Argument From Evil - Pantheism

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?

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?

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.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And in that case, it is ineffective.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Comments?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And in that case, it is ineffective.

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."

Originally posted by Conrau K
That was stolen from Aleister Crowley! 😠

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."

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

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.”

Originally posted by Conrau K
I recall reading (correct me if i'm wrong) that the "magus" was based on Crowley.

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."