This is a continuation of the last two entries...
One of my previous hang-ups about God and religion was the ambiguous definition of good. If you say that good is merely what God dictates to be good, when and where He wants to, then there really is no such thing as 'good' - as it changes from moment to moment. "Ah!" you might say, "But it doesn't change from moment to moment: it is always determined by God and He is always good. He will never do wrong." Well then you're left with the same problem because you've just created a logical loop:
Good is what God determines. God is good. What is good?... What God determines.
When you throw Satan into the mix suddenly you have diametrically opposed viewpoints -God's and Satan's - each believing he is justified in his actions. If they were co-equal/co-eternal then each would have equal right to call himself justified unless, as C.S. Lewis states, there is a higher power or standard to which one conforms and the other does not.
That is why I agree with Lewis. A higher standard could resolve our 'loop of morality' problem.
Yes, I do think Lewis was saying that God must adhere to the higher standard. That's why Lewis calls the higher standard the "farther back" and "higher up" God. Now, what Lewis does not say is that God has more power than Satan...merely that whoever follows the higher standard is correct. In Mormon theology God does have more power than Satan for two reasons: 1) Satan is actually God's child Lucifer, and therefore is not co-equal or co-eternal with God; 2) obeying the higher standard gives God power that Satan is not entitled to due to his disobedience. In this viewpoint, there is no dualism in the strict sense of the word. The powers are antagonistic but not co-equal. It is not yin/yen. Would C.S. Lewis agree with this viewpoint? I'm not sure. But in my viewpoint, both Mormon theology and C.S. Lewis neglect to mention one thing: there must be a fourth dimension to the equation: CHOICE...power over one's actions.
The third dimension - which defines what good is - makes no sense unless there is a opposite option, evil, and the ability to choose between the two. So even as the morality conundrum presupposed a higher standard of morality. The standard of morality presupposes a diametrical viewpoint AS WELL AS an even higher law, choice. Choice is the highest 'god' there is. Without choice there is no morality. Without choice there is no God or Satan.
Fourth dimension: The universe allows for choice between two co-equal, co-eternal options
Third dimension: One set of choices defined as 'good' and the other set as 'evil'
Second dimension: God adheres to the good choices; Satan does not
First dimension: We decide between following God or following Satan
[Note: every dimension is dictated by the dimensions above it]
Notice that God does not own good and Satan doesn't own evil. God obeys the higher morality not because He has to but because He wants to. As long as God continues to do so, He is the primary agent of good within our world. As long as Satan puts himself in opposition to 'good,' he is the primary agent of evil.
There is a problem with my argument though, and both Dan and Glasnost touched upon it. Theoretically, you could have a universe filled with only good choices. In that universe you really would not need an 'evil' to counterbalance the 'good.' You could have 'good' only and all of the dimensions of my chart would still work, only Satan would not exist. There would only be good choices, the third dimension would determine that 'all choices are good,' God would uphold all those choices and teach us, his children, to do the same, and we would all act good always because there would be no other option. So in reality we would be just as righteous as God and the only reason we wouldn't be gods ourselves is because God created us and we would be, therefore, subordinate to Him.
So in theory it works, but I don't see it.
That's why - if there is such a thing as absolute morality - I can only understand the universe as being dualistic. And religions, which preach absolute morality, must include within themselves this good/evil dualism. Many Eastern religions leave the dualism as just that: antagonistic powers without personae. Most Western religions, as I mentioned, make God the agent of good and Satan the agent of chaos. In some older religions, such as Hellenistic and Egyptian pantheonic, the imperfect gods could act both in good and evil ways. They were still adhering to or disregarding the higher standard, however. Also, certain gods tended to make evil choices more often than their counterparts - such as Set and Loki.
One last thing (sorry). I've explained my views of good/evil dualism but not my views of order/chaos. I need to retract what I said before. Here's my revised stance: much of what we call chaos in nature is not, in reality, true chaos. So I agree with Shasta there. Much of what is 'chaotic' stems from our inability to understand all of the variables of nature. But I also believe it is telling that nature includes seemingly random occurrences at all: I believe that - in order to live - nature needs to be able to adapt, change, mutate, and grow...and that chaos is the tool for this: chaos created by the multitude of variables crashing into each other continuously and reorganizing and reacting. If you want to take this back one step further, you could include this type of chaos within the "order" of the universe. Sure.
So, do I really know if chaos exists at the metaphysical level of the universe? No, I don't. However, it would seem that the order of the universe has, for some reason or other, included at the lower levels random chance and seemingly random variation. Within religion and within the context of what I've been arguing, chaos is merely another name for the phenomenon that 1) we have a choice, 2) this choice is not predetermined.
To sum up: I don't equate chaos with evil. However, since chaos is synonymous with "non-predetermined choice," then Satan re-introduced that choice into the equation in the Garden of Eden by giving Adam and Eve a second option. Might they have discovered evility without Satan? Perhaps. The Bible implies that they wouldn't have...or at least, our interpretation of it does.
7 years ago
4 comments:
Please, don't extrapolate too much from the tiny snippet I pulled from Mere Christianity. Lewis is not talking about God being subject to any sort of standard, but that God is the standard, the ultimate authority in the universe, in fact he is the "Higher" God. Too, far from neglecting to mention it, Mr. Lewis later does address choice n' free will, and how it is intrinsic to Christian belief.
