Is God evil?

[hamelekim]

The Christian God isn't evil at all. He cannot stand sin, it is anathema to him, but he himself isn't sinful. In Christianity, human beings disobeying God is sinful, which is evil. When God had the Israelites wipe out various peoples, it was because they were evil people. If they were good, or even just decent, God wouldn't have told them to do such things.

The flood had to do with this. It wasn't just people disobeying God, Angels had come down and slept with women, producing Nephelim, who were corruptions of man. They were wiped out during the flood. There were also Giants after the flood, corruptions of humanity, who were evil in Gods sight so he asked his people to destroy them.

I would also argue that our idea of what is bad and good is short sighted. Especially when you are talking about a supreme being. I mean, he did create us with immortal souls, so our deaths are not really that big of a thing, especially if you obeyed God. When you die you end up in Heaven, eternal joy and happiness doesn't sound that bad to me. Better than anything that we could create on earth. Suffering on earth for even 80 years is nothing compared to an eternity afterwards.

If God did intervene, and end suffering, then he would be removing our free will. God doesn't want to force people to do anything, hence why he allows the suffering, for the time being. In the end evil comes down to humans disobeying God, and having free will. If we didn't have free will, and always obeyed God, then we wouldn't have suffering.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Universals.

I see absolutely nothing in the definition of universals that relates even remotely to your claim monotheism is a precursor to the scientific process.

 

[stilicho]

I see absolutely nothing in the definition of universals that relates even remotely to your claim monotheism is a precursor to the scientific process.

It isn't really my claim, SG.

Newton spent at least as much time on questions of theology as he did on physics. So did Pascal and Bayle, to mention a few.

We have two test cases--17th and 18th Century Europe and 8th Century Islam--to establish that monotheism shed of tribalism breeds science. Your contrarian examples of Meso-America, India, and China gave us handy numerals and calendars. While we have to admit that numerals and mathematics were advanced for their time, they were not employed by the Indians to do much more than count crop yields, and calendars were a struggle for every culture known to mankind.

Standard weights and measures (including time) were and are simply a function of establishing authority. Calendars and arithmetic of some kind are requirements of any human culture--even the most primitive.

You, personally, may not feel that monotheism was required for intellectual and scientific revolution but real life and real scientists have proved you to be mistaken.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
You, personally, may not feel that monotheism was required for intellectual and scientific revolution but real life and real scientists have proved you to be mistaken.

You discount all the science originating from China, minimize the astronomical observations and the advanced buildings produced in pre-Colombian Meso America and you show no plausible reason monotheism led to science other than it happened to be the religion of some early scientific thinkers.

But this one takes the cake. I asked you to cite other people who describe monotheism/modern scientific thought connections so I could see if they explained it any better than you have as you have made no case, and now you just claim these "real scientists" exist without so much as a name let alone a link to a paper.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Chinese contribution to technology and science.

From Wiki,

Religion in China has been characterized by pluralism since the beginning of Chinese history. Temples of many different religions dot China's landscape, particularly those of Taoism, Buddhism, and Chinese folk religion. Mahayana Buddhism remains the largest organized religion in China since its introduction in the 1st century....Chinese religions are often classified as religions, philosophies, spiritualities or ways of life. Taoism and Buddhism are considered pantheistic and nontheistic, while Chinese folk religion is widely polytheistic.[2][3][4]

Independently of adherence to organized religions (see below), most Chinese ground their spirituality in Chinese folk religion, Confucianism and ancestor veneration. These are not organized religions but rather practices or thought systems denoting membership in ethnic Chinese culture and civilization.

 

[edge]

Who's science now is greater, the atheistic or the Christian based governments.
It seems like they stagnated.
China steals and mass-produces what the free world invents.

 

[Hughnon]

The Christian God isn't evil at all. He cannot stand sin, it is anathema to him, but he himself isn't sinful.

He does things which, were I to do them, would be considered sinful.

This means that the actions themselves have no inherent value; the key is in whether or not they are in keeping with god's will. A will which, to be honest, would be a lot easier to stay in keeping with were it not variously interpreted and frequently contradictory.

