'm glad to see Icon calling them. So in Icon's next comment I'll pursue that.

quote:
Icon: It was not an evil means to a greater good. It was “very good” in itself. Remember it is NOT necessary that the free-will beings actually DO evil. It is only necessary that it is possible for them to do evil. Thus God doesn’t “allow” them to do evil – if evil was necessary then I would agree that God “allowed” us to do evil – but it wasn’t and He didn’t.

Quote: "It was not an evil means to a greater good."

Al: Yes. Right, Icon.

Quote: "It is only necessary that it is possible for them to do evil."

PAUSE.

Al: HERE'S where I get out the fine-tools kit!!! Possible by "nature". I hope that I'm saying "having free will."

I believe that it is WE who make the possibility of sin possible. Evil is a parasite. God creates potentialities;and we "unfold them." But mis-unfolded potentialities actually "make allowances for sin." How did Paul word that? "m...Make NO PROVISIONS for sin." I can't find the right verse; but these will do.

quote:
Romans 13:14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.[

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

Hebrews 12:14 Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord.

Romans 6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

Romans 6:13 Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness.

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.

Romans 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!

Romans 6:16 Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey–whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to everincreasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.

Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is–his good, pleasing and perfect

Icon: "The problem is that committing evil separates us from the other and kills love. And love is the only force that can overcome evil."

Al: AMEN. PREACH ICON.

That seems to say my objection too. I'd take martyrdom for both me AND my family before sinning.

Icon: "this is a completely different kind of “allow” than the kind where you “allow” evil WHEN YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED IT."

Al: DEPENDS ON THE CASE. DEPENDS ON WHAT THE HOWL BIG PICTURE IS. ITS NOT ALL APPARENT ON THE SURFACE.

Icon: "Therefore 'allowing' your child to do evil IN THIS SENSE of 'allow' is good."

Al: FINELY NUANCED. NICE.

Icon: "It is a difference of complicity in the evil. Complicity is a form of participate that is NOT significantly different from 'bringing it about'."

Al: ????????

AGAIN, THIS SEEMS TO COME FROM THE WELL OF THE "MECHANICAL" SCHOOL. IT TREATS SURFACE CONSIDERATIONS. AND IT IS WHERE FAR TOO MANY TIMES THE "NATURE" OF THE HUMAN IS SWAPPED FOR THE "MECHANICS OF CHOICES."

Icon: The only way God can stop us from doing evil is to take away the “very good” that He gave us. Therefore we are not using the logic of the “greater good” justifies evil

Al: I AGREE, (I THINK; WITH NO RESERVATION--BUT I'M MOVING SLOWLY... MY AREAS FOR OBJECTING ARE WELL SKETCHED OUT HERE.) I LIKE THAT.

Al: God gave us free will. Our Logoi.

Icon: Now, for God to stop us from doing evil is to take away the “very good” gift that He just gave us.

Al: I AGREE. I LIKE THAT!

.........more............

I FIND NO USE FOR THE TERM OR CONCEPT OF AMBIGUITY.

I'LL EMBRACE APOPATHIC METHODS INSTEAD. (AND I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE INTERCHANGABLE. I JUST WONDER WHETHER THEY COME FROM DIFFERENT PLACES, EVEN.)

.........more............

Keep it up, Guys!

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/22/2002 5:17 PM (GMT -6)

BBBCanada

Sum you peoples just aren't gett'n it. Reality is such that one has to choose between "the lesser of two evils."

The same for God.

Iconoclast

This presupposes that reality is a smooth continuum of good to evil – a number line where we could place a value of relative good to relative evil of anything in creation. It presupposes that for any given evil a greater evil can be conceived.

There are two variations of this model that I see being used:

One) A definition of good and evil where these values are completely relative. Something is good only in relation to things that are less good which are then termed evil in relation to that good. One could think of this number line as going from 1 (completely good) to infinity (completly evil). Thus anything greater than 1 is considered evil in relation to 1 and anything less than 20 is considered good in relation to anything greater than 20.

