1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    11 Apr '06 23:50
    This subject was brought up in another thread by Halitose, but I thought it might be worth a thread for those who are slightly bored with our usual staple. I don't normally do big cut and pastes but I'll put this into play to get the ball rolling:

    Given the classical argument from evil in either its logical or empirical versions it is surprising that anyone should think evil presents any problem whatsoever for the pantheist; for example, that evil counts against the existence of the pantheistic Unity in a way similar to the way in which it counts against the existence of the theistic God. Evil might be taken to be indicative of a lack of pantheistic Unity, as evidence of some kind of chaos instead. But it cannot count against the existence of a pantheistic Unity in the way it can count against the existence of a theistic God. The argument from evil states that given the following propositions it is either impossible that God exists, or it improbable that God exists. 1) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good. 2) God would prevent all preventable evil. 3) The world contains preventable evil. The pantheist rejects the proposition needed to generate the problem to begin with. The pantheist accepts (3) "The world contains preventable evil." The pantheist also accepts that if there was a theistic God, which for the pantheist ex hypothesi there is not, then (2) "God would prevent preventable evil." But the pantheist rejects (1) "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good." Undeniably there is evil in the world that could be prevented, and supposing there was a theistic God one would assume that he would prevent it. But since there is no such God why suppose that proposition (3) requires some kind of special explanation or is cause for any "unease" on the part of the pantheist? The existence of preventable evil, for all that has been, does not even constitute a prima facie reason for rejecting the coherence of a pantheistic notion of Unity, or the probability of the existence of Unity. (3) is not incompatible with anything the pantheist believes to be true. Certainly it is not incompatible with (1) since the pantheist denies the truth of (1), and it is not incompatible with (2) which is only hypothetically true for the pantheist. The pantheist has no need to explain evil, or to explain evil away — at least not in any way resembling theism's need to do so.

    Evil may be a problem for the pantheist, but it is not the kind of problem that it is for the theist. It does not even conflict, prima facie with the existence of a divine Unity. Pantheism does not claim that its divine Unity is a "perfect being" or being at all (generally), or that it is omniscient etc. Surely it is mistaken to interpret Spinoza's "God" as "perfect" and "omniscient" etc. in anything like the way these predicates are interpreted theistically as applying to God. It might be supposed that the existence of evil is inconsistent or incongruous with the "divinity" of the Unity. But this would have to argued. In theism it is assumed that what is divine cannot also be (in part) evil. But why assume this is the case with pantheism? Even in Otto's account of the "holy" the holy has a demonic aspect. There seems little reason to suppose that what is divine cannot also, in part, be evil. At any rate, there is little reason for the pantheist to argue that what is divine can also be evil, since they can deny that evil falls within the purview of the divine Unity. To say that everything that exists constitutes a divine Unity (i.e. pantheism's essential claim) need not be interpreted in such a way so that it entails that all parts and every aspect of the Unity is divine or good. There can be a Unity and it can be divine without everything about it always, or even sometimes, being divine.

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ Section 9 - Evil

    Comments?
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    12 Apr '06 00:01
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This subject was brought up in another thread by Halitose, but I thought it might be worth a thread for those who are slightly bored with our usual staple. I don't normally do big cut and pastes but I'll put this into play to get the ball rolling:

    Given the classical argument from evil in either its logical or empirical versions it is surprisi ...[text shortened]... anford.edu/entries/pantheism/ Section 9 - Evil

    Comments?
    I don't see what there is to discuss. The argument from evil, as the article correctly demonstrates, is only of use against "3-O" gods.
  3. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    12 Apr '06 03:43
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I don't see what there is to discuss. The argument from evil, as the article correctly demonstrates, is only of use against "3-O" gods.
    And in that case, it is ineffective.
  4. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    12 Apr '06 05:47
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    And in that case, it is ineffective.
    Nope.
  5. Subscriberwidget
    NowYouSeeIt
    NowYouDon't
    Joined
    29 Jan '02
    Moves
    271525
    12 Apr '06 06:031 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Comments?
    As John Fowles put it in his excellent and wildly pantheistic fable "The Magus" - not to be confused with the "B" movie of the same name based loosely on the erotic and surreal episodes in the book:

    😛 "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
  6. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    12 Apr '06 07:381 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    And in that case, it is ineffective.
    Your thinking is such because you either don't understand the argument, or you refuse to acknowledge the relevant points of the argument.
  7. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    12 Apr '06 09:20
    Originally posted by widget
    As John Fowles put it in his excellent and wildly pantheistic fable "The Magus" - not to be confused with the "B" movie of the same name based loosely on the erotic and surreal episodes in the book:

    😛 "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
    That was stolen from Aleister Crowley! 😠
  8. Subscriberwidget
    NowYouSeeIt
    NowYouDon't
    Joined
    29 Jan '02
    Moves
    271525
    12 Apr '06 16:33
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    That was stolen from Aleister Crowley! 😠
    ....before Doesteovsky, "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" was said by Hassan i Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountain (Alamut), a Persian Ismai'ili, ~1100 AD.

