Whence Then is Evil?

PM: #80

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your valueable discussion.

Mohammad Gill

Dr Saheb,

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

re. freethinker #77:

``Gooodness and evil are both part of the evolution process and they are in balance with each other. But there is a difficulty in this solution also. Evolution began with something that was already existing, which then started evolving. Who created ``that something?``

Gill sahib, looking for a First Cause, which is essentially the `problem` you recognize here, will always be a futile exercise for man-- at least with his present level of mental capacity. This, of course, not to suggest the introduction of a Superior Being, which would only reproduce the problem at an atecedent step. But the recognition that, with out present capabilities and emotions it is in fact absurd to look for a First Cause (since our emotions will lead us, if we`re honest, to ask ``But who made that?``) might lead us to consider that our slavery to the cause-effect paradigm of reality is what`s causing us problems in the, er, first place.

Mathematicians are comfortable with the idea of infinitude and the non-necessity of an origin. Maybe the common, modern, man could, with some training, develop a similar non-linear concept of time and events.

But now I`m ramnbling, I think.

By the way,Gill sahib, you didn`t comment on my critique of your rejection of the `free will` thesis as a reconciler of the seeming contradiction in question. But it`s not important, since I was limiting the argument to `evil` caused by individual actions (no matter how far down the chain of events) and not to `evil` such as a child born a parapleigic, or developing some horribly painful disease. I am absolutely unable to reconcile a Good God (in any sense-- phenomenological, transcendental or logical) to the existence of such `evil`. In this sense, if I believed in a God, I would have to conceded that he/she/it possessed a sadistic streak.

#75 klpd

Here is a parting image for your viewing pleasure - how your Mullah Aziz was unable to fool the sharp eyes of the ever alert Pakistani khakis.

Let nobody tell you that you have no useful purpose in life!! :)

The problem is that people ascribe human emotions and values to God. If God exist then
HE/SHE/IT should be above and beyond all this. If there is a force/entity responsible for this somewhat ordered universe, then it is not the God of the Organized religions. This God is at best the attempt of the human mind to define an ideal.

It is like the blind men trying to define an elephant by touching its various limbs, but in this case the men are not only blind but really have not other senses either.

hamidm2: #76

No, because there is a lot of goodness in the world also. There can probably be a tentative resolution if it is assumed that Devil is a god of evil and Allah, for instance, is god of ``all goodness.`` The two are equally mighty and one can not overpower the other.

But there is a simpler solution. Assume, like Darwin, that there is no god. We, including everything else, are just evolving. Gooodness and evil are both part of the evolution process and they are in balance with each other. But there is a difficulty in this solution also. Evolution began with something that was already existing, which then started evolving. Who created ``that something?``

Science does not have answers for everything. We still do not know for sure if there was anything before the big bang. There has to be because after all big bang was an explosion of energy that was already existing.

I, for myself, am content with partial but consistent knowledge. The knowledge that religion provides us to fill the gaps is not credible.

Mohammad Gill

gill sahib,

......... just a thought : does this problem go away if we assume that god is evil instead of good? ........ since he is omnipotent, for all we know ,he could be the biggest jerk of them all .......... my personal opinion is that if god does exist, he is one mean son of a gun - all this talk about his goodness is sheer speculation and wishful thinking ......... anyone who can come up with the concept of hell has to be exceptionally cruel and mean ..........

........ i hope i have solved your problem .........

Man by definition is finite. God by definition is infinite. The infinite is beyond the comprehension of the finite.

Good luck, you assholes.

philosopher: #2 and 71

I don’t have any problem with your assertion that “Logic is only concerned with the ‘Form’ of thought not the content,” (I hope by content you mean content of the premises). This is true. If your premises are wrong, your inference cannot be true (although it may be consistent with the premises). Logic only ensures that the inference is derived with a logical consistency. I stated in my essay that since the premises of an omnipotent God and “Good God” are wrong (mutually contradictory), they lead to an inference which contradicts at least one of the premises. There is nothing wrong with the method of logical deduction.

Incidentally, the example that you gave of a husband and wife is interesting to make my point. Your deduction there is not logical because your premises do not talk about any God which your inference describes explicitly.

I suggested in the essay that a lesser deity than the Almighty God can possibly exist. Simply by stating that “religious assertions are not logical; they are ‘PHENOMOLOGICAL’ doesn’t prove that they are necessarily infallible and correct.

The traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and good are not only confined to Christian God. They are the traits of Allah also. In Quran, God is said to be “al-Azeem,” (also al-Kabeer), “al-Hakeem,” “al-Barr (the Source of all Goodness).” There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 74

Gill sahib said;..