Two) A definition of good and evil where good is defined as all values less than 0 and evil is defined as all values greater than 0. Thus negative infinity is completely good and positive infinity is completely evil.

Mephi

The bottom line being that the idea that God compatibilistically orchestrates heinously "evil" episodes for reasons that WE cannot see or understand CANNOT be precluded.

Iconoclast

Thus what is being said here is that God can and will directly cause evil of ANY CONCEIVABLE (One hundred trillion?) value since we can confidently say that there is ALWAYS some greater evil than whatever we can conceive of that He may be preventing.

I do not believe that this is an accurate model of the situation. I do not believe that good and evil are like this at all. I would like to suggest that good and evil are quantum values. They are binary. There is no number line at all – just two values: good is 1 and evil is 0.

The reason that we see so many shades of gray is that there are many things in this world and good and evil are all mixed up in the many things. This is the parable of the wheat and the tares. God planted a field of wheat – all very good – each wheat plant a quantum good (1). But an enemy came and planted tares among the wheat. Each tare being a quantum evil (0). The servants wanted to go out and rip up the tares but the master wouldn’t let them because the tares had become entangled with the wheat and to pull up the tares would cause some of the wheat to be pulled up also. The master told the servants to allow the tares to grow up alongside the wheat and when the time was full to separate the wheat from the tares after harvesting both.

In this model the concept of doing evil to prevent a greater evil makes no sense. We know what is good and we know what is evil. When we see a tare – when we see Zosia being tortured – we are not confused about whether it is a tare or whether it is wheat. What we are confused about is how to pluck out this tare BEFORE it sprouts and takes solid hold of the wheat in such a way as to not do the same evil to the wheat. Fortunately God has told us to not even try to judge this sort of thing. We cannot. It is not our job and when we try to – we just make it worse by pulling out more wheat – in fact – we become a tare ourselves. Our job is to love – the tares and the wheat alike.

God on the other hand does know how to judge and love at the same time. I am confident that we can say that God never does anything evil. He never chooses between two evils. He rejects that conflict and overcomes it with good – with love – for love overcomes evil.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/22/2002 5:31 PM (GMT -6)

Al

BUT, I think that while the "linear equations to dynamic equations" comment is a common one, IT DOES NOT GET TO THE CENTER OF THE ISSUE.

You do touch on that center a few times, Icon. You do point to the "nature" of "free-will beings." BUT, you also stray back to the "mechanics" of choices, versus their nature.

Here is an example: "God created free-will beings. Notice He called that 'very good'." It appears to me that you end up calling the design "good" instead of the creation itself. of course, the design, as the logoi and will of God in creating it is good. But it is the "nature" of the creation of "God's Image" that merits "very good."

So, I would change your comment (if I may) to: "God created free-will beings. Notice He called THEM 'very good'." (Versus: "THAT 'very good'.")

Iconoclast

Thanks for the feedback Al.

I agree that it is THEM (free-will beings, US!) that God calls very good rather than strictly THAT (our ability to choose). It is the creation itself not the design that is ‘very good’. If that is your main point then I totally agree and I stand corrected. However, isn’t our ability to choose the most crucial aspect of our nature in this context – or are you trying to get at something else?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 9/22/2002 5:42 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks, Icon. I'll TRY to answer your question. (Late for me.)

quote:
However, isn’t our ability to choose the most crucial aspect of our nature in this context – or are you trying to get at something else?

I hope I'm not splitting hairs. I didn't think so before. (Its late; so I'll have to trust my "then" view.)

Literally, "ability to choose" may be, in my mind, the same as having free will. What I was contrasting to--I think--was the whether-or-not matter of whether more than one good option is open. I don't think having multiple options open is important. Free will does not depend on multiple options. (Maybe that is what I was meaning by "mechanical.")

I didn't go up to see what I'd said. But I HOPE that this covers it.