We are therefore left with definitions of 'good' and 'evil' which are respectively 'what god likes' and 'what god doesn't like', and often no way for us to tell the difference.

Are things good because god does them, or does he do them because they're good?

 

[edge]

Interesting times we live in.
Seems like will is being shared for the moment.
His kingdom come his, will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.
Since it is shared for the moment, we are the ones that are responsible, for now we are held accountable.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Universals.

Stilicho, you'll find that around here philosophical name-dropping is not accepted as a substitute for references or an intelligible argument. If you genuinely understand Spinoza and Spinoza is relevant you will be able to explain the relevant argument(s) for us instead of hiding behind one-word posts.

He doesn't just supply evidence, dear, but he *is* evidence of it.

I know, I know, he specified in his Theologico-Political Treatise that women were "too delicate" to be allowed to vote but I am pretty sure that's because he was a dedicated sceptic.

However if you are making posts like this, it seems highly likely that you are very well aware you have no coherent argument to present, and you are hoping to pick a fight instead.

I was being my own silly self.

I was practically 100% convinced of atheism--even to the point of an "atheist movement" such as you suggested--until I started reading Belloc, Lewis and Chesterton.

You start reading enough and you realise how little you know or even are capable of knowing. It's fairly humbling. I know those three guys are terribly unpopular these days (perhaps even--gasp--FASCIST!!). But how can I argue that secular humanism is a good alternative when confronted (as I told SG) by 50 Cent, Eminem, Cosmopolitan, and Hustler?

I figure, half-heartedly, that it's a good trade to be free of "old tribalism" and embrace "neo-tribalism" that is offensive but, at least, guarantees a few of my rights.

It seems to me that this is just a confused bundling-together of prejudice and insecurity masquerading as a rational position.

Just because you don't like 50 Cent, Eminem, Cosmopolitan, and Hustler does not mean that there is a magical sky-fairy with supreme moral authority who agreees with you. Nor does is follow that because you like the idea that you have rights, then there must be a magical sky-fairy who agrees that you have rights.

Similarly, you can name-drop all the Christian writers you like but it's still no substitute for an intelligent argument. Don't bother trying the "You must go read them yourself!" gambit either, because plenty of people on these forums already have and have not been particularly impressed.

If you can't explain the basis for your position in simple, declarative sentences that make up a sensible argument in and of themselves, it's a very good bet your position is silly.

 

[Homeoproofer]

I say: There is no god who exists, but the imagination of god!

And this imagination, as long as it is a monotheistic one, is evil in its effect then...
God itself is never believed to be a bad one, but the people who believed in hin have done bad things for him...

And why?
its told that God is one and only and it is told that it is a mistake to not believe in him-
its said that only the believer in the right god is right ...
- This is, what can make the believers proud, intolerant, arrogant and miserly I think,
and so I am opponent of the idea of god!

I agree to:

As others have said god is not evil because it does not exist, but IMHO the Catholic Church must be considered one of the most evil organizations of all time.

The survival of the organization is all that matters to them. Doesn't matter how many people suffer or die, all in the name of god. For a somber reminder watch, "Deliver us From Evil".

There are so many jokes about the witnesses of Jehova already...
There are so many jokes about the christian god also..
But I analyse that there are maybe not enough jokes about Alah, Mohammed or the muslims ...the one who makes such a joke has to be afraid to be murdered maybe...

The good god has to be a humorous one in my opinion because laufhing people are happy people, right?

But I´ll never make a Alah-joke!
if god is evil or not- I am too young to die!

 

[stilicho]

You discount all the science originating from China, minimize the astronomical observations and the advanced buildings produced in pre-Colombian Meso America and you show no plausible reason monotheism led to science other than it happened to be the religion of some early scientific thinkers.

Hmm. Weird.

I thought you were talking about the scientific method and not mere technological innovations or calendars and such. Or architecture.

The Chinese didn't develop the scientific method. They were rather uninterested in it if you poke around a bit into what they discovered, how they discovered it, and how they employed such knowledge. Very much unlike how virulent monotheism forced doctrine to conform to experimentation as it did in my two test cases.

