Gray Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, then lay it already. Don't be coy. In your pantheistic worldview, do "good" and "evil" exist? If so, what are they? Who defines them? Who arbitrates the designation of something as "good" or "evil?" Thanks, -Smac Just not to leave you hanging, yes, good and evil exist. They are subjective determinations, which is the nature of morality. That doesn't mean anything goes - that means morality is not objective. We define morality in human terms of harming and helping. We argue about it and shape it and define it. Morality is meaningless to a rock. It means something only to us. This is not news to many of my more orthodox LDS friends here.
Gray Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Yes, God allows for evil. I don't see that as a "problem" though. The alternative is Lucifer's plan. Opposition is essential to the plan of happiness. I don't see suffering as a problem in the grand scheme of the plan of happiness either; sin on the other hand, is a problem. The problem only arises when people equate suffering with evil. They are not the same. Suffering is not a problem in the sense of morality, righteousness, eternal happiness, redemption, glory, etc. As Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 4:17, our current afflictions are momentary, but are preparing for us an eternal glory that far outweighs our troubles. Suffering can only be divorced from evil by abandoning any recognizable moral system altogether.
Gray Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: Certainly, which is why this theodicy sees them as useful for our development once healed. It's just in the short term they are suffering. We can reject that of course, but I think the claim that everyone would be healed enables this theory to work. We should probably distinguish between conscious and personal. But for the sake of discussion I'm not sure it matters. I think most discussions of pantheism really are just using the logic of stoicism and neoplatonism (much as Spinoza did). Well here I start to take exception, if only because there's a history to the use of the term. So Spinoza is the classic pantheist of the modern era. Now famously Spinoza doesn't have individualist or personal agency either. Indeed the question of agency is a big issue for Spinoza and his large influence. Yet Spinoza calls his major work Ethics and his overall concern is moral agency. Without going into the minutiae of Spinoza's thought I think we have to be careful. I'd add that unless we're clear about what we mean by agency, it's hard to really discuss the issue. After all the stoics are famously determinists and thus to a certain view opposed to there being agency. Yet the stoics were very concerned with agency. But in their sense God is very much an agent since he always does what he rationally should. Indeed it is God that is fully rational. (Which is why this is the best of all possible worlds again - that must be true precisely because of how they conceive of agency) As I said, it's very hard to say something is true of humans ontologically without also giving it to God in pantheism. This is precisely why agency is so controversial within Spinoza and his particular Ethics. My sense is (perhaps wrong) that you're reading all this through a more Nietzschean lens rather than a properly stoic, neoplatonic, or Spinozist lens. Heaven knows Nietzsche made extensive use of the stoics. But one should be careful pushing this more existential kind of pantheism. Let me be clear - I'm pretty much lost when you're getting into Nietzsche, stoicism, etc. But the nice thing about pantheism is there are no bishops enforcing creeds, and I can define the attributes of God as I wish, meaning I'm not beholden to how any particular famous pantheist described God - the point in common is simply that God is the only thing that exists. I don't see how the God I've described is on the hook for the problem of evil - maybe you could explain why in layman's terms why you think it is. I don't think the universe is conscious, do you? Is the universe on the hook for the problem of evil under your belief system? Edited October 30, 2017 by Gray
BlueDreams Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 6 hours ago, changed said: The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims. When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves, God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist There is no free will for victims. The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument: If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson? Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused. This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries. The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others? Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance? Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom? I saw this earlier today and have been vacillating about giving a response. Oddly, just yesterday I gave a talk in my ward about pain and its relationship to peace. I have the second to last draft attached to this post. I think the reason I hesitate in responding, because as mentioned in my talk I often get a front row seat to women in circumstances much as you describe. It is both painful and a blessing to work with them and help them re-shape their lives. For some odd reason, those leaving abusive relationships and those who've been harmed in some way are some of my favorite clients to work with. I love helping them collect their lives, learn what they need to to heal, and reclaim themselves spiritually, emotionally, and sexually. I have felt the Spirit so often and so strongly in the room as I've worked with these broken souls. Beyond the talk, as others have mentioned I don't believe exactly in free will. I believe in moral agency and that to have it means that there has to be a capacity in people to enact evil and to enact good. I think a large part of the reason that's there is to give us the capacity to become as God and to know our Savior. I don't believe evil is educational. I think it's dangerous and has a detrimental effect on society. In the scriptures I see this pattern of evil and good. When evil infects a society, death, violence, inequity, and sexual inequalities dramatically increase. They are so antithetical to the pattern of God that Moses 7 describes the whole earth in mourning and pain from the evil wrought by the children of men. At some point it snaps back and everybody suffers....often