Keep it up.

brandi
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 118

Posted 9/22/2002 6:07 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast

quote:
when we see Zosia being tortured – we are not confused about whether it is a tare or whether it is wheat. What we are confused about is how to pluck out this tare BEFORE it sprouts and takes solid hold of the wheat in such a way as to not do the same evil to the wheat. Fortunately God has told us to not even try to judge this sort of thing. We cannot. It is not our job and when we try to – we just make it worse by pulling out more wheat – in fact – we become a tare ourselves. Our job is to love – the tares and the wheat alike.

Help me, Iconoclast, I am totally confused!!! Are you saying that we should not judge that what was happening to Zosia was evil and fight against it? Are you saying that in the midst of abuse or torture of an innocent victim we should be loving the abuser? In the BIG picture, of course I realize that we are to love all of God's creation, BUT in the midst of such an evil we have been given a command by God to fight for righteousness and fight against the evil forces. "We do NOT wage war against flesh and blood...." BUT we DO know when a person is acting in an evil way and should NOT tolerate the evil act, correct? I just need to get his cleared up because I believe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

I would appreciate your clarification for my SLOW but interested mind. Thank you!
~Brandi~

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 9/22/2002 10:33 PM (GMT -6)

Let me first summarize what I think I'm hearing:

1) Morally free-willed non-god beings are INTRINSICALLY good. Restated, the capacity of non-God beings to possibly do evil is a "good" thing in and of itself.

2) Allowing the existence of morally free-willed non-god beings is NOT the same thing as allowing a high-probability evil that could have been prevented.

3) The only way to stop human beings from doing evil would be to take away the intrinisic good seen in #1.

4) The concept of moral justifiability can lead to some very problematic and unloving reasoning.

5) The concept of "good" and "evil" does not lie on a continuum but are in binary format. There is a QUALITATIVE (not merely quantitative) difference between good and evil.

[Let me say here that I was very impressed.
Actually, the way the I. describe the "continuum" idea is almost EXACTLY how many axiology charts are formulated! Cool, man...]

********************************

Now, for this particular post, I want to deal with 5 because, right now, that's just what I feel like doing!

Before we get to my main thought, some preliminary stuff...

Would the INTENTIONAL (regardless of the intention itself) taking of someone elses life be considered a quantum GOOD or quantum EVIL?

Let me say this. I believe that a saintly person like Mother Teresa or Mohandas Ghandi would say it's a quantum evil that should NOT be done for any reason...not even to "stop action" evil. They would probably rather die to the last person PEACEFULLY, using non-violent resistence tactics, than to try to overtly or COVERTLY kill a tyrant in power.

But that's NOT what Bonhoeffer thought, now was it? Hmmm... And I'm thinking that I. and Semeia may agree with him on that. I have heard time and again that performing "stop actions" on evil is SIN, but NOT EVIL. (This may become very important later, because the dogmatic take is that God can neither do evil NOR sin)

What implications may this have? I wonder what Bonhoeffer may have to say to all this? Hmmm... But let's leave THAT for later. I want to REALLY dig into the continuum vs binary idea.

Here's the thing about the binary idea. I agree that this is TRUE. And I think that many contemporary branches of ethics would say the same thing. But I think a problem is emerging. I think that you may be looking at moral action and INTERACTION far too atomistically. The best way that I can show this, currently, is by the following illustration:

Imagine that you have 2 million totally black rubber pellets and you have 2 million all white rubber pellets. To be sure, each pellet ball is EITHER black OR white. No grey whatsoever on the level of the pellets. But something interesting occurs when you look at combinations of the black and white pellets when you place them in glass transparent containers. From far away, you can see...

SHADES OF GREY!

You can actually distribute the pellets of each type to such a degree that the OVERALL color of grey can be MORE black than white...or MORE white than black.

But let's go further...

Let's say that you have a huge glass tank that you want to have an OVERALL shade of largely white. But, because of certain constraints, you HAVE to use (at least many times) little boxes that contain both black AND white pellets. You look at the boxes of pellets and you readily see that SOME of the boxes have more of a white shade...while others have more of a black shade. So, now it's common sense time. Because you want the large glass tank to have an OVERALL shade of largely white, you take ONLY the glass boxes that you feel can contribute to that goal! You realize that some black WILL be in the tank because of the BOXES that you have to deal with. But you can still accomplish your overall goal.

