Darkness

[JohnCS]

Hello everyone.
I was thinking about baselines and norms for emotions such as: Like and dislike. Is liking the absence of dislike, or is disliking the absence of like? In some lost stray thoughts, this led me to the normal, darkness is the absence of light idea. If darkness is the absence of light, then darkness is the norm or baseline. It takes an energy or force to create the light thus dispelling the darkness. This led me to goodness and evil. God and Jesus are always refered to as the light dispelling the darkness, or goodness dispelling the evil. Does this then translate into ourlives as: If we are not actively doing good, then we are evil. If we do not use energy to provide light (goodness) then we are dark (evil). Please remember that I am in no way, now or ever, a philosophical person, but this idea stuck me as interesting and I wanted other opinions. Thanks and God bless!

 

[Garyjohn2]

Those are interesting thoughts, and they might have good merit if explored further. Perhaps we, at our “baseline”, have evil tendencies (selfish, short-sighted, etc) and it takes the light of God to light us up.

However, in terms of like and dislike, I think it can work a bit differently. There can be people you don’t know that you neither like nor dislike. Also, there can be people you just meet for the first time who you are predisposed to like (because you’re just a nice person). But because of some negative experience, it may come to pass that you don’t like them, but don’t necessarily dislike them either. I think there can be a gray area here.

As for “not doing good means doing evil”…I can see that making sense. It depends on your perspective I guess. I can see it being said that not doing good (not doing the will of God) can be equated with being apathetic, lazy, or ignorant…all of which can be seen as bad things. However, it’s not the same as actively doing evil, like hurting people or such. So again, that makes sense to me, but there are also gray areas (like ignorance).

On the largest scale though, considering “light vs. darkness” or “God’s presence vs. none”…I would definately agree that the absence of light = darkness.

I’m no philosopher either, just offering my own ideas!

Here’s another tidbit to think about though…before God created the world, there was darkness. Was the “void” evil? I don’t think so. The bible says God’s presence was there. So perhaps God’s goodness can even exist in the darkness as well!

 

[twinc]

Those are interesting thoughts, and they might have good merit if explored further. Perhaps we, at our “baseline”, have evil tendencies (selfish, short-sighted, etc) and it takes the light of God to light us up.

However, in terms of like and dislike, I think it can work a bit differently. There can be people you don’t know that you neither like nor dislike. Also, there can be people you just meet for the first time who you are predisposed to like (because you’re just a nice person). But because of some negative experience, it may come to pass that you don’t like them, but don’t necessarily dislike them either. I think there can be a gray area here.

As for “not doing good means doing evil”…I can see that making sense. It depends on your perspective I guess. I can see it being said that not doing good (not doing the will of God) can be equated with being apathetic, lazy, or ignorant…all of which can be seen as bad things. However, it’s not the same as actively doing evil, like hurting people or such. So again, that makes sense to me, but there are also gray areas (like ignorance).

On the largest scale though, considering “light vs. darkness” or “God’s presence vs. none”…I would definately agree that the absence of light = darkness.

I’m no philosopher either, just offering my own ideas!

Here’s another tidbit to think about though…before God created the world, there was darkness. Was the “void” evil? I don’t think so. The bible says God’s presence was there. So perhaps God’s goodness can even exist in the darkness as well!

 

[twinc]

twinc:
The Void,now here we have a void that is not as empty as it sounds - more later - twinc

 

[vz71]

Does this then translate into ourlives as: If we are not actively doing good, then we are evil. If we do not use energy to provide light (goodness) then we are dark (evil). Please remember that I am in no way, now or ever, a philosophical person, but this idea stuck me as interesting and I wanted other opinions. Thanks and God bless!

And God said: Be light made. And light was made.

Without light, we have darkness.

I have had a hard time accepting that there is a difinitive yes/no answer…but.
I have often found that the most carefully neutral person is on a downhill slide into evil.