they end up destroying themselves. I also think there's a natural consequence to the souls of the people enacting evil. Every once and a while I've met the perpetrators of abuse, had them sit in my office, and get little peaks into their souls/emotions. They're horrifically broken....sometimes in a way that is far more detrimental just on a temporal plane than some of their victims. I have been disgusted by them....but often I just pity them for who they've become and the evil they have to look at in the mirror. Until they repent and can face accountability for their actions they're in a state of hell that, for me at least, is tangible. My victims here are broken, sometimes very badly. My perpetrators are often damned, unable to escape an emotional/spiritual hell of their own making. On a personal therapist healing level, I would rather work with victims any day of the week. They're healing course is shorter and easier to find. Evil isn't education, it's a necessary capacity in order for us to choose Good. I don't know why some people are tested more than others. I don't think there's a neat answer that is universal for every person out there. Personally, I'm at a place that I value much of the pain I've went through, even ones that have seemed needless. I struggle to say that my course was supposed to be that way or not. I had a peace-creating prompting about how I was brought into my family situation...even though it entailed adults choosing to sin and me getting strapped into an experience that entailed taking on far more responsibility than most kids. My situation wasn't ideal, it taxed me, it left me with emotional scars that took years to heal through multiple avenues. I still get to pay the tax sometimes, as with this week (several weeks, really) where some family drama finally came to a head. But it's where I was needed. And in God's hands it has fostered key parts of my divine nature. Plus, some of this crap ground is when I've had strongest access to God. I would never say, though that evil taught me love. Love taught me love....the darkness just made it very very clear what was actually light when I saw it. Back to work... With luv, BD Peace.docx 4
pogi Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 39 minutes ago, Gray said: Suffering can only be divorced from evil by abandoning any recognizable moral system altogether. That is not true. It is not evil to suffer. They are not the same. The mother giving birth to a child suffers pain - that is not evil. The child being born suffers pain, that is not evil. Suffering is what life is made of, and life is not evil. It is true that suffering can be the cause and result of evil, but that suffering does not equate to evil. Innocent people suffer because of evil, but that does not make them evil. 3
clarkgoble Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Let me be clear - I'm pretty much lost when you're getting into Nietzsche, stoicism, etc. But the nice thing about pantheism is there are no bishops enforcing creeds, and I can define the attributes of God as I wish, meaning I'm not beholden to how any particular famous pantheist described God - the point in common is simply that God is the only thing that exists. I don't see how the God I've described is on the hook for the problem of evil - maybe you could explain why in layman's terms why you think it is. I don't think the universe is conscious, do you? Is the universe on the hook for the problem of evil under your belief system? Sorry. I should have learned to shutup going through all that. My bad. I've made that mistake a few times here. My apologies. Roughly the point is that when people called the universe God, they were making a claim based upon certain attributes of God. The problem for a pantheist is that calling the universe God carries with in assumptions about what the universe has to be like. This has a very, very long history in the west from ancient times up through modern times. So to call oneself a pantheist is to be making claims about what the universe is like. The reason this entails the problem of evil is that evils in the universe can undermine the claim the universe is God in the same way that evils in the universe can undermine claims there's an interventionist God controlling the universe. Merely saying the universe isn't conscious doesn't really avoid that problem.
clarkgoble Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: Suffering can only be divorced from evil by abandoning any recognizable moral system altogether. I don't think that's true. Buddhism is one example I think. Stoicism is an other. But there really are lots of systems that attempt to explain apparent evils and suffering yet have robust moral systems. Now maybe we disagree with such views. I disagree with many elements of Stoicism and Buddhism for instance. But I think the reasons end up mattering a great deal. More or less for a theistic view of God we see suffering as evil is because we take it as a moral imperative that a good person attempts to reduce or eliminate particular suffering to the degree they are able. So if God is good he's be reducing suffering. 1
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 9 hours ago, changed said: The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims. When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves, God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist There is no free will for victims. The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument: If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson? Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused. This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries. The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others? Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance? Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom? Free will is not the ability to choose your circumstances. Being raped is not a violation of one’s free will. Who is getting these easy tests you speak of besides maybe children who die before accountability? I have never met anyone whose life I would consider easy in the sense of quickly achieving eternal life. 1
bluebell Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Gray said: Not quite. God doesn't have agency, but the universe acts upon everything. If a meteor hits you in the head that's a piece of the universe acting upon you. That doesn't mean someone intentionally sent it your way. So how is God different from a planet, or a chair, or a hydrogen atom?