Now, let's draw the ties starting with human moral action:

Black pellets = evil "quanta"

White pellets = good "quanta"

Large glass box = Overall impact sought

Boxes with black and white pellets = human decisions that have positive AND negative reprecussions

Person choosing the boxes and USING the boxes = Us

But that's not all. We can ALSO place this in the context of God's exercise of DIVINE PROVIDENCE...like so...

Black pellets = "evil" particles

White pellets = "good" particles

Large glass box = Creation's direction and overall goal

Boxes with black and white pellets = human decisions AND many natural occurances (Who would deny that some natural phenomenon has life-affirming AND life-denying potentialities??)

Person choosing the boxes and USING the boxes = God

See, I., certain philosophers DO see evil as being qualitatively different from good. This is probably why Morris said what he said:

quote:
Evil is never justified unless is is necessary in the ways outlined. And that doesn't turn it into good.

Using the boxes that have more of the shade of white IN NO WAY magically makes the black pellets WITHIN those boxes white. Nope. The black pellets are STILL black...even though the boxes that they are within are being used to produce a largely WHITE effect! But he recognizes that sometimes, THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE BOXES ARE. Now clearly, some of the boxes may be SO dark of a grey that it's rank obvious to people that it shouldn't be used...just like there are some boxes that are so WHITE a grey that it becomes simple. Ah, but what about the boxes that are NOT so simple to discern? What does one do about them? It is THIS ambiguity that faces us many times...and which is the bread and butter of ethical debate.

Why can't we conceive of the same things happening in divine providence? That the decisions that God makes are RARELY (if ever) so ISOLATED in context that God can just use boxes with ALL white balls! Sometimes NECESSARY "evils" have to be sorrowfully endured for greater good ends. Would God be any less worship worthy because of this? Many of the leading theodicy people don't seem to think so.

See, to me, all theodicy is doing is

--looking at the INDIVIDUAL black balls that seem to be used by God

--trying to find ways to conceptualize the GLASS CONTAINERS that the black balls are in, that JUSTIFY God using them.

And let me take the time to get this straight. It would be ONE thing to say that God just puts in black balls one by one DIRECTLY into the large tank JUST because God wanted to. It would be ONE thing to say that God specifically takes darker grey shaded glass boxes JUST BECAUSE God wants to. Either of THESE ideas would show God to truly NOT BE FOR having an overall white composite. But guess what? That is NOT what is being said. And that's what I keep hearing. "Meph, you seem to be saying that God does evil" Uh, friggin NOPE. Not in the sense I've mentioned above. God is using creational factors, FULLY AWARE of the ramifications. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I hear it coming:

But Meph, how is supposing that God could compatibilistically do the Zosia event NOT just putting black pellets into the big tank to try to get a white effect

Again, this thought would be too atomistic. What if the Zosia event was a black pellet in an OVERALL more white glass box? Possible, right? And we can't even begin to know if that's the case, because of our epistemological limiations, right?

MY...POINT...EXACTLY!

Oops. Gotta go. Now.

Holla,

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/23/2002 7:03 PM (GMT -6)

brandi

Help me, Iconoclast, I am totally confused!!! Are you saying that we should not judge that what was happening to Zosia was evil and fight against it?

Iconoclast

I am not trying to say this. Quite the opposite.

When we see Zosia being tortured – we are not confused about whether it is a tare or whether it is wheat – we know FOR SURE that it is a tare – it is evil and we should therefore come against it in love.

There is no need for doubt about whether Zosia being tortured is evil. A clear belief in this self-evident evil is the basis for our unambiguous action against it.

brandi

Are you saying that in the midst of abuse or torture of an innocent victim we should be loving the abuser?

Iconoclast

I didn’t try to say this but I do agree with it.