But this one takes the cake. I asked you to cite other people who describe monotheism/modern scientific thought connections so I could see if they explained it any better than you have as you have made no case, and now you just claim these "real scientists" exist without so much as a name let alone a link to a paper.

You need to read more, SG. Get off the internet, for Pete's sakes.

There are literally volumes available at your local university library that explain why/how Islam and Christianity encouraged the scientific method. Even to their detriment. It was clerics in both cultures who bore science into existence.

This doesn't, of course, mean that you have to become religious. But those scientists were.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
But this one takes the cake. I asked you to cite other people who describe monotheism/modern scientific thought connections so I could see if they explained it any better than you have as you have made no case, and now you just claim these "real scientists" exist without so much as a name let alone a link to a paper.

You need to read more, SG. Get off the internet, for Pete's sakes.

There are literally volumes available at your local university library that explain why/how Islam and Christianity encouraged the scientific method. Even to their detriment. It was clerics in both cultures who bore science into existence.

This doesn't, of course, mean that you have to become religious. But those scientists were.

I will be more serious, SG.

The first thing is that your line of questioning and your pattern of critique is not sceptical. It's empirical. There is a difference and I think you may appreciate that.

Probably the best source you could find is JB Bury.

There are also good concise interpretations of scholastics, realists, nominalists, empiricists, and sceptics available both in his footnotes and through library entries. Monotheism underlined each of those philosophical system.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

More dodgeball, stilicho? Can't support your premise about monotheism and the progression to a science based belief system so you want to change the argument? I don't fall for that crap.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by stilicho
Universals.

Stilicho, you'll find that around here philosophical name-dropping is not accepted as a substitute for references or an intelligible argument. If you genuinely understand Spinoza and Spinoza is relevant you will be able to explain the relevant argument(s) for us instead of hiding behind one-word posts.

There are many good books, including Bury's, that explain how the Western concepts of progress originated.

I wish I had the time to explain the entire history of occidental thought here but I don't. Complete rejection of dogma (true scepticism) includes rejection of empiricism. Even empiricism typically includes deference to allegory where falsification is impossible but the "problem" exists. This was my original requirement when discussing misogyny, Hosea, and the general text of the Old Testament.

I was appalled to find the narrowness of definition in the SAB. Weren't you? Once the author explains that the OT "must have" meant 24 hour days when the text read "days" when we all know that it is impossible for the event(s) to have occurred that way in literal fashion. Thumbs up for a phrase that was employed by Augustine (and others) to justify war. No comment on Psalm 23--probably one of the gentlest pieces of prose in the entire Christian bible.

Isn't that pretty shallow?

Misogyny hasn't vanished with the advent of feminism and progress. If anything, feminism as a productive movement is dead. That is the thing that ought to worry anyone in any culture nowadays. Misogyny is now a factor in popular culture to an extent never before seen.

I wish I had the time to share with you everything I have read but, honestly, people should go back and start reading themselves. I didn't start understanding history as well as when I read Hegel's "Philosophy Of History". Then I knew why what I was studying was presented in the way that it was. Internet links are a really poor substitute, KL. I was told that the concept of universals owed nothing to monotheism because someone hit their Google button. That's kind of petty--don't you think? If Google doesn't bring up Scholasticism, Nicholas of Cusa, Pierre Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, or William of Ockham when you hit "Enter" then you've magnificently proved that realism owes nothing to Christianity?

Absurd!

 

[stilicho]

Just because you don't like 50 Cent, Eminem, Cosmopolitan, and Hustler does not mean that there is a magical sky-fairy with supreme moral authority who agreees with you. Nor does is follow that because you like the idea that you have rights, then there must be a magical sky-fairy who agrees that you have rights.

I am an agnostic.

Do you think that 50 Cent, Eminem, Cosmopolitan, and Hustler aren't misogynistic?

I'm listening.

 

[stilicho]

More dodgeball, stilicho? Can't support your premise about monotheism and the progression to a science based belief system so you want to change the argument? I don't fall for that crap.

People such as Bury already have done the work.

Next.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Finally you cough up something to actually look at. I take it you don't know how to post a link.

No worries, it is a simple matter. Here's a book from your friend on the topic: The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth. Here's access to it online.

And here's a piece from the book that gives the gist of what you are claiming. It starts with Bury describing the ideas of Auguste Comte.

CHAPTER XVI - THE SEARCH FOR A LAW OF PROGRESS: II. COMTE

The "law of Three Stages" is familiar to many who have never read a line of his writings. That men first attempted to explain natural phenomena by the operation of imaginary deities, then sought to interpret them by abstractions, and finally came to see that they could only be understood by scientific methods, observation, and experiment--... Each of our principal conceptions, every branch of knowledge, passes successively through these three states which he names the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive or scientific. ...

...he confined his review to European civilisation; he considered only the ELITE or advance guard of humanity. He deprecated the introduction of China or India, for instance, as a confusing complication. He ignored the ROLES of Brahmanism, Buddhism, Mohammedanism. His synthesis, therefore, cannot claim to be a synthesis of universal history; it is only a synthesis of the movement of European history. ...

The Theological period has itself three stages, in which Fetishism, Polytheism, and Monotheism successively prevail. The chief social characteristics of the Polytheistic period are the institution of slavery and the coincidence or "confusion" of the spiritual and temporal powers. It has two stages: the theocratic, represented by Egypt, and the military, represented by Rome, between which Greece stands in a rather embarrassing and uneasy position....

Looks to me like Bury is saying the same thing I said, it merely appears that monotheism is a progression because that is the evidence Comte had to work with. But he inferred causality when coincidence could not have been ruled out.

You may want to re-read this chapter and perhaps the book because Bury agrees with me, not you.

For the comprehension of history we have perhaps gained as little from Comte's positive laws as from Hegel's metaphysical categories. Both thinkers had studied the facts of history only slightly and partially, a rather serious drawback which enabled them to impose their own constructions with the greater ease....

...The law of the Three Stages is discredited. It may be contended that general Progress depends on intellectual progress, and that theology, metaphysics, and science have common roots, and are ultimately identical, being merely phases in the movement of the intelligence. But the law of this movement, if it is to rank as a scientific hypothesis, must be properly deduced from known causes, and must then be verified by a comparison with historical facts. Comte thought that he fulfilled these requirements, but in both respects his demonstration was defective.

 

[stilicho]

Looks to me like Bury is saying the same thing I said, it merely appears that monotheism is a progression because that is the evidence Comte had to work with. But he inferred causality when coincidence could not have been ruled out.

I haven't ruled out coincidence either. It might be possible that Hinduism or Buddhism, under other circumstances, could have produced empiricism and scepticism and agnosticism. The simple fact is that they didn't.


Now the question is: Why didn't they? We agree that those three ideas were distinctly European. What was different in the European experience that allowed these virulent concepts to develop?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't ruled out coincidence either. It might be possible that Hinduism or Buddhism, under other circumstances, could have produced empiricism and scepticism and agnosticism. The simple fact is that they didn't.


Now the question is: Why didn't they? We agree that those three ideas were distinctly European. What was different in the European experience that allowed these virulent concepts to develop?

You are still not reading your own source clearly. And I do not agree those ideas are distinctly European. Neither does your philosopher, Bury.

Why don't you look more closely at the source page I linked to and try again?

 

[stilicho]

You are still not reading your own source clearly. And I do not agree those ideas are distinctly European. Neither does your philosopher, Bury.

Why don't you look more closely at the source page I linked to and try again?

Bury's an historian and not exactly a philosopher. Comte was a philosopher.

I would be overjoyed if I found that the Han, the Incas, or the Moghuls had furiously rejected superstitions and brought their people out of the fog.

I forgot to mention another culprit in the formation of progress as a virulent passion. I already explained monotheism and the rejection of tribalism. But an almost equal component was a critical shortage of labour in Europe.

I am curious, though. What Chinese, Indian or Meso-American writers conceived of progress? By that, of course, I mean a tantalising argument that the next generation would be better off than their own. As you noticed, Bury talks about that idea a lot.