((((I stated in my essay that since the premises of an omnipotent God and “Good God” are wrong (mutually contradictory))))

MY Response;....


oooopsss.....Gill sahib i am sorry to say that now you seem to be completely unaware of even the basic logical principles....Sir may i ask you where have you got this logic from....it is as basic and simple principle of logic that if i didnt know it i would still have been doing My F.A in philosophy....Boy....shocking.......

Gill sahib what do you think contradiction is?? you seem to have ``common sense`` meaning of the term instead of its technical and logic meanings.....

Any intermediate student of philosophy knows that contradiction is logical relation between two proposition having the same `subject` and `predicate`, at the same time differing in both in quantity and quality.....in other words, contradictory relation exists between a universal proposition and a particular proposition of the same quality...

if i put it in logical form,it goes like that;

All S is P And some S is not p

lets take a concrete example(but remeber logic is not concerned with concrete thought...its just a example and giving these example has been the root of all problems or may i say` EVIL` in human thinking)..

All men are mortal

some men are mortal

Now this a contradictory relation taught in intermediate logic...contradiction is considered the most perfect logical relationship BUT only in the TRADITIONAL SQUARE OF OPPOSITION...

In modren logic...i.e. from 17th century onwards there have been revolutionary changes in the domain logic....In the MODREN SQUARE OF OPPOSITION these issues are dealt in an entirely different way....

for example in the traditional logic the following relation is absolutly justified;...

All men are mortal

therefore

some men are mortal

It looks so obvious and almost a ``category of thought` both logicaly and on the common sense level....BUT(i wish i could make it the biggest BUT of all times) this simple obvious principle of the traditional logic is the most UNACCPETABLE logical relationship in the MODREN LOGIC......you know why??? I was gonna ask to mr |Gill but he does not know the definition of contradiction how on earth could he be aware of this relatively complex issue....

the reason is that the major premise in this inference is ``Non-existential`` proposition and the minor premise or the conclusion is ``existential proposition`` so its ILLOGICAL(in modren logic) to derive exitential proposition from a non-existential proposition......

This explodes the (almost) entire structure of traditional logic......Anyhow its immpossible to go in details here and perhaps USELESS for the reasons................n.


Gill sahib said;....

(((((There is nothing wrong with the method of logical deduction)))))


My Response;.....


Sir...Where did i say that...i have not said that you have applied deduction validily or invalidly....or you may say that`` you mean there is nothing with method of logical deduction ``as an objective logical method```

First of anybody on this forum go and read my interact in 71 and tell me ...did i really something like that??.....sir gill ji....i was talking about the RELEVENCE of DEDUCTIVE LOGIC as a METHODOLOGY to analyze non-propositional language...at least one interacter PM would confirm it......


OK....even if you take that issue....the issue that i have raised of the derivation of ``existential`` proposition from ``non-existential`` proposition...doesn`t it deny the validity of the most of the greek logic?....Gill sahib...these are obvious and established and objectively accepted logical devolopments in the philosophical circles.....the deduction is relevent only if you are dealing in the traditional square of opposition.....it is ``valid`` in that framework but it has lost its creditability as a methodology even where LOGIC is relevent not to mention where it is NOT.....

and who says that the propsition you mentioned are contradictory...

GOD Is omnipotent

God is good

evil exists(((even though you didnt mention it...i ease your burden)))

Now guys do u see this inference to be consistent with above mentiond definition of contradiction??? Gill sahib both statements have same subject but different predicate so the whole debate of contradiction is meaningless...



Gill sahib said;....

(((Incidentally, the example that you gave of a husband and wife is interesting to make my point. Your deduction there is not logical because your premises do not talk about any God which your inference describes explicitly.)))

my response...

Who told you that i was deducing something there.....sir i was just showing that people who demands from religion to ``internaly coherent`` often use such rhetorics based on their pre concieved moral notion which i called ``tarka`` e.g. religion says`` virtous wife is obedient to her husband`` Now if a feminist doesnt wanna be obedient she may(or sometimes do) conclude that there is no God coz its ``zulum`` on women....blah-blah...

It was not important to our debate as such...it was just an example.....CASE CLOSED...


GILL SAHIB SAID;.....

(((I suggested in the essay that a lesser deity than the Almighty God can possibly exist. Simply by stating that “religious assertions are not logical; they are ‘PHENOMOLOGICAL’ doesn’t prove that they are necessarily infallible and correct))))

My Response;...

