|
Aswad -> RE: Now God intended rape to happen. (10/25/2012 6:36:30 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I find it difficult to accept the neat division that a lot of religions make between an omnipotent Deity, who is responsible for all things Good, and a Devil who is responsible for all things Evil, or a human 'free will' which seems to alternate between the two.
You're posting a disappointingly simplified view here.
Even in the binary religions, there's usually some sort of yin/yang arrangement that people are often argued not to "get", which your post unintentionally lends some credence to. If you've ever tried talking to yourself, you know not a whole lot comes of it, compared to talking with someone else, particularly someone with a contrary view. I see no reason why God would have to be different in this regard. Indeed, it could even be reconciled with the traditional theologies' pointless insistence on the whole "omnibenevolent and omnibenevolent" theme. Perhaps a Universe without contrast and dynamism is impossible or meaningless. I certainly can't conceive of a meaningful utopia, but I've been known to be somewhat deficient in the Creation department, so what do I know? Some religions do, after all, posit that such a state is attained after death.
Of course, free will doesn't "alternate", either. People have character (which evolves over time, but let's deal with the moment), and the ideas of good and evil are just labels we apply to classify things. The notion that humans can be absolutely good or absolutely evil seems to have been abandoned by all the significant religions out there, and good riddance. How would one even define either of the two?
Nietzsche actually did get it right as regards the concept of good and evil vs good and bad, as far as I can tell. The problem lies in the prevailing binary mode of looking at things. When we ask why there is Evil in the Universe, we have already posited the existence of Evil, rendering the question less than useful, as we're then starting from a negative premise, the same premise by which avoidance of Evil is the ideal "slaves" call Good, another exquisitely uninspired concept when defined as a double negative. Rather, we should be starting from the notion of Good, whose absence is bad, and the destruction of which is bad, but to which there isn't necessarily a counterpart we might call Evil at all. Viewed in this way, positing a Creator, we are left with the notion that the Creator gave us a lot of Good, and a lot of versions of it to choose from. And, of course, a Free Will could certainly aspire to its own ideal of Good, the very possibility of which then stems from Creation being a fact (though a presumed fact; I don't know any non-circular argument to support existence itself as fact, and I suspect some analogue of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem might be applied towards showing the impossibility of such an argument).
If we stop treating it like magic (in the sense of "making no sense and possessing no internal consistency and being incoherent"), most of the issues all but resolve themselves, with the remainder needing only a tiny nudge of the mind to do so. If I hand you a computer which is turned off you will not get anything interesting out of it, if everything you try proceeds from the assumption that the power switch is best left undisturbed in its current position. Several mainstream theologies therefore mandate flipping the switch on the Bible and the rest of it. (Cf. a rabbi whose name I can't recall, speaking about the Book of Job).
Please, before you dismiss the proverbial computer as a nonsensical invention, at least take the time to switch it on first.
Otherwise, I reserve the right to remain supremely unimpressed with your assessment of its utility and the value of its invention.
quote:
As a social mechanism for allowing humans to cope with the vagaries of life (in the absence of an evidence-based explanation), it is quite a clever concept. But as a moral or rational scheme, it is sadly lacking.
Well, I suppose the powered-down computer makes a handy club, though doing little to further research and convenience and thus being sadly lacking in that department. Me, I find that with the power on, the computer aids both research and convenience quite significantly, and I wouldn't consider clubbing anyone with it, save under the most dire of circumstances.
If the analogy should fail to evoke the right thoughts, though, I suppose I should ask what you would consider a moral and rational scheme that is satisfactory. I've come up with several schemes that are perfectly moral, as such, but which are both alien to our sensibilities and lacking in a rational foundation, though entirely possible to reason about, with and within. A religion doesn't have to be the starting point: it's all just preferences.
But that's the thing about rationality: it's a tool in the toolbox. Dismissing a preference on the basis that it does not start from reason, is just positing that it has to be turtles all the way down. Whether it's an idea you had while not paying attention to a boring teacher, or the Codex Hammurabi, or the Bible, or whatever, you need some input into the process that cannot originate with reason. Whatever that input is, however, you can certainly apply reason to it, once you have it.
quote:
If there is an omnipotent Deity, and that Deity is responsible for all 'creation', then that Deity must be responsible for the existence of the Devil and 'free will' and all the consequences that flow from creating those entities/qualities. If the Deity is all knowing, then it must be aware of Evil in advance of it happening, and therefore in a position to avert Evil - whatever its manifestation or alleged origin.
I would like you to substantiate your position on responsibility here. It seems to me it generalizes quite readily to assigning responsibility to everyone for every action not taken (in direct contradiction of several secular mainstream schools of ethical thought, including that at the heart of ethical medicine), and to assigning responsibility to everyone that ever makes a choice for every shift among the possible future timelines, such as by walking down the wrong street at night.
Bear in mind that omniscience does not entail knowing everything in a literal sense, only everything knowable, which may not even include all the consequences of an act of providence (pun and paradox absolutely intended). Thus is the glory of the emergent properties of complex systems, one of which I would posit our beloved Universe to be. We can stretch the concept to the absurd, and many do, but certainly not all are given to such notions, as evidenced by the number of flavors of Abrahamic religions that have rejected the doctrine of predestination in part or in whole.
quote:
To grant any exception is to compromise the omnipotent, the all-knowing qualities already attributed to the Deity.
Or it might just be to ascribe personality. You're still working with Evil as a given, and one not just knowable but defined, and- at that- one being defined as other than just some personification of human complaint, accusation, guilt, blame and shame (these we may collectively refer to as Satan, though it might irk some to do so, extra entendre not intended). Good with a personality accounts for the observables quite well, without rejecting any of the three big omnis.
Of course, I do reject the notion of effing omnis.
Pardon the incoherent rambling, but formulating a coherent, consistent theology in a manner that absolutely addresses the general atheist audience's objections to religion is excruciatingly boring and unrewarding work that takes a lot of writing and generally meets with nothing more gratifying than people being amused temporarily and then reverting to their former prejudices. In any case, an endeavour I'd hope you'll agree was not called for in such a casual context. Still, if you care to ponder it, you will doubtless discover many things you've glossed over in your own post (as I also have in mine). Or, as they say, "the rest is left as an exercise for the reader".
IWYW,
— Aswad.
P.S.: Much of what you're attributing to religion is an artifact of shrinkwrapping it for a consumer that only wants everything for nothing without reading the manual, practicing or otherwise expending any effort in the general direction of responsible use and maintenance of their readily acquired goods. It may ensure improved memetic survival, but does little to further the religion itself.
|
|
|
|