The Nehor Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, pogi said: That is not true. It is not evil to suffer. They are not the same. The mother giving birth to a child suffers pain - that is not evil. The child being born suffers pain, that is not evil. Suffering is what life is made of, and life is not evil. It is true that suffering can be the cause and result of evil, but that suffering does not equate to evil. Innocent people suffer because of evil, but that does not make them evil. Suffering is an evil even if there is no reason to believe the sufferer deserves it or even if they suffer fully deserving it. It is a necessary part of our progress for reasons I do not claim to understand that we be put in an unjust world and taste suffering and other evils. Thankfully while life is nasty and brutish it is thankfully also short.
juliann Posted October 30, 2017 Posted October 30, 2017 8 hours ago, smac97 said: Bitter sarcasm is not reasoned argument. So disrespectful. How lucky you are to not have experienced what those bitter sarcastic women have. 1
Brother Bear Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 10 hours ago, Gray said: There is no answer to the problem of evil that preserves any kind of traditional theism with an interventionalist deity. Non-traditional models, like Pantheism, don't have this problem. I think many who accept the premises of the problem of evil can find a sufficient resolution by believing that all things work together for our good, that God does nothing save it be for our good, and that all that unfair in this life will be made right through Christ's atonement. Whether those ideas work for you is a separate, personal matter. Edited October 31, 2017 by Brother Bear
pogi Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Suffering is an evil even if there is no reason to believe the sufferer deserves it or even if they suffer fully deserving it. It is a necessary part of our progress for reasons I do not claim to understand that we be put in an unjust world and taste suffering and other evils. Thankfully while life is nasty and brutish it is thankfully also short. It depends on your definition of evil. I define evil in terms of morality. Suffering is not immoral in and of itself. We can suffer in righteousness. Think about it, Christ would never encourage his followers to rejoice in evil, yet he encouraged them to “rejoice in suffering”. What he meant by that is a topic for another thread, but it does serve to show that suffering is not evil.
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 You know ..I used to think and say often..that God measures people by their pain. Now it sounds trite and sad...of course we all have different pains in life with some having gone through a living hell. So now this phrase seems to diminish the God I believe in.
Glenn101 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 2 minutes ago, Jeanne said: You know ..I used to think and say often..that God measures people by their pain. Now it sounds trite and sad...of course we all have different pains in life with some having gone through a living hell. So now this phrase seems to diminish the God I believe in. What do you now believe how God measures people? We all have such different experiences and trials. Is there a common denominator, a common measuring stick? Or is it relative to what we can know and understand? Glenn
Jeanne Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: What do you now believe how God measures people? We all have such different experiences and trials. Is there a common denominator, a common measuring stick? Or is it relative to what we can know and understand? Glenn I believe that God might measure us (according to our knowledge and personal experience/study)..on how well we live our lives in the service of others and in construct of our own moral codes by that same knowledge. I believe that He will be fair. For those of us who have huge trials in life...victims or not...it is life...and has nothing to do with any pre existence or how we live it. It is life...but how we deal with it will be measured greatly. Trials and pain can touch our very souls and affect us deeply..but life isn't fair..and prayers can only ease ...but there are people around us who can help us...and they will be greatly measured by their good deeds. This doesn't mean that God should not punish those who inflict pain...God will do that...how many of us have been saddened by an untimely death by someone else ...drunk driving?? Rape?? But each time we may tell ourselves.."I sure would not want to be the person responsible for this". I know I am sounding like I am all over the place here..and I am. I am still dealing with personal things. and trying grow at the same time. Edited October 31, 2017 by Jeanne 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 8 hours ago, stemelbow said: ............................................I think those, opposing the traditional perspective, really do temper the effects of the problem. The problem, in essence, assumed creating out of nothing, and God knowing all and capable of doing all. And being responsible for all.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Gray said: Existence is the beginning of everything, sorrow and joy. The Ur-God is the God that gives rise to everything, including other Gods. That would be existence. Existence is God before all other Gods were Gods. But that is the very point of LDS theology: Beings have always existed. Existence did not have a beginning, but describes infinity -- an infinite regress of gods, and intelligences coeternal with the gods.