So if we do not let the light of God shine, we fall into darkness.

 

[Anthony88]

Hello everyone.
I was thinking about baselines and norms for emotions such as: Like and dislike. Is liking the absence of dislike, or is disliking the absence of like? In some lost stray thoughts, this led me to the normal, darkness is the absence of light idea. If darkness is the absence of light, then darkness is the norm or baseline. It takes an energy or force to create the light thus dispelling the darkness. This led me to goodness and evil. God and Jesus are always refered to as the light dispelling the darkness, or goodness dispelling the evil. Does this then translate into ourlives as: If we are not actively doing good, then we are evil. If we do not use energy to provide light (goodness) then we are dark (evil). Please remember that I am in no way, now or ever, a philosophical person, but this idea stuck me as interesting and I wanted other opinions. Thanks and God bless!

Hi John,
I’ve read the other posts and they are most intriguing and thought provoking, its a pleasure to see such mindful, philosophical discussions, especially about God.

Ok, now, in answer to your post:
1st Point. This idea of dichotomy, two opposing elements being of an equal nature, on the same (horizontal) plane or being of equivocal force or degrees of difference, is I think incompatible with the truth of God’s presence. I’ll explain. It seems that making ‘horizontal’ contrasts between “like” and “dislike” and comparing them to ‘vertical’ contrasts such as “light” and “darkness” or “good” and “evil”, is not a comparable thing. The reason why is this. Comparing amoral things such as “like” and “dislike” to moral things such as “light”, “darkness”, “good” and “evil”, is very much like comparing apples to oranges. They are two separate things from separate fields. For instance, in the cases where it is amoral, “likes” and “dislikes” only move a person horizontally in terms of their spiritual/moral position or progression. While on the other hand, “good” and “bad”, “light” and “darkness” tends to move a person vertically, ‘up’ being closer to God (the good, the light) or ‘down’ being closer to you know what. The horizontal moves a person side to side, indifferently, so to speak. For example when one likes or dislikes a person, or eating chicken. It is not necessarily a sin-type or moral issue. But “loving” and “hating” is, and that would be measured on the vertical axis of up and down. I’m using theoretical concepts such as the “vertical” and “horizontal” to illustrate this point, however they are not officially academic terms. Just words from an amateur.

2nd Point. Better illustrating the idea of the ‘horiztonal’ and ‘vertical’ as aforementioned, when dealing with “likes” and “dislikes”, it is like struggling ‘back and forth’, whilst dealing with “good” and “evil”, “light” and “darkness”, it is like struggling “up and down” - to Heaven or Hell.

3rd Point. This idea of the equivalence of opposing forces or elements is very wrong when applied to God, and it seems to be very prominent in (atheistic) Buddhist philosophy with the yin & yang and the opposites of good and evil. This is obviously false. “Good”, in this case, or the “light” (God as we call Him) was always, is always and will always be dominant over evil, darkness or the devil and his minions. Therefore it cannot be compared, as there will never be a circumstance where evil over powers good, no instance of the scale being tipped to the other side, no expectation of change. But permanent and fixed.

4th Point. Also, in the true sense of the word one cannot compare “good” with “evil”, “light” with “darkness”, because the “good” and “Light” being God is infinite, however evil and darkness is not. And it is impossible to compare the infinite with the finite, as the latter is measurable and the former is not.

5th Point. Out of pious reverence for God, it is not a praise worthy thing to simplify God into a dichotomy, as one then loosens the dignity and respect due to God, when placing the understanding of Him side by side with essentially the devil and his works, evil. As one does not readily compare God with the saints, why would one easily compare God with such a wretched creature as Satan.

6th Point. The “light”, the “good” being God preceded the darkness. Before time and outside of time. “Evil” and “darkness” became eternal from a specific point in time, whilst “light” and “good” (being God) was eternal from no point in time. Therefore, its once again incomparable in the wider sense.