    😀 Some good Crowleyisms:

    “I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.”

    “The supreme satisfaction is to be able to despise one's neighbor and this fact goes far to account for religious intolerance. It is evidently consoling to reflect that the people next door are headed for hell.”

    “I was not content to believe in a personal devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff.”
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148453
    12 Apr '06 18:08
    Originally posted by widget
    As John Fowles put it in his excellent and wildly pantheistic fable "The Magus" - not to be confused with the "B" movie of the same name based loosely on the erotic and surreal episodes in the book:

    😛 "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
    "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" just so I'm not putting
    words into your mouth, is this like saying everyone can do what
    they get away with, and all actions are equally moral as far as
    reality is concern? I've heard it another way if that is so, "Everyone
    does what is right in their own eyes" so that judgment only means,
    power makes right, since only those with the power can force their
    points of view on others, since there really isn't a right and wrong
    that is above all human desires?
    Kelly
  10. Subscriberwidget
    NowYouSeeIt
    NowYouDon't
    Joined
    29 Jan '02
    Moves
    271525
    12 Apr '06 18:392 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" just so I'm not putting
    words into your mouth, is this like saying everyone can do what
    they get away with, and all actions are equally moral as far as
    reality is concern? I've heard it another way if that is so, "Everyone
    does what is right in their own eyes" so that judgment only means,
    power makes right, si ...[text shortened]... hers, since there really isn't a right and wrong
    that is above all human desires?
    Kelly
    In principle, Kelly, I agree with your interpretation. 😉 In practice, you have to be fully prepared to accept the consequences of your actions - both internal/moral psycholgical and external/social reward or punishment.
    e e cummings: "pity this busy monster manunkind"

    😕 With respect to the powerful forcing their points of view on others, consider the current spate of international terrorism... a feeble suicidal invalid infected with some new designer plague could be the vector for bringing all of us to our knees. Science can help supercede conventional political relationships.

    We each individually must decide what is right and wrong, imho. The lure of Organized Religion, again imho, is that it makes those choices for people, absolving them of any moral responsibility for the rightness or wrongness of their choices and actions - 😞 at least in the minds of their co-religious peers, their family perhaps, their primary personal community? That's potentially very powerful motivation for capitulating the right to choose your own destiny.


    😉 There is no right. There is no wrong. We all are the people we each should fear.

    Be kind 😀 Try to be happy 😀 Ghandi: "Be the change that you want to see in the world."
  11. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    12 Apr '06 23:00
    Originally posted by widget
    ....before Doesteovsky, "Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted" was said by Hassan i Sabbah, the Old Man of the Mountain (Alamut), a Persian Ismai'ili, ~1100 AD.

    😀 Some good Crowleyisms:

    “I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning.”

    “The supreme sat ...[text shortened]... ry sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff.”
    I recall reading (correct me if i'm wrong) that the "magus" was based on Crowley.
  12. Subscriberwidget
    NowYouSeeIt
    NowYouDon't
    Joined
    29 Jan '02
    Moves
    271525
    13 Apr '06 06:20
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I recall reading (correct me if i'm wrong) that the "magus" was based on Crowley.
    Don't know... 😛 The notion has a lovely romantic appeal but more often Fowles is credited with mining Shakespeare for his necromancy. Then again ~ nothing is true, so all our imaginings are permitted.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148453
    14 Apr '06 10:52
    Originally posted by widget
    In principle, Kelly, I agree with your interpretation. 😉 In practice, you have to be fully prepared to accept the consequences of your actions - both internal/moral psycholgical and external/social reward or punishment.
    e e cummings: "pity this busy monster manunkind"

    😕 With respect to the powerful forcing their points of view on others, consider t ...[text shortened]... kind 😀 Try to be happy 😀 Ghandi: "Be the change that you want to see in the world."
    I don't believe that, it isn't because of consequences either for
    you can do evil things and seem to get away with them, but that
    does not mean they were not evil, just as you can do good and
    kind things and suffer for the doing of them. What is right and
    wrong, good and evil do not have to mean they are good or
    evil because of consequences, that isn't a good measure of them.
    Kelly
Back to Top