The Nehor Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 2 hours ago, pogi said: It depends on your definition of evil. I define evil in terms of morality. Suffering is not immoral in and of itself. We can suffer in righteousness. Think about it, Christ would never encourage his followers to rejoice in evil, yet he encouraged them to “rejoice in suffering”. What he meant by that is a topic for another thread, but it does serve to show that suffering is not evil. Suffering can have a redeeming and ennobling effect but it is an evil. We can endure it well but it is still an affliction, an evil placed upon us due to this being a fallen world. The Savior's command to rejoice in suffering is tied to our taking upon ourselves His Name and bearing that portion of His Atonement.
pogi Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Suffering can have a redeeming and ennobling effect but it is an evil. We can endure it well but it is still an affliction, an evil placed upon us due to this being a fallen world. The Savior's command to rejoice in suffering is tied to our taking upon ourselves His Name and bearing that portion of His Atonement. Again, it is a matter of definition and usage of the word. I like to keep the word “evil” in the realms of morality where I think it belongs. I do allow for poetic and linguistic license to use it in different ways, but when speaking about the “problem of evil”, it confuses the problem when we equate evil with affliction and suffering. There is nothing immoral about suffering and affliction, and there is nothing “ennobling” and “redeeming” about evil. For that reason, I like to keep them separate. It helps us to understand better what the real problem is. 1
Bernard Gui Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Gray said: Neither. Evil exists, and it's a problem, but "The Problem of Evil" is not an issue under the form of Pantheism I'm talking about. How so? Is there any redemption, compensation, forgiveness, retribution, justice, mercy, in your form? As DEATH says in a Terry Pratchett‘s somewhat pantheistic Discworld, THERE IS NO JUSTICE. THERE IS JUST ME.” Edited October 31, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
filovirus Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 15 hours ago, changed said: The trouble with the "free will" argument - god does not protect the free will of victims. When it is a question of God allowing a rapist to rape someone, or God allowing the victim to protect themselves, God chooses to protect the rights of the rapist There is no free will for victims. The trouble with the "evil is educational" argument: If you want to learn something, say to learn what "love" is, who/what would be the best way to teach this lesson? Aparently god believes the best way to teach 20% of women and children what love is, is to allow them to be repeatedly raped and abused. This has been my experience - and I am not making up the 20% number, that is what the percentage is for US college students ... the numbers are higher in other countries. The trouble with the "have to be tested" argument: Why are some people tested more than others? Why are some people tested beyond their limits of endurance? Why are some people sent to outer darkness by their tests, while others are given easy tests which allow them to enter the celestial kingdom? Don't confuse "free will" with "moral agency". Even though a woman can be raped against her will, it does not jeopardize her moral agency. She did not choose the act that was forced upon her. It is easy to take away one's free will. Simply lock them up in prison. They have the will to leave, but cannot. Yet they can still maintain moral agency while locked away in prison. I personally don't like the "evil is educational" argument either. Sure, we can learn from evil deeds, but we can also learn from good deeds. Training a dog can go both ways. Punishment for not obeying, or positive reinforcement for obeying. It's been shown that dogs learn faster through positive reinforcement. Why some people have tougher life experience that others is a question we cannot answer. All we can do is offer support and help where we are able. 1
smac97 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 16 hours ago, Gray said: That's okay, I'm not convinced that you get this issue and are taking it seriously enough. You can discuss with someone else - I don't have the time to work from the ground up here. I was taking the issue seriously, but I also was too pugnacious in my remarks to you. I apologize. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 13 hours ago, juliann said: So disrespectful. How lucky you are to not have experienced what those bitter sarcastic women have. With respect, I decline to enter into discussion with you. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted October 31, 2017 Posted October 31, 2017 17 hours ago, Gray said: Just not to leave you hanging, yes, good and evil exist. Okay, hoping to re-set our interactions. We good? Moving on . . . Could you explain your philosophy of how "good and evil exist?" 17 hours ago, Gray said: They are subjective determinations, which is the nature of morality. It seems that Judeo-Christian thinking does not do this. Rather, it posits that "good" and "evil" are defined by God, not by individual "subjective determinations." So how are these concepts defined in pantheism? Who sets the rules? 17 hours ago, Gray said: That doesn't mean anything goes - that means morality is not objective. Okay, so if God does not set the rules of morality, and and if individuals do not set the rules ("{t}hat doesn't mean anything goes"), then is it the collective? The community? Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts