Monotheists or dueltheists? Should I say duotheists?
For all those out there who believe themselves to be monotheists, we have to ask if any religion offers that. The problem is that a good god cannot answer for all the ‘evil’ in the world, so you have to have two gods, the creator and the destroyer. To have true monotheism surely we have to believe in a god who is flawed ~ human even!
While I am on the subject…
‘a good god would not give laws and wisdoms that create or promote evil’ therefore any interpretation of a good gods laws that result in harm, are not truthful interpretations of a good god. Or, if they are truthful interpretations of your god, then you believe in an evil deity.
Before you extrapolate to conclusions based on the idea that to so called “problem” of evil is insurmountable, you should at least try interacting with various Christian answers to the argument.
There is absolutely nothing illogical in the proposition that an all-good God uses evil to bring about good. There are simply psychological dispositions of individuals who may not like the way God does business.
Furthermore your suggested argument for a dual-theism is a non-sequiter. Even if a montheistic system could not account for evil, a dual-theistic system does not necessarily follow. I know that you were simply offering a suggestion, and didn’t mean to provide any precise argument for dual-theism…so that’s fair enough.
However, I’d like to see what such an argument would look like.
There isn’t? well it is self contradictory, but lets say that is ok and unavoidable, remembering that god is ineffectual in performing such actions so it is always us who do the dirty work. It remains so that a good act in and of itself remains good and an evil act remains evil ~ if in both cases good or evil are the resultant outcomes. for example a terrorist attack results in evil, god bringing about the end of those who do the evil, brings about good.
Well the universe has entropic and creative forces at work all the time, so where we consider god as the creator of it, we may consider satan as the reactionary force to that, and hence of destruction. It appears to follow that both god and satan are outside of the material universe being both forces acting upon it, hence we have two entities acting upon existence, so two ‘gods’ [even if one ultimately wins over the other].
On another note, we could provide arguments for a monotheistic deity that is wholly good and that its deterministic line is counteracted by the fact that other lines are given freedom in due process. For example humans are given free will and hence their own deterministic tangent. If we however believe that outside forces are causing evil in the world then we are believing in a duel being philosophy?
If action a results in harm then it is still a bad action, doesn’t matter how immense and intelligent god is, the action remains thus. I would think murder is an objective standard. One way or the other our standards have to be adjusted to what is good or bad, gods standards have to match that one way or the other. You either say e.g. to murder a child is good, which is of course ludicrous, or you say it is bad, there may be many grey areas, but if we agree that is bad then gods directives must follow suite or we have to agree he is bad!
I apologize for the ambiguity of my statement. I realize after you posted that I could have made my point better.
Let me clarify:
The argument from evil is meant to highlight a logical problem in Christian theology. An all-good God cannot exist in the same universe as evil…(so the argument goes.) There is evil in the world…thus: an all-good God does not exist.
This argument fails when it is admitted that an all-good God can remain all-good even if He utilizes evil to bring about good ends. For example: Parents who give shots to their children are bringing about pain for a good cause.
Thus, there is no logical reason to say that an all-good God cannot exist in a world where evil also exists.
Such a God, while perhaps logically possible, still causes psychological problems for people. “I just can’t follow a God that would use evil!” some will say. So, while there is no logical problem of evil, there is still an emotional (or psychological) objection to such a God.
may i just pick you up here;
Evil to arrive at good is one thing, but evil to arrive at evil is quite another. Your argument stands for the former but not the latter, there are some things in the world that just don’t end in good e.g. a child being molested and even killed, or the sun going super nova so that all our actions are in vein ~ just to name a couple off the top of my head.
May I ask how god can do good or evil when he is ineffectual in the universe he created? Perhaps the lack of action/karma is what makes him good.
Perhaps when you attain omniscience Mr. Quetz, you’ll be able to see how these evil events bring about good?
Just because you can’t see any immediate good from them, doesn’t mean there isn’t any.
There is no logical problem in asserting an all-good God and also asserting that evil exists. Even if you don’t always know how this God intends to use the evil for good, doesn’t mean that He cannot.
So, we’re still left with what I have said above:
Some individuals just don’t like the way God does business. It is hard to accept God’s providence sometimes…sure. But, along with Job, we need to say: “Can we accept good from God and not evil?” (Job 2)
Nothing is inherently good nor evil, therefore the alleged actions of a supreme being cannot be good nor evil, just observed as such by others. Pretty simple, really. God isn’t able to be held accountable for anything s/he might do, so notions of good and evil are pretty moot when you think about it.
Why isn’t killing children inherently ‘evil’? Sure we can play on words, but an action that has a negative effect to the extreme detriment of the individual, and to the degree in which that individual can no longer live, support family etc, that remains a bad causal effect of action.
I don’t believe god can take actions in the world, he could potentially create it, but after that has no effect. If not then we would see him moving stuff around etc.
an omniscient god would understand how we feel about death and ‘evil’ too, hence if he were to talk to us he would be taking this into account even if on a purely subjective or emotional level.
Mr. Meatcube is right in one sense, though that isn’t anything to brag about.
The existentialists understand what Meatcube has pointed out. They respond to this in 2 different ways though.
Nietzsche for instance, says that man himself must become the “ubermensch” the “superman” and impose his own will over the particulars of experience…enforce his own meaning on reality.
Dostoevsky on the other hand, realizes that this complete subjectivity in reality begs for a transcendent standard…God!