We have no doubt that what the nazi guard is doing is evil. On the other hand we do have a strong basis for doubt about whether the nazi guard himself is evil. Certainly his action is evil but this is not conclusive about his person. Because we have doubt about whether the nazi guard is evil we cannot take unambiguous action against him. We must assume that because God is not taking direct action against him that he is still a free-will being that God loves. Therefore we should take loving action.

And what is loving action toward the nazi guard in this case (assuming it is in our power)? It is to stop him from taking this evil action and it is to show him even at risk to ourselves that what he is doing is evil.

brandi

BUT we DO know when a person is acting in an evil way and should NOT tolerate the evil act, correct?

Iconoclast

We sometimes know when the result of a person’s action is evil and sometimes it is not as clear. There is ambiguity. To the extent we have NO doubt about whether the result is evil or not is the extent to which we can take unambiguous action.

I think we would all agree that we should take unambiguous action against Zosia being tortured. I think we would also all agree that we should take unambiguous action against a child being brutalized.

It is less clear whether what Saddam Hussein is doing warrants totally unambiguous and unilateral action. Although one might argue that it is pretty clear that what he is doing warrants us standing against what he is doing it is not as clear as to what an appropriate and effective response is. To simply unilaterally invade Iraq at whatever cost would probably be seen as the US acting out of evil intent by the Muslim world (and others) and therefore sow the seeds of greater conflict down the line. Whatever we do must be done AND must be seen to be done out of a true concern for all the stakeholders involved.

This is where we need to grow in our ability to discern good and evil and in wisdom in how to come against evil in love.

quote:

What we are confused about is how to pluck out this tare BEFORE it sprouts and takes solid hold of the wheat in such a way as to not do the same evil to the wheat.

What is confusing is how to deal with what Saddam Hussein is doing BEFORE he explodes a nuclear bomb in some city in such a way as to not do the very same evil to the people of Iraq and the Muslim world in general.

quote:

Fortunately God has told us to not even try to judge this sort of thing.

We must not judge Saddam Hussein as evil else we will feel a mandate and even a responsibility to take him out at whatever cost – and thus we will visit the same evil on others – on the wheat as well as the tares.

Intent leads to Behavior which leads to an Impact. Our good and evil detectors can be pretty good when it comes to Impact (with growth and training of course). Much less good when it comes to Behavior. And absolutely atrocious when it comes to Intent.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 09/24/2002 12:44:17 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 9/23/2002 7:23 PM (GMT -6)

Mephi

And let me take the time to get this straight. It would be ONE thing to say that God just puts in black balls one by one DIRECTLY into the large tank JUST because God wanted to.
…
But guess what? That is NOT what is being said.
…
But Meph, how is supposing that God could compatibilistically do the Zosia event NOT just putting black pellets into the big tank to try to get a white effect

Again, this thought would be too atomistic. What if the Zosia event was a black pellet in an OVERALL more white glass box? Possible, right? And we can't even begin to know if that's the case, because of our epistemological limitations, right?

Iconoclast

I think I just heard you say that God would never DIRECTLY cause Zosia being tortured.

Why can’t we say that the Zosia event was a POTENTIAL black pellet in a totally white glass box.

The totally white glass box being the creation of free-will beings which is very good.

Then we can totally affirm that God never does or causes evil. That when we see evil we know it wasn’t God which actualized the potential but some free-will agent acting against God’s will.

This is my understanding of the Adam and Eve story. Bonhoeffer makes the point that the story is trying to get across the sheer INCONCEIVABILITY of how evil could spring from a very good creation. How black pellets could come from a totally white box. That evil did NOT come from outside the creation but rather it came from WITHIN (notice that the serpent is a creature of God’s) the creation that God just called very good.

So we really have a totally white box of pellets that multiply and unfortunately some of them choose evil and go on to influence others to choose evil. Sounds like Othello. You can’t turn black pieces into white pieces by laying down black pieces. That’s it! It’s one big game of Othello – now where are the corners – we NEED to capture the corners.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

108 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:33 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual