The Origin of Good and Evil

[Corvus]

Clue seems to imply in her topic in the Evolution vs Creationism forum that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. One thing I have to bring here to challenge is the assertion that sin was introduced into the world through a first "original sin", brought about by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But don't the words "knowledge of good and evil" imply that good and evil already exist, and thus sin - but Adam and Eve are ignorant of it? If so, doesn't that also imply ignorance of God's law is an excuse?

Wouldn't it also imply the true origin of both good and evil is God?

[Corvus]

He may have been given to aggression, but not physical harm directly against any one person. He did not kill or harm a single person, as far as I remember.

I meant that Jesus was not opposed to war and violence in general, He was just a reasonable and peaceful individual. However, this has nothing to do with the origin of good and evil, so on to the next point.

The point of mentioning it was to outline what I saw as a contradiction between God and Jesus. Jesus was not opposed to war and violence? Considering it has no basis on our discussion at the moment, could you private message me some quotes that show Jesus condoned war and violence? I would be interested in seeing them.

If a tree falls in the woods when there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? My view is no, since no one is around to define what exactly is sound, and without outside observation, any event is meaningless. If we did not exist, neither would the concept of light, because concepts are ideals and ideals only exist in the mind - the human mind - and the same goes for what we consider reality.

This is a logical, though somewhat extreme, point of view. However, I do not agree that concepts can only exist in the "human" mind. I see no reason that any non-human intelligent entity cannot be counted as an observer. Therefore, God, as an intelligent entity, can observe things and define them.

Can define them, but conceptualise them? Conceptualising is an aid to understanding. Understanding is something that is total when one possesses omniscience.

Oxford Dictionary staes concept as;
Idea of a class of objects, general notion.

When one can know the minute details of any object in the universe, general notions and classes are unnecessary. Not to say that God cannot imagine - but his imagining could probably encompass absolutely everything that could exist, everything that could does not exist, and everything that could not exist. God could easily imagine a universe in which he does not exist. But then, God has a nature and a destiny which he cannot avoid, being omniscient and aware of the ramifications of every action...

Who thinks of the concept of evil if only good exists? God?

Bingo.

As above, the thinking of the concept cannot be inconsistent with his nature.

[quote
In the world we do live in, everything is composed of matter. Furthermore, matter is everywhere; no true vacuum exists. Yet matter is defined and it does exist. A true vacuum does not exist in this universe (or at least, has never been observed by humans) but the concept of a vacuum is defined and understood by us. This is because we humans know that when you have a basic concept X, there is implied a concept Y which is the lack or opposite of X.[/quote]

Still the concept exists and not, as Schopenhauer calls it, "the will". But now I've forgotten what we were debating about with this talk of concepts. I will press on.

God is defined as goodness incarnate, if the goodness did not exist, God would not exist.

Who defines God as "goodness incarnate?" Not me. For our purposes, good is a descriptive term for something which is similar to God. Therefore God is good, but good is most certainly not God.

But without God, goodness is non-existent, correct? He is the source of our examples of goodness.

was simply pointing out that God can kill sinners with impunity, thus we should too.

I am confused by this statement. God "kills" everyone, after all.

Indirectly. Earlier you mentioned God cannot stop evil without infringing on God given free will. But in this past God has directly cut this freewill short whenever a people are too uninhibited.

For example, righteous anger seems to be one aspect of God's nature that would be frowned upon amongst men.

I do not agree with this. If I see someone get hurt without good reason, the person hurt and I will, normally, become angry. Our anger, because it is justified, can be described as righteous.

Instead I tend to view all anger as negative, especially when I think of the Christian concept of God as mix of stern father and dispassionate judge. Would you become angry in the scenario you give us? Yes. Should you? No. If I read this right, the person was hurt through no good reason because of the actions of another person, otherwise you would only feel concern. If that were the case, the anger would be out of place with loving the sinner and hating the sin, since one can't very well be angry at sin, which is a concept, unless one believes the sin gripped him, which rules out free will and still gives no cause to be angry..

That a deity, who is the one from which goodness originates, could be capable of the feelings through which anger arises - suffering, impatience or dissatisfaction with an outcome - seems strange to me. Anger, after all, occurs through failed expectations or desires.

If I were a deity, I should like to be very joyful. Though it's all very presumptuous of me to tell God how to do his job.

I think it is safe to say that most people would agree that anger is sometimes justified.

Yes, on reflection, perhaps most. But because you classify the anger as "righteous" does not mean it is right. There are many people, and some religions, that would disagree with you. A buddhist monk will tell you that the anger would only result in suffering, and that to vent impermanent frustration out on an impermanent object is pointless. (Why God would choose to do this would likely confuse them just as it confuses me)

I see that If God's nature is defined as good as an absolute, we should not try to meet it completely because God is more capable of this good than us.

God is definitely more capable, but this does not mean humans should throw the laws of Christianity out the window. My point is that humans should try to be as good/Godly as they can be, not as good/Godly as God is.[/quote]

I see. We are subject to different laws than God because we are different from God. Would it be presumptuous to say then that the basic unit of measurement in good and evil on earth is man and his suffering? The guide may be God for Christians, but the direction he points is down to earth, and towards men?

[Shild]

The point of mentioning it was to outline what I saw as a contradiction between God and Jesus.

It is important to note that throughout the Bible, there is a distinction between YHWH God, the Father, and Wisdom Christ, the Son. While the latter has its source in the former and is part of the former, they do not have the same role.

Jesus was not opposed to war and violence? Considering it has no basis on our discussion at the moment, could you private message me some quotes that show Jesus condoned war and violence? I would be interested in seeing them.

I would PM the quotes, but I take it this is a common misconception, so I will place the reasons in this open forum:

1) Jesus condones everything in the Pentateuch throughout His ministry.

2) Matthew 10:34
[Jesus says] "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

3) Luke 22:35-38
"And He [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], 'When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?'
So they said, 'Nothing.'
Then He said to them, 'But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: "And He was numbered with the transgressors." For the things concerning Me have an end.'
So they said, 'Lord, look, here are two swords.'
And He said to them, 'It is enough.'"

Here, Jesus is telling the disciples that, even though they didn't need provisions ("money bag" and "knapsack") earlier, they will need them now. This is because at the depicted time, unlike earlier, the disciples and Jesus will be rejected ("numbered with the transgressors.") and cannot rely on the generosity of others to fill their needs. Since they have money and supplies, they might be attacked by bandits now, so Jesus makes sure the disciples have swords with which to protect themselves and their belongings.

Can define them, but conceptualise them? Conceptualising is an aid to understanding. Understanding is something that is total when one possesses omniscience.

Oxford Dictionary staes concept as;
Idea of a class of objects, general notion.

When one can know the minute details of any object in the universe, general notions and classes are unnecessary.

Since when does unnecessary mean impossible? God does not need concepts to understand anything. This does not mean that 1) He does not see the similarities between groups of objects or 2) He cannot use conceptual terms for the benefit of humanity, to which conceptualization is useful.

Furthermore, so what if God could not conceptualize? Does that mean good and evil do not exist?

Still the concept exists and not, as Schopenhauer calls it, "the will". But now I've forgotten what we were debating about with this talk of concepts. I will press on.

I do not know what this "will" business is, but I agree wholeheartedly. We have let this thread wander pretty far from the "Origin of Good and Evil" question.

But without God, goodness is non-existent, correct? He is the source of our examples of goodness.

Exactly. Your point?

Indirectly. Earlier you mentioned God cannot stop evil without infringing on God given free will. But in this past God has directly cut this freewill short whenever a people are too uninhibited.

As a result of God temporarily taking free will, the evil is abated. Thank you for lending support to my theory.

Incidentally, I would appreciate it if you would provide textual evidence for assertions like these in the future.

If that were the case, the anger would be out of place with loving the sinner and hating the sin, since one can't very well be angry at sin, which is a concept, unless one believes the sin gripped him, which rules out free will and still gives no cause to be angry..

When I am angry with someone, I say, "I am angry with you because you did such and such." I do not hate the person with whom I am angry. Also, whoever said you cannot love someone and be angry with them at the same time? I have been angry with my family members and friends many times, but I have never stopped loving them.

As for the subject of anger, obviously there are multiple opinions about its rightness. However, as long as we agree that anger is not evil in and of itself, there is no reason to believe God can/should not be angry.

Would it be presumptuous to say then that the basic unit of measurement in good and evil on earth is man and his suffering?

Since the level of goodness/evilness among humans varies, I would not call it a "basic unit" of measure for these concepts.

Also, I would say that man's suffering should be excluded, since suffering is not always caused by evil.

The guide may be God for Christians, but the direction he points is down to earth, and towards men?

This statement confuses me. How does God "point" to humanity? And what does this have to do with the "Origin of Good and Evil"?

[Corvus]

But without God, goodness is non-existent, correct? He is the source of our examples of goodness.

Exactly. Your point?

I'm getting there.

Indirectly. Earlier you mentioned God cannot stop evil without infringing on God given free will. But in this past God has directly cut this freewill short whenever a people are too uninhibited.

As a result of God temporarily taking free will, the evil is abated. Thank you for lending support to my theory.

Incidentally, I would appreciate it if you would provide textual evidence for assertions like these in the future.

I am confused here. You are already family with stories of societies destroyed because they strayed from God's word:

If they repent (a la Nineveh), they are not punished. However, if they disregard His warnings, they are punished (this happens several times to the Israelites). If their transgressions are persistent and grievous enough, they may even be eliminated (as with the Amelekites).

If that were the case, the anger would be out of place with loving the sinner and hating the sin, since one can't very well be angry at sin, which is a concept, unless one believes the sin gripped him, which rules out free will and still gives no cause to be angry..

When I am angry with someone, I say, "I am angry with you because you did such and such." I do not hate the person with whom I am angry. Also, whoever said you cannot love someone and be angry with them at the same time? I have been angry with my family members and friends many times, but I have never stopped loving them.

As for the subject of anger, obviously there are multiple opinions about its rightness. However, as long as we agree that anger is not evil in and of itself, there is no reason to believe God can/should not be angry.

Not "evil", but a source of evil, as the love of money is. Anger, in any form, whether it be righteous or not, is a destructive emotion. Did the anger against your friends and family ever further the love you have for them? Did it ever contribute anything to the relationship? If so, could that same result be achieved through other means?

The guide may be God for Christians, but the direction he points is down to earth, and towards men?

Since the level of goodness/evilness among humans varies, I would not call it a "basic unit" of measure for these concepts.

However, it is a unit, or a yardstick of measurement. God obviously does not do something without a reason, being a rational God. The source of God's goodness lies in the reason, just as the source of light from a lamp lies in its flame. It would then not be impossible to separate the goodness from God, just as one can take a flame from a lamp.

This statement confuses me. How does God "point" to humanity? And what does this have to do with the "Origin of Good and Evil"?

I am speaking metaphorically, of course. God does not want us to be gods, God wants us to be ourselves. We are good within the limitations of ourselves, the limitations that God perhaps anticipated, but does not experience. Human frailties, human injustices, human stability and human fears.

[Shild]

I am confused here. You are already family with stories of societies destroyed because they strayed from God's word:

I indicated a society which was destroyed at God's command, but not because they strayed from God's word. The Amalekites were destroyed for what we would call war crimes.

You see, since our debate as it is relies on Biblical material, it is important that we are as specific and complete as possible in regards to the Biblical narrative. For example, were it not for this post, you would probably have gone on thinking the Amalekites were eliminated because they "strayed from God's word," and thus carried a misconception about the Bible and Christianity which could have affected your judgement thereof.

Not "evil", but a source of evil, as the love of money is. Anger, in any form, whether it be righteous or not, is a destructive emotion. Did the anger against your friends and family ever further the love you have for them? Did it ever contribute anything to the relationship? If so, could that same result be achieved through other means?

Okay, this anger sub-debate has gone on far enough. It is not relevant, so I am officially conceding defeat: I admit that anger, even righteous anger, would be "frowned upon amongst men."

However, it is a unit, or a yardstick of measurement.

This measurement analogy yet eludes me. What can one measure using evil?

God obviously does not do something without a reason, being a rational God. The source of God's goodness lies in the reason, just as the source of light from a lamp lies in its flame. It would then not be impossible to separate the goodness from God, just as one can take a flame from a lamp.

If my perception of your proposition is accurate (and correct me if I am wrong here), you are saying that God is good because of His reason for action, rather than by His very existence.

My problem with this is that it assumes good and evil are concepts independent of God, evoking the question of their source.

Also, in the Scripture, God cannot sin. This means that, if good and evil are independent of God, God is constrained by a rule external to Himself, which assumes the existence of an authority higher than God.

God does not want us to be gods, God wants us to be ourselves. We are good within the limitations of ourselves, the limitations that God perhaps anticipated, but does not experience. Human frailties, human injustices, human stability and human fears.

...I cannot find anything with which to disagree here. I'll keep lookin'

[otseng]

Not "evil", but a source of evil, as the love of money is. Anger, in any form, whether it be righteous or not, is a destructive emotion. Did the anger against your friends and family ever further the love you have for them? Did it ever contribute anything to the relationship? If so, could that same result be achieved through other means?

Okay, this anger sub-debate has gone on far enough. It is not relevant, so I am officially conceding defeat: I admit that anger, even righteous anger, would be "frowned upon amongst men."

I would not agree that righteous anger is "bad", even among men. I've created a thread to debate that over at Righteous Anger - Can anger ever be good?

[Corvus]

I thought this was topic was dragging on rather long so I took a break from it. I hope you are still around to debate further.

However, it is a unit, or a yardstick of measurement.

This measurement analogy yet eludes me. What can one measure using evil?

I think my phrasing has been off. We often measure whether something is good or evil based on whether it gives pleasure or suffering.

God obviously does not do something without a reason, being a rational God. The source of God's goodness lies in the reason, just as the source of light from a lamp lies in its flame. It would then not be impossible to separate the goodness from God, just as one can take a flame from a lamp.

If my perception of your proposition is accurate (and correct me if I am wrong here), you are saying that God is good because of His reason for action, rather than by His very existence.

My problem with this is that it assumes good and evil are concepts independent of God, evoking the question of their source.

But on earth, they are independent of God, since we often do what is good or right based on an abstract principle, not on what is written. We understand good and evil based on how we treat each other.

Even so, if God is a God of logic, are we to understand that his characteristics are simply arbitrary? God is good, thus acts good, but we have no answer as to why?

God does not want us to be gods, God wants us to be ourselves. We are good within the limitations of ourselves, the limitations that God perhaps anticipated, but does not experience. Human frailties, human injustices, human stability and human fears.

...I cannot find anything with which to disagree here. I'll keep lookin'

We do not always have to disagree. Here you have admitted human rules are not the same as God's self-imposed ones. They can be separated, so good can be separate from God.

[Shild]

First of all, I would like to apologize. As some may have noticed, I am prone to lengthy hiatuses from posting, even in the thick of a debate. This is due to certain long-lasting fluctuations in my schedule which prevent me from having access to the internet for prolonged periods of time.

Anyway, I hope others, especially Corvus, will be so kind as to rejoin this debate now that I have returned.

I think my phrasing has been off. We often measure whether something is good or evil based on whether it gives pleasure or suffering.

I do not believe this is an accurate characterization. In life as I have observed it, pleasure and good are very often at odds. As a very light example, a student can be forced to choose between the pleasure of a video game and the difficulty of doing an assignment well. While a "good" student would put all the required time and effort into the assignment for the best possible work, a poor student would choose the way of pleasure and turn in either a poor assignment or no assignment at all.

The obvious response is that the "good" student enjoyed the pleasure of satisfaction, a good grade, and praise from authority figures, thus the "good" student is motivated by pleasure just as much as the poor one. However, the result of this response is to pit two pleasures against each other, so that their is a difference between "good" pleasure and "bad" pleasure.

Therefore, even if (and this is a big "if") the students are both motivated by pleasure, "good" remains independent of pleasure.

But on earth, they are independent of God, since we often do what is good or right based on an abstract principle, not on what is written.

I am not sure what is meant by "abstract principle," but if you mean (and correct me if I am wrong) that there are general codes of moral behavior to which most subscribe, such as "murder is wrong," then the supposed nature of right/wrong as "independent of God" is illusory.

Let me show you what I mean with a metaphor. If I am in the top floor of a building which is on earth, I might say that the question of whether or not I fall is independent of the earth, since I am directly supported by the skyscraper. However, the building is supported by the earth, so I am still dependent on the earth. In the same way, the abstract principles which guide our actions are dependent on God, so that whether an action is right or wrong still depends on God.

My basic assertion here is that most of our guiding abstract principles were either revealed to humanity by God through revelation, or built in to human psyche by God. Either way they came from God (if my understanding of what you meant by "abstract principles" is correct).

Even so, if God is a God of logic, are we to understand that his characteristics are simply arbitrary? God is good, thus acts good, but we have no answer as to why?

I thought I answered these in my first posts...

To restate, "God is good, thus acts good..." can be described as backwards. "Good" is a descriptive term for God, God's nature, God's actions, and anything or action which is itself in keeping with God's nature.

Here you have admitted human rules are not the same as God's self-imposed ones.

As per my theory, described throughout this thread:

1) This is a mis-characterization. God does not self-impose rules through choice.
2) Human rules do not have to be applicable to God for them to be in keeping with God's nature.

They can be separated, so good can be separate from God.

This is true only if "human rules" are definitely good, which has not been established.

Furthermore, there is a difference between "separable" and "in opposition," so that both God's characteristics and human rules can be good, even if they are not identical.

[dangerdan]

Wow, there sure are some novels in this thread!

Ok, getting back to the topic.

If God is NOT the origin of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ (whatever they might be), is this then evidence of something that God didn’t create? Was God already bound by the rules of “Good” and “Evil” before he made the universe?

It seems to be (and I mean no offence), that when Christians talk of ‘Good’ they have no problem attributing it to God, but when Christians talk of ‘Evil’ they seem to say, “weeeell, I suppose that came from the Devil” and when pressed and asked “But who made the Devil?” then they seem to say “Suppose we change the topic”.

[otseng]

And when pressed and asked “But who made the Devil?” then they seem to say “Suppose we change the topic”.

Just for reference, I touched upon the origin of the devil in an earlier post and another topic has also briefly discussed this in The Christian Doctrine of Satan.

[Corvus]

First of all, I would like to apologize. As some may have noticed, I am prone to lengthy hiatuses from posting, even in the thick of a debate. This is due to certain long-lasting fluctuations in my schedule which prevent me from having access to the internet for prolonged periods of time.

It's quite all right. This topic was starting to get wearying anyway.

I do not believe this is an accurate characterization. In life as I have observed it, pleasure and good are very often at odds. As a very light example, a student can be forced to choose between the pleasure of a video game and the difficulty of doing an assignment well. While a "good" student would put all the required time and effort into the assignment for the best possible work, a poor student would choose the way of pleasure and turn in either a poor assignment or no assignment at all.

This is a poor example. But does that mean it's a bad one? Why do we see the poor student's actions as bad and the good student's actions as good? Why do we see a drug addict's skill at finding a vein and puncturing it is a bad one when the same level of skill found in a nurse is something good? Because of the result of the actions. The drug addict's skill poses a risk to society (indirectly) and himself, and the nurse's skill minimises the suffering of a patient.

Let's assume that the poor student's pleasure is greater than that of the good student. The very reason we place any importance on this scenario, and can say that one is clearly right and another is clearly wrong, is because of what is at stake; the future, or future happiness. Let's assume the poor student only let his studious nature lapse for this one assignment, and every previous task was completed so well it put him at the head of the class. This would mean the poor student's actions aren't so bad at all, and that it's the ramifications of poor work that is the "bad", not the action of seeking pleasure itself. If the good student was being good to make up for a whole term of consecutive failures in his assignments, he would be "bad". Since it's probable the only reason they want good grades is for earning a living, then if the student with the poorest results in school somehow wins the lottery, his performance no longer really matters, and does not need be judged in light of wrong or right behaviour - and he can indulge himself all he likes.

The obvious response is that the "good" student enjoyed the pleasure of satisfaction, a good grade, and praise from authority figures, thus the "good" student is motivated by pleasure just as much as the poor one. However, the result of this response is to pit two pleasures against each other, so that their is a difference between "good" pleasure and "bad" pleasure.

This would not have been the obvious response to me. The good student was willing to suffer momentarily for the future, the poor student willing to indulge himself momentarily. Achievement in school - or knowledge - is not good or bad in and of itself, and no one would claim scientist is "more good: than a farmer. More successful, perhaps. The future pleasure (security, money, etc) that is the result of achievement in school is the only reason you are judging a student's level of application at all. If the students were studying bomb-making in a terrorist camp, the good student would be doing a "bad thing" when individual pleasure and pain is balanced against pleasure and pain of a wider population if he ever puts his skills to use.

I am not sure what is meant by "abstract principle," but if you mean (and correct me if I am wrong) that there are general codes of moral behavior to which most subscribe, such as "murder is wrong," then the supposed nature of right/wrong as "independent of God" is illusory.

Not at all. Two separate cultures can discover algebra or the same theory of aesthetics independently, just as abstract principles can arise through similar means. Even two different cultures can create the same mythical beast, as shown by the oriental and occidental dragons. It is only natural that the various tribes of a social animal scattered over the world can come to a general agreement on a few points of how best to conduct themselves as social animals without ruining their own lives. The only thing that these abstract principals are dependent upon is our existence, living in a world where the possibility of us suffering exists.