Gill sahib...now this is too much sir....you have just done ``aakheer``...Boss,again you are commiting a fallacy.....when did i say that?.......hazoor....you again seems to be clueless of the whole issue...my God.... what are u saying.....i said PHENOMOLOGICAL language is non-propsitional... you cannot apply it propositional logic on it....you are again dealing the issue of the validity and infalliability of ``religious assertions`` in a propsitional way....because here the issue is not infalliability but the methodology which would determine the validity and invalidity of those assertion according to their NATURE.... you are again demanding them to be INFALLIABLE AND CORRECT.... according to you may i say CONSCIOUS crtierion of validity becuase you simply seem to be completely clueless about the entire issue....That is precisely the reason why i said that DR SOHAIL `s article `God is metaphore` would look a load of trash to any student of philosophy.....because religious assertion itself is claiming to be METAPHORICAL...so its not a big deal....remeber the distiction made by the Quran of ``MUTASHABIHAAT AND MUHAKMAAT`` (categorical and metaphorical verses) the language is metaphorical because there is no common ground between divine reality and human reality...for example we say God is good...good in our definition means ``following moral laws`` on god this kinda analogy is meaningless....therefore the language is metaphorical and couched in a terminology which humans could easily understood...anyhow i will send my article on this issue we will discuss it in detail(if you publish it...lol..kidding)

Gill said;....

((((((The traits of omnipotence, omniscience, and good are not only confined to Christian God. They are the traits of Allah also. In Quran, God is said to be “al-Azeem,” (also al-Kabeer), “al-Hakeem,” “al-Barr (the Source of all Goodness).” There are 99 attributes of Allah many of which conflict with one another)))))

My Response;...


Gill sahib...you are just unbelievable.....i dint mention that it was PM`s thesis....Read 71 again you would see i havent touched this issue intentionaly because i wanna deal it separatly....I see language of every religion that way....because it wasnt our topic so i left it alone.....Again you are commiting a same fallacy in every assertion because your `` fundamentals`` are correct....i have said that these ``atributtes`` are not mentioned in the Quran,i have said that these atribbutes are ``non-propositional`` and of non-formal nature and cannot be dealt this way.....I am calling them ``atributtes`` because you have used the term... i know all of them are not atributtes......

Atributte is what that consitutes our conception of SUBSTANCE....they are only those by which there can be no conception of substance(if you are applying logic)...and those are omi everything etc....but the so called ``atributtes`` which you consider to be CONTRADICTORY to those atributtes, are NOT even atributtes. they are merely MODES of substance...and cannot be taken in relation with atributtes the way you are dragging them.
Because they are not necessary to the conception of SUBSTANCE.....every student of logic knows that logic is not concerned whether God is ACTUALLY good or evil....Even if you apply logic it will deal only with assertion....and here you have made another fallacy that you don`t even know which ones of those ``atributtes`` are primary and which are ``secondary....anyhow....more latter

Regards

re. #71

Philo sahib,
Thanks for exhausative response, which was quite enlightening too.

Your point about the inapplicability of formal logic to non-propositional language was noted at the start of my previous post, where I repeated what you`d said about religious statements being phenomenological in nature.

As I said earlier, the problem arises in a context in which Religion claims internal logical coherence for itself, and thus becomes fair game for the ``logicians.`` I said that I did not believe that there was any movement in Islam, let along the Qur`an itself, that made such a claim, but that Christian scholastics did `indulge` in such tautologies. As such, Gill`s debate would be more relevant to a Christian audience than to Muslims. (Though it must be added that very few scholarly Christians nowadays take such a propositional, as opposed to transcendental, apporach to belief anyway.)

re. `` ....contrary to the common view about logical positivism [LP],it has never rejected the validity of religion or religious assertion.``


I didn`t suggest that LP did so. If you re-read my statements, I said that the LP method may be used on religious assertions coming together, or in other words, deliberately forming a propositional, pseudo-logical `whole`y. Otherwise, of course, religous statements are, ndividually, outside the scope of logical positivism.


AS regards the possible connection between faith and skepticism, suffice it to say that I have read quite a bit of A.K. Soroush and am deeply impressed. Erich Fromm too, has written on this connection between faith and a healthy skepticism.

I`m gals someone point out the difference between Russell`s philosphy and his polemics. finally someone who actually understands russell!

regards,

Re: # 72

PM

join me here tomorrow 6th july....

Hope we didn`t hijack the board with all this godless talk. DM ji, (I think) I understand and empathize with you. But there have been educated, grown-up Hindu men on Chowk claiming that Gandhi`s Ram Rajya meant giving high caste men freedom to kill ``low-caste`` men.

You can see what ignorance does and why it is so harmful to everyone. Khair, apologies for this brief detour into irrelevant topics.

DM-ji,

Never, in the wildest of my dreams would I call you a ``pinko``. Any inadvertent misconstruing is sincerely regretted.

BTW, the circle of time knows it all and only pretends to limit his knowledge to the timeless oval of a number. Pay no attention to his cloak of humility and do watch out for that sharp dagger of intelligence - moving ever so rapidly! :)

BJ Kumar