Meatcube is apparently siding with Nietzsche here, without the understanding that there are no transcendent standards to ANYTHING…not just morality. Not only can Nietzsche not discuss right and wrong coherently (without imposing his own will) he cannot talk about ANY of his experiences!
Were Meatcube (and Nietzsche) to be consistent…they would have to cease trying to communicate at all.
This is, of course, the conclusion Sartre came to as well. He admits that in the end he only writes out of habit, not because he believes that he can convey any meaning. Nietzsche also concludes thus: “I’m afraid we are not rid of God if we still have faith in grammar.” - Twilight of the Idols.
It’s a good thing there ARE objective standards…despite what the existentialist wish to believe, else none of us would be able to talk.
You’ll have to explain this one to me, as I don’t see how a lack of an objective moral reality equates to an inability to communicate.
As far as morality is concerned, there are no objective standards. Really, there are none. There are billions of subjective standards running around (people), but there lacks an ultimate authority on morality. I see rape and murder as wrong because I was taught to.
Were I to be raised in another time and place, I may see the world very differently. Had I been raised in the 18th century USA, I might view slavery as a good thing as I’d see its benefits everyday. What did God have to say about slavery then as opposed to now? Certainly he hasn’t changed his mind? The Bible hasn’t exactly gone through too many revisions in the past ~250 years, so I’m curious to see your answer.
Would you like me to explain a consistent Christian ideal of slavery…or would you like me to explain why a lack of objectivity in nature would make communication impossible?
Or don’t have the rule to the thing, but sets of rules that may be used in accordance with the situation. …where ‘every landscape has its own vocabulary’, the situation is always new. Hence you cannot have an objective truth for that which does not exist yet, you can only have universals which may be employed in part of in full, and in accordance with what wisdom demands.
As morality has little to do with the natural world, if anything at all, I’d like an explanation of the consistent Christian ideal of slavery, please. That’d be swell.
I’m having trouble making heads and tails out of your last post. Could you please restate it or clarify it somehow for me?
To Meat…
You would benefit from reading Nietzsche or some of the other existentialists. The relationship between subjective values and moral propositions are inseperable. But, that’s grist for another thread I suppose.
As for slavery…
I realize that it is an incredibly politically incorrect position to claim that there is nothing wrong with it as long as it is carried out Biblically. Oh well.
Many Christians may be inconsistent and unwilling to admit that slavery is acceptable…but, the consistent Christian (who consistently draws his moral theory from the Bible) has to admit that it’s ok within Christian bounds, perhaps even desirable.
You could start another post if you’d like…and I could describe a Biblical model of slavery and go into details for you.
don’t all creatures have morals [apart maybe from plankton etc], lions will kill the offspring of female from another male, that is a moral [?], a ferrel child will be brought up by another species, a bird will eat from the alligators mouth. We may call it evolution but we could also say it is how animals think it is right to behave.
Where does our desire to even have morals come from, seams to be a general drive.
I’m pretty certain he’s saying that, because we lack a complete set of “the rules” that may be applied universally, we use whatever works for wherever we happen to be at the time. Moral reality differs from region to region, culture to culture, etc. “When in Rome…” and all that.
I agree that it is appropriate for another discussion in another time.
I was really just “testing the water”, if you will. I wanted to know what, if any, cherry picking you do. I have to say, you’re the first Christian I’ve met who would knowingly agree with slavery in any form. The fact that you know that the Bible advocates slavery at all and are accepting of it is good enough for me.
Sorry, what I meant was that each circumstance is new and demands a new approach. it’s a samurai ethic where you have no morals until a situation arises, in which case you can use moral ideas you already have from similar events or you can make up new ones.
why? do you mean that we are slves to god by will or something, or are we speaking about slavery by men here? this is good stuff i must know more!
btw, The ‘every landscape has its own vocabulary’ is one of my own sayings on the matter.
Even if the “Samurai Code” entails reacting differently to every situation…the Samurai is still adhering to the transcendent “Samurai Code” itself!
Or, are there some situations where the Samurai Code is to be given up…and objective Christian values to be adhered to instead? (Of course…once that happens, the Samurai can never go back to following the Samurai Code!) Absurdities ensue…
About slavery…without me writing a post about a Christian conception of it, consider this:
The prison system locks people up…viciously restrains them, and inhumanely puts them in concrete holes. Yet this seems to be accepted (at least emotionally) by almost all Americans! However…mention to them this crazy notion of men employing others to carry out personal work…(in exchange for a place to live, food, and learning a trade)…and you’re called all sorts of nasty names.
“Well, the one deserves to be a slave and the other doesn’t…” is the usual reply.
This argument deserves fleshing out…for sure…but in the end, I think the emotional impact of the prison analogy fits. Americans are ok with slavery, as long as it’s the state doing the enslaving.
This is an “oh-by-the-way” point, but…it seems Americans are primed for totalitarian control.
Instincts and morals are two very different things. Animals act on instinct. A lion kills off a rival’s cubs to ensure that his genes are dominant, not because the mother was adulterous. Humans are social creatures with higher brain functions than mere animals. Morals have evolved over time to fit our needs, much like our appendages and appetites. Morals are not, however, universally applicable. There has never been an objective reality when it comes to morality. A rock is a rock no matter who or what perceives it. An immoral act, however, is not immoral to everyone. Murder is acceptable to some and reprehensible to others. Hence, no objective moral reality.