7th Point. “Evil” and “darkness” came as a consequence within Creation. As God, outside creation was Good, and there dwelt no evil whilst he contemplated making the Heavens and the Earth. Therefore because “evil” and “darkness” are bound within the confines and constraints of Creation and its nature, it cannot be compared to anything outside Creation such as God, who’s nature does not lie in the same scope as any element of Creation.

CONTINUED —>

 

[Anthony88]

8th Point. In response to darkness being the absence of light, I don’t think this description is definitely correct. The reason being is that all is moving either towards God or away from God. That is the nature of creation, that is why we describe man in the current state as “fallen”, as by falling he has moved away from God. Also, not to move anywhere such as the so called neutral state is in fact, as a previous commentor posted, really moving away from God for by idleness, sloth, ignorance and laziness one moves away from God due to these sins. Therefore it is all in movement. Now, because of this, there can only be “presence” because as one moves they become present elsewhere and their presence elsewhere dictates a presiding substance - so to speak. However absence has no substance and thus no presiding substance therefore it is truly and simply NOTHING, and not ‘something that is nothing’. Therefore a certain thing cannot also be nothing at the same time, for while one has substance one can’t also have ‘no substance’. So darkness (which has substance) cannot definitely be the ‘absence of light’ (which has no substance) -as something cannot be nothing at the same time. It’s a contradiction. Therefore, darkness cannot be DEFINED as the absence of light, but can only be validly DESCRIBED as having no light. And vice versa. We only say that darkness is the absence of light as a casual description, but not necessarily accepted as a formal theological definition. I hope I haven’t confused anyone.

9th Point. In response to the question “If we are not actively doing good, then we are evil.”
Well you’ve joined two concepts together which must first be separated, which is “doing” and “being”. If you are not doing good, then by this neglect you are doing evil. Now, what needs to be taken into account is the gravity of sin, and the intention of the person committing the sin. Such as when one is being neglectful wherein it is mortally sinful, that does constitute the person as being (likely) evil, as in the case of mortal sin it is deliberate, will-full, consentual and full-knowing. Whilst a neglect - being a venial sin - is evil or bad, it doesn’t make the person evil, does not constitute the person as being evil, as they are still in a state of sanctifying grace. See the difference? The just man sins seven times a day (so the saying goes), but that doesn’t make him evil. Therefore the initial question seems over simplified.

10th Point. And final point, is in regards to the idea of everything being expressed in the form of “energy”. This may be true of Creation, however the Creator, or God (or “light” and “good” as we have previously identified) does not fall into this category of energy, as God is not subject to Creation wherein energy as we know it was manifested. As God is not bound by time, He is likewise not bound by energy or matter, unlike us and all creation therefore making him incomparable in terms of energy. There is a New Age or Spiritualist idea prevalent that likes to imagine the Cosmic powers of the Universe as being God, taking the mystical presence of God and perverting it to making it seem like God is truly present in all matter and energy, in the same way He is in the Blessed Sacrament. This is obviously false and heretical, and leads to paganism, pantheism and atheistic spiritualism. The ‘life-force’, the ‘universe’, the ‘cosmic energy’, etc is not God. None of these are equatable to God.

I’ve written almost an essay length response, but the reason is because unfortunately due to the educations we have received in the western world dominated by non-Catholic, non-Christian, and nonsense elements its all too easy for the thoughts of Catholics to be unknowingly saturated and perverted by influences of humanism, relativism, pantheism, indifferentism, modernism, abstractism, liberalism and etc. Most Catholics cannot be blamed as they were so poorly catechised and therefore had no chance to protecting the purity of their faith without having their understanding of Church teaching contaminated by the world. This I found to my dismay after graduation when I found my thoughts to be so frivolous and flexible that it seemed totally alien to the mind of the Church I was re-attempting to understand at the time.
But praise God that Catholic Answers is here to fill a great void for those wanting real, solid, Catholic answers. Praise God!

God bless.