I really appreciated how you laid out Augustine and Aquinas’s view that evil is a privation—it made something I’ve always felt intuitively and from what Ive studied in school, that evil isn’t a “thing” in itself. t also made me reflect on suffering and moral failings differently, seeing them less as separate forces and more as gaps in the goodness that God created.
It's tangential to your point but I can't help but observe that the Daoist image is out of place. A Daoist duality is not like Manichaeism because, whereas Manichaeism professes a battle between two independent forces, Daoist dualities are co-dependent. In a Daoist picture, if goodness were to triumph, it would cease to be or become something different because evil is what makes goodness intelligible.
To say that goodness is existence and evil its privation is actually a way of making sense of what that Daoist co-dependence could possibly be. It also implies that existence without privation is in some sense unintelligible - perhaps because existence without privation would be a new category of being. Namely, heaven.
I don't know if that works for you but I think Daoism is more friend than foe!
Evil or unwanted outcomes is a red herring. It diverts/distracts one from the real issues.
What is this world/existence for? Ever think this world might be perfect for God’s purposes? (A series of perfect imperfections - how could God not create the best of all possible worlds) This world works on the 4 laws of nature and its matter/energy. These produce the unwanted outcomes for this world. God created it. Why?
I maintain its doubt. Without doubt we as humans cannot create/do anything meaningful. Faith would have no meaning. There would be no virtue. We would be automatons. There would be no way to attain the next world, our only real destination.
Want proof: most don’t believe in God but the evidence is overwhelming for His existence. Why?Many mock those who do believe while it is they who are intellectually bankrupt.
While I’m not religious, I think that it’s wrong to mock anyone who is religious because condescending anyone is hurtful. I also think that it’s inconsiderate to convince something that the God that they believe in doesn’t exist for the same reason; existential crisis’s are hurtful and atheism and agnosticism is unresolvable.
I am genuinely happy for people who practice their faith faithfully. But the point I want to make is that it’s absolutely possible to ground morality in the objective world/universe. You can discern right from wrong, good from evil, should from shouldn’t. In any form of Christianity, one must refer to the Bible for THE answer.
“ You can discern right from wrong, good from evil, should from shouldn’t.”
One of my favorite Great Coutses’ course is “ Natural Law and Human Nature” and available as an audiobook. It’s by Fr Joseph Koterski who has since passed away relatively young. He was amazing.
It’s relatively cheap and is 24 half hour lectures. You might like it and addresses your comment.
Wow! Genuinely, I’m impressed. Benefit of the doubt compelled me to look into your suggestion—forgive me, I haven’t had much success with recommendations in the past. I typed in this and found a detailed review/summary of this book. The review caught me off guard with how logical it seems. Sincerely, thank you for the recommendation. I would like to learn more.
To be clear, I’d never disregard what a theologian says on the basis that he’s religious. I generally think that the majority (not all) are zealots that hit rock bottom with inconclusive reasoning (“because God said so”). As you might appreciate, I cannot come to believe anything from something that I do not already agree with. The reason your recommendation appeals to me is because the author doesn’t appear to ignore the incredibly complex systems that make up human behavior, societies, governments, and the universe.
I look forward to learning more about this publication and the man who wrote it.
Once again, thank you. And I’d be happy to hear your thoughts or other recommendations.
Ps. I think most people, not just those who are religious, don’t explore why they believe what they believe. And that, I think, is a form of self betrayal.
For what it’s worth, I will recommend one lecturer on the Great Courses. His name is Patrick Allitt. He is a history professor who is British but got his PHD in the US and stayed. My favorite course by him is titled “The Industrial Revolution” but he has taught several others. Two other favorites are “ The American West: History, Myth, and Legacy” and “ How Railways Transformed the World.” Obviously nothing to do with this site.
I have purchased about 200 courses so there’s lots of good courses. You might not like history but it’s my favorite topic. My college background is math and science and like technology subjects in addition to history.
“ I think most people, not just those who are religious, don’t explore why they believe what they believe. And that, I think, is a form of self betrayal.”
I agree!! Well expressed. I am going to use this idea in a presentation I am writing.
I really appreciated how you laid out Augustine and Aquinas’s view that evil is a privation—it made something I’ve always felt intuitively and from what Ive studied in school, that evil isn’t a “thing” in itself. t also made me reflect on suffering and moral failings differently, seeing them less as separate forces and more as gaps in the goodness that God created.
These short form posts are really great.
It's tangential to your point but I can't help but observe that the Daoist image is out of place. A Daoist duality is not like Manichaeism because, whereas Manichaeism professes a battle between two independent forces, Daoist dualities are co-dependent. In a Daoist picture, if goodness were to triumph, it would cease to be or become something different because evil is what makes goodness intelligible.
To say that goodness is existence and evil its privation is actually a way of making sense of what that Daoist co-dependence could possibly be. It also implies that existence without privation is in some sense unintelligible - perhaps because existence without privation would be a new category of being. Namely, heaven.
I don't know if that works for you but I think Daoism is more friend than foe!
Evil or unwanted outcomes is a red herring. It diverts/distracts one from the real issues.
What is this world/existence for? Ever think this world might be perfect for God’s purposes? (A series of perfect imperfections - how could God not create the best of all possible worlds) This world works on the 4 laws of nature and its matter/energy. These produce the unwanted outcomes for this world. God created it. Why?
I maintain its doubt. Without doubt we as humans cannot create/do anything meaningful. Faith would have no meaning. There would be no virtue. We would be automatons. There would be no way to attain the next world, our only real destination.
Want proof: most don’t believe in God but the evidence is overwhelming for His existence. Why?Many mock those who do believe while it is they who are intellectually bankrupt.
While I’m not religious, I think that it’s wrong to mock anyone who is religious because condescending anyone is hurtful. I also think that it’s inconsiderate to convince something that the God that they believe in doesn’t exist for the same reason; existential crisis’s are hurtful and atheism and agnosticism is unresolvable.
I am genuinely happy for people who practice their faith faithfully. But the point I want to make is that it’s absolutely possible to ground morality in the objective world/universe. You can discern right from wrong, good from evil, should from shouldn’t. In any form of Christianity, one must refer to the Bible for THE answer.
“ You can discern right from wrong, good from evil, should from shouldn’t.”
One of my favorite Great Coutses’ course is “ Natural Law and Human Nature” and available as an audiobook. It’s by Fr Joseph Koterski who has since passed away relatively young. He was amazing.
It’s relatively cheap and is 24 half hour lectures. You might like it and addresses your comment.
Wow! Genuinely, I’m impressed. Benefit of the doubt compelled me to look into your suggestion—forgive me, I haven’t had much success with recommendations in the past. I typed in this and found a detailed review/summary of this book. The review caught me off guard with how logical it seems. Sincerely, thank you for the recommendation. I would like to learn more.
To be clear, I’d never disregard what a theologian says on the basis that he’s religious. I generally think that the majority (not all) are zealots that hit rock bottom with inconclusive reasoning (“because God said so”). As you might appreciate, I cannot come to believe anything from something that I do not already agree with. The reason your recommendation appeals to me is because the author doesn’t appear to ignore the incredibly complex systems that make up human behavior, societies, governments, and the universe.
I look forward to learning more about this publication and the man who wrote it.
Once again, thank you. And I’d be happy to hear your thoughts or other recommendations.
Ps. I think most people, not just those who are religious, don’t explore why they believe what they believe. And that, I think, is a form of self betrayal.
For what it’s worth, I will recommend one lecturer on the Great Courses. His name is Patrick Allitt. He is a history professor who is British but got his PHD in the US and stayed. My favorite course by him is titled “The Industrial Revolution” but he has taught several others. Two other favorites are “ The American West: History, Myth, and Legacy” and “ How Railways Transformed the World.” Obviously nothing to do with this site.
I have purchased about 200 courses so there’s lots of good courses. You might not like history but it’s my favorite topic. My college background is math and science and like technology subjects in addition to history.
“ I think most people, not just those who are religious, don’t explore why they believe what they believe. And that, I think, is a form of self betrayal.”
I agree!! Well expressed. I am going to use this idea in a presentation I am writing.