When you say that God being good forms a logical loop, you're making a statement that itself isn't logical. Just because God defines what is good, it does not necessarily follow that the definition of good is in any sort of flux.
As I stated in my previous comment, the very existence of good implies the logical existence of evil (i.e., the opposite of good). Yet the existence of good and evil is dependent upon the perception of them.
For the sake of argument, let's say goodness, in its entirety, is defined by ... oh, wearing a red tee-shirt. It's not defined by anybody, simply from forever that's been "good". Then, if I just by chance happen to wear a red tee-shirt every day, I am good, whether or not I know that goodness is a function of my upper body apparel. The fact that I haven't made any sort of choice is irrelevant to whether or not I'm good. By my ridiculous redefinition, I am good. (Ah, if it were really just that simple.)
In your closing paragraph, you make sort of the reverse claim, i.e., that evil wouldn't exist without the serpent springing the idea for sin on Eve. However, if there is a good, there is automatically evil, logically. Satan becomes just the salesman.
I don't think that choice and free will are unimportant or non-existent--in fact, I think they're vital. I merely suggest that goodness is independent of anyone's choice on the matter. The idea of God and Satan not existing because there is no choice between good and evil seems similar to khaki slacks not existing because I purchase nothing but blue jeans. That makes 'em sound like conceits humans have come up with. Light, shadow, and color all exist despite a blind gecko's inability to perceive them, though they lose any significance for the gecko.
Incidentally, if by some quirk of red-shirt-wearing logic humanity was as righteous as God, that still wouldn't make us gods; I don't recall hearing of any human creating the world. Another addendum: if I recall my Mormon theology correctly, the reason for Satan's fall is that he wished to deprive humanity of free will. If the LDS Heavenly Father had said, "Good plan, let's do it, L-Money," then along with an even more sheep-like population, God and Lucifer would still exist, along with the logical concept of evil (as the opposite of good).
Dan....I agree with your observations, but would add that--for me anyway--the real struggle with good and evil really IS a plight similar to that of a color-blind gecko: a matter of perspective. When I left the LDS church, I really began to question my own judgment and capabilities as far as perception of any objective truth is concerned.... Our minds function in such a way that we measure everything we perceive on a scale between two binary oppositions formed through either personal or collective experience, and it is this filter that we use to find order in the universe. I think order and chaos are in our minds, and the real mystery is consciousness/perception.
So where does this leave me? I guess that it means I’m a relativist of sorts, and that can be shaky ground. As I’ve mentioned to Jared before, I basically decided to form my own truth about good and evil (since its all about my perception anyway), and it is this: all good stems from human connection, communication, understanding, and love. everything i would label ‘evil’ stems from human disparity, misunderstanding, and fear. If God exists, and if God is benevolent, or “good”(in terms of my perception), I would think that s/he/it posits truth according to a pattern of growth and progress for all life, and would therefore follow this same pattern, but there is really no way for me to know. bla-bla on and on....eeegaddsss i’m tired.
Good points, all, and I'll respond accordingly...though probably not until this weekend (busy week at work/school).
My gut reaction to all three comments (as well as my own blog entries) is this: It's maddeningly difficult to extrapolate knowledge about the universe. I suppose that's what metaphysics is all about though, otherwise it would be called 'physics.'
You criticize the idea that God defines good because of the logical loop that it creates, but I see the same fallacy in your argument that God adheres to a "higher standard" that is defined by someone/something else entirely. Here's how I see your argument:
God is good because he adheres to the higher standard. This higher standard is good, well, because it is defined to be by the "higher up God." But how can this higher up God say that this standard is the good one? Well, it must adhere to an even higher standard, and so on, ad infinitum.
Now, you touched on absolute morality in your post, which I find interesting because even people who claim to be following the same standard interpret it and act on it in radically different and often contradictory ways. Humans are capable of seeing in shades of grey, so is this why we just don't seem to be able to (universally) put our finger on the pulse of the dualistic absolute morality that you propose?
The way I see it, there may exist two absolute moralities: a practical absolute morality that is a by-product of the evolution of human society, and one that is wholly intangible and defined by whatever spiritual power exists. The former has developed as a result of a natural selection of sorts (we punish those who harm the well-being of our society by killing, raping, stealing, etc.) and the latter has been passed down from the spiritual to physical realm. The former has caveats (killing is bad, unless you're killing someone who has killed someone else), as does the latter, which does not exist in one form but rather in many iterations as theological law that often finds itself in conflict with its bretheren. I view the intangible version as humans' way of justifying their pratical laws and placing them beyond criticism, but you, who embrace a very different belief structure than I, most likely view it very differently.
On a different note, I found your use of the term "imperfect gods" to be intruiging. Does this imply that figures like Lucifer are so evil that they are perfectly so? I've never heard of anyone referring to a theological figure in this manner.
One last thing - You say: "Within religion and within the context of what I've been arguing, chaos is merely another name for the phenomenon that 1) we have a choice, 2) this choice is not predetermined." How does this compare to free will? I'm interested to hear how they coexist or complement each other in your perception.
Post a Comment