Dan's comment to my last entry forced me to consider the relationship between good/evil and chaos/order...
I would not say that chaos is synonymous with evil by any means. However, within religion deity is associated with law and order, and the anti-god is associated with disregarding or degrading that order. So although order is not good and chaos is not evil: the anti-god acts as the primary agent of chaos within a religion even as God acts as the primary agent of order.
Morality cannot be unidimensional. It'd be like having a one-sided coin. You need an antithesis for religion to exist--an alternative to being good--otherwise there's no freedom of choice and, therefore, no morality. I am not suggesting that God created good or that Satan created evil. I agree with C.S. Lewis that a higher standard exists which dictates even God's actions. It is the only possible way for me to believe in God: without that independent standard I feel that 'good' and 'evil' are arbitrary terms.
If evil and chaos are independent of Satan then why do I maintain that chaos is necessary in religion?
I believe goodness would stagnate without an opposing force. Life is a continuous process of building up and tearing down. An animal dies, its body decays, it allows for more life. A random mutation alters a genetic string, giving Homo erectus the ability to maneuver his thumb. God allows Satan to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, convincing them to disobey God and ultimately creating the need for a Savior.
Leaving Christianity aside, the same principles are fundamental to other myths and religions. Egyptian theology was based on death and rebirth--like the flooding of the Nile. The key figure and most important god in this religion was Osiris, god of resurrection. Osiris would have had no power over rebirth had he himself not died and been reborn. Osiris wouldn't have died without the evil Set tricking him into a coffin and then cutting him to pieces. In this myth, Set represents evil; however, he also represents chaos breaking down order but allowing for rebirth and renewal.
Li'l Devil
I would not say that chaos is synonymous with evil by any means. However, within religion deity is associated with law and order, and the anti-god is associated with disregarding or degrading that order. So although order is not good and chaos is not evil: the anti-god acts as the primary agent of chaos within a religion even as God acts as the primary agent of order.
Morality cannot be unidimensional. It'd be like having a one-sided coin. You need an antithesis for religion to exist--an alternative to being good--otherwise there's no freedom of choice and, therefore, no morality. I am not suggesting that God created good or that Satan created evil. I agree with C.S. Lewis that a higher standard exists which dictates even God's actions. It is the only possible way for me to believe in God: without that independent standard I feel that 'good' and 'evil' are arbitrary terms.
If evil and chaos are independent of Satan then why do I maintain that chaos is necessary in religion?
I believe goodness would stagnate without an opposing force. Life is a continuous process of building up and tearing down. An animal dies, its body decays, it allows for more life. A random mutation alters a genetic string, giving Homo erectus the ability to maneuver his thumb. God allows Satan to tempt Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, convincing them to disobey God and ultimately creating the need for a Savior.
Leaving Christianity aside, the same principles are fundamental to other myths and religions. Egyptian theology was based on death and rebirth--like the flooding of the Nile. The key figure and most important god in this religion was Osiris, god of resurrection. Osiris would have had no power over rebirth had he himself not died and been reborn. Osiris wouldn't have died without the evil Set tricking him into a coffin and then cutting him to pieces. In this myth, Set represents evil; however, he also represents chaos breaking down order but allowing for rebirth and renewal.
Li'l Devil
1 comments:
Lewis was not arguing that there must be a standard that even God must adhere to; he was, in that passage, specifically arguing against a dualist perspective, which mandates that there must be an "evil" deity co-equal with a "good" deity. His argument was that the very existence of a standard to measure good and evil that binds both is evidence of a higher authority (the standard), and that authority must be the actual God.
I'm not sure I agree with the argument that good would stagnate without evil. Good is a concept; by its very definition, it's either good, or it's something else. Or, if you like, good can't stagnate; the moment it does, it's no longer good.
Of course, the conceptual existence of good implies the conceptual existence of evil, i.e., not good. However, a wholly good population is a theoretical possibility, if not an attainable practicality. What if, for instance, Adam and Eve had chosen not to wolf down knowledge-berries?
Post a Comment