definition of
Moderator:Metacrock
So can we say that heat death is a kind of natural evil (at worst), so that the question becomes a variation on the problem of evil? If that's so, how do we know that the evil is a real deficiency of God's power or will rather than just an unavoidable consequence of achieving a greater good?
If no single moment has any intrinsic value, then it's hard to see how stringing an infinite number of them together necessarily confers any value. In fact, the argument can be made that endless duration could actually detract from value in most cases.
If no single moment has any intrinsic value, then it's hard to see how stringing an infinite number of them together necessarily confers any value. In fact, the argument can be made that endless duration could actually detract from value in most cases.
Last edited by Jim B. on Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: definition of
I think he conflates moral and natural evil, I've since lent that book for the moment i'd have to have another look. Would natural evil be such as it is or would our relationship understanding of what is be different in respect to 'natural evil' if there was not moral evil? i mean isn't 'natural evil a kind of extension? (Edit, was at work a bit rushed. I don't think "extension" is right.) Or part of the contagion that he speaks of which is without division to human being.Jim B. wrote:I can see this applying to moral evil. What does he say about natural evil? Is it a consequence of moral evil?Superfund wrote:From David Bentley Harts's "The doors of the sea." A definition of evil
"Evil is born in the will: it consists not in some other seperate thing standing alongside the things of creation, but is only a shadow, a turning of the hearts and minds of rational creatures away from the light of God back toward the nothingness from which all things are called. This is not to say that evil is somehow illusory; it is only to say that evil, rather than being a discrete substance, is instead a kind of ontological wasting disease.
Born of nothingness, seated in the rational will that unites material and spiritual creation, it breeds a contagion of nothingness throughout the created order. Death works its ruin in all things, all minds are darkened, all desires are invaded by selfishness, weakness, rapacity, and the libido dominandi-the lust to dominate-and thus tend away from the beauty of God indwelling his creatures and towards the deformity of nonbeing."
Re: definition of
I don't personally see natural evil as an extension of moral evil. How do you understand that? John Polkinghorne talks about how free will requires free process, so in that sense, they're related. Seems like there'd be natural evil (disease, natural disasters, suffering) even in a world without moral evil. Even in a world just like ours but without humans, there'd still be a whole lot of sufferin' goin on.Superfund wrote:
I think he conflates moral and natural evil, I've since lent that book for the moment i'd have to have another look. Would natural evil be such as it is or would our relationship understanding of what is be different in respect to 'natural evil' if there was not moral evil? i mean isn't 'natural evil a kind of extension? (Edit, was at work a bit rushed. I don't think "extension" is right.) Or part of the contagion that he speaks of which is without division to human being.
Re: definition of
I recall David Hart seemed to say that 'moral evil' or human evil is also 'natural evil.' Having a bit of a look around at this.Jim B. wrote:I don't personally see natural evil as an extension of moral evil. How do you understand that? John Polkinghorne talks about how free will requires free process, so in that sense, they're related. Seems like there'd be natural evil (disease, natural disasters, suffering) even in a world without moral evil. Even in a world just like ours but without humans, there'd still be a whole lot of sufferin' goin on.Superfund wrote:
I think he conflates moral and natural evil, I've since lent that book for the moment i'd have to have another look. Would natural evil be such as it is or would our relationship understanding of what is be different in respect to 'natural evil' if there was not moral evil? i mean isn't 'natural evil a kind of extension? (Edit, was at work a bit rushed. I don't think "extension" is right.) Or part of the contagion that he speaks of which is without division to human being.
At work at the moment, found this. "Considered dispassionately, though, man is part of the natural order, and his propensity for malice should be no less a scandal to the conscience of the metaphysical optimist than the most violent convulsions of the physical world." From, http://davidbhart.blogspot.com.au/2006/ ... doubt.html.
I don't claim to understand fully at the moment but its interesting
Re: definition of
moral and natural evil are not related except In theodicy issue the bare a relationship, In my argument God can't make himself too obvious so there has to be a point at which both are allowed for the same reason.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: definition of
That sounds similar to Polkinghorne's argument, I think. He says the world has to cohere, so that an ontologically open world that allows for free will would also have to allow for free process, i.e. once the constants are established, things are free to play out as they will free of outside intervention, so they're free to run down, screw up, etc. without God stepping in to meddle.Metacrock wrote:moral and natural evil are not related except In theodicy issue the bare a relationship, In my argument God can't make himself too obvious so there has to be a point at which both are allowed for the same reason.
Re: definition of
that's a bit different from mine, probably better.Jim B. wrote:That sounds similar to Polkinghorne's argument, I think. He says the world has to cohere, so that an ontologically open world that allows for free will would also have to allow for free process, i.e. once the constants are established, things are free to play out as they will free of outside intervention, so they're free to run down, screw up, etc. without God stepping in to meddle.Metacrock wrote:moral and natural evil are not related except In theodicy issue the bare a relationship, In my argument God can't make himself too obvious so there has to be a point at which both are allowed for the same reason.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: definition of
The insidiousness of pedophilia might be a convergence of moral and natural evil? Its found out in schools, the entertainment industry, police, everwhere and regarding religion, secondary to the personal heart break of the victims it is particularly heart breaking for Christians, pedophilia being so antithetical to the gospel. The reason why I wondered if this evil was a convergence is because its tied into a gross distortion of a natural function. (reproduction.)
"St. Augustine's libido dominandi, the lust for dominion?
"St. Augustine's libido dominandi, the lust for dominion?
Re: definition of
well it's clearly moral evilSuperfund wrote:The insidiousness of pedophilia might be a convergence of moral and natural evil? Its found out in schools, the entertainment industry, police, everwhere and regarding religion, secondary to the personal heart break of the victims it is particularly heart breaking for Christians, pedophilia being so antithetical to the gospel. The reason why I wondered if this evil was a convergence is because its tied into a gross distortion of a natural function. (reproduction.)
"St. Augustine's libido dominandi, the lust for dominion?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
Re: definition of
Well I have to agree but I think a victim may be faced with contemplating both depending on their world view