Do you believe in evolution?

[Bill_B_NY]

Man can do evil but are you saying man created evil? If evil is contingent on it being created then can God be considered good? What is that good measured against since evil is contingent?

Evil is not a thing. It’s the absence of good. So, it is not a created entity. It is just an after-effect of sin. Nobody created evil because evil as a thing, as a quantity - does not exist. Effects of evil are deprivations.
Evil is not a being. It is contingent on being, just as our concept of “nothing” is contingent on “something”. We cannot have evil unless being exists.
But evil is not willed by God.
It occurred because of sin - it is the unavoiable result of distance from God - of violating God’s will.
It is choosing another will instead of God’s will - and that “other will” ends up with evil effects because it is not all good. It is disobedient to the good.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Power is like this:
Our God is all-powerful. Omnipotent in every way - there is no power anywhere that did not come from Him. He was not created. All things came from Him.
Sin would be weakness - lack of power. Lack of virtue would be a lapse - needing power to repair but God has all power already. So, He cannot sin. He has all virtue. He has all perfections.
All perfections means He is all Good.
So, everything that is good comes from Him
By nature, we want goodness, virtue and perfection. They can only come from Our God.
Therefore, nothing is more worthy of our love, service and attention than God. He is infinite, because to be finite is a lack of power.
That is why we would say to worship our God of the Catholic Faith and not those who have been created and who lack every perfection - who are not of the highest worth.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

that follows Dan’s question

 

[Dan123]

Okay that’s all fair and a good clarification of Catholic belief. I think perhaps the issue is we also use the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ to describe actions which are beneficial or detrimental to wellbeing, sometimes ours sometimes others. I’m not saying that’s a clearcut line or always easy to determine it, but if say, I say “John is evil for putting rat poison in children’s school lunches” we’re probably going to agree on that. Now poisoning school children I would hope is against God’s will, but I know it’s harmful to the wellbeing of the children and even if there’s some benefit for this John fella it’s hard to imagine it outweighing the harm. I guess I’m saying ideas like wellbeing don’t require you to be Catholic, or Christian, or even religious at all to use them as measuring tools. And to be honest I think the venn diagram of Catholic good/evils, good/evils of other religions, and those of secular morality theories overlap probably 99%, I’m sure @rossum would be right next to us yelling at John.

Sorry that was a bit of a ramble. I guess it’s just strange to me to throw out the idea of ‘good’ being beneficial to ones life. If it’s just rooted in God’s will, what’s the reason one should desire to live according to God’s will? Avoiding hell?

 

[Dan123]

Omnipotent in every way

Well no, because omnipotent means to have unlimited power and be able to do anything. But in your own post you mention he cannot sin, he cannot be weak. He cannot do evil as that would be a sin. This is where debate-terms like ‘maximally powerful’, the idea that God can do all that can be done, comes from, which I’m fine with, but “omnipotent in every way” no, correct me if I’m wrong but your own post seems to demonstrate he is omnipotent only to the degree it does not conflict with his nature.

Also @rossum since you’re a rare voice with another viewpoint, in your faith is you concept of the divine incapable of doing evil acts? That is, can he do evil but chooses not to, or does his nature prevent him from doing so?

 

[Freddy]

that follows Dan’s question

Do you mind me asking how old you think the planet is, Bill?

 

[Bill_B_NY]

the idea that God can do all that can be done, comes from, which I’m fine with, but “omnipotent in every way” no, correct me if I’m wrong but your own post seems to demonstrate he is omnipotent only to the degree it does not conflict with his nature

Yes, that’s right. I appreciate the correction. God can do all that can be done - as consistent with Being. He cannot deny Himself or be false. His power is consistent with truth and reality - and He is Truth and Reality. He is the affirmation and fulfillment of that which is real – and therefore all good. Evil is a deprivation of the good - a lack of it.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Now poisoning school children I would hope is against God’s will, but I know it’s harmful to the wellbeing of the children and even if there’s some benefit for this John fella it’s hard to imagine it outweighing the harm. I guess I’m saying ideas like wellbeing don’t require you to be Catholic, or Christian, or even religious at all to use them as measuring tools. And to be honest I think the venn diagram of Catholic good/evils, good/evils of other religions, and those of secular morality theories overlap probably 99%, I’m sure @rossum would be right next to us yelling at John.

Right, exactly. Good analogy. There are certain natural values. Rossum mentioned some in Buddhism - avoiding anger and other vices. Even atheists would agree.

I guess it’s just strange to me to throw out the idea of ‘good’ being beneficial to ones life. If it’s just rooted in God’s will, what’s the reason one should desire to live according to God’s will? Avoiding hell?

That’s the ultimate question - a big challenge and necessary.
That answer has to be sufficient for people who do not even believe in God - I think.
The beginning, you said it well in the question:

“Why should we desire …” that’s the word. We want something.
We want to eat, we want to sleep, we want to reproduce, etc.
Why?
That is like animals. They want to survive, that’s about it.
But we have a rational mind. We seek something more.
In everything we do - we always want what is true and good. We just have that built into our internal GPS - it’s locked on that target.
Even if we do the most destructive things - we want a Good from it.
Drug use - we want the “goodness” of pleasure (at a huge destructive cost, but it is done by many for that “good”).
Adultery - we want the “good” of that experience, at the cost of so much suffering.
Every sin - has that desire for good.
So, why God’s will, which actually will cause sacrifice, pain, suffering, hardship?
First - it is the path to perfect our virtues and the qualities of our soul.
Wanting to to God’s will - just wanting that already improves us.
Now when we become more perfect in virtues, strength, knowledge of God, self-giving, we become more like God - we’re doing His will.
Now - what we want the most is to do God’s will. This is consistent with our rational mind. It is the most logical. God is the source of all good. If we follow His plan, we become changed into what is good - and that is what we want in every situation anyway,
Most of us confuse “the good” with “the pleasurable or comfortable” - our opponent, the Devil helps make that confusion.
But when we are ready to put aside the comfortable, at least once in a while, and do the “difficult good”, then our own soul is changed for the better and we end up building something that will last forever.

 

[Dan123]

Yes, that’s right. I appreciate the correction. God can do all that can be done - as consistent with Being. He cannot deny Himself or be false. His power is consistent with truth and reality - and He is Truth and Reality. He is the affirmation and fulfillment of that which is real – and therefore all good. Evil is a deprivation of the good - a lack of it.

Just making sure we’re on the same terms. So lets speak about a hypothetical deity, I can’t say if this is the belief of an existing religion or not just to be clear. Imagine an om(name removed by moderator)otent, omniscient, benevolent deity similar tot he God of Christianity with one important distinction. The nature of this God isn’t that he cannot sin, but that he chooses not to sin. The end result may very well be the same, as this deity would always do good just like the Christian God, but as he could sin wouldn’t the set of things this god could do be larger than the God of Christianity’s?

To be honest, the ‘nature of God’ always feels like a not very useful answer, like we’re kicking the can down the road. Did God create his own nature? Can he change his nature? Presumably not as if he could they would simply be arbitrary. Often in debates atheists are asked where do things like laws of nature and physics come from, we’re told we not only must account for the rules, but where they come from; we’re told laws have law givers. So then I ask where does the law that that binds God to his nature come from? More a philosophical question than one I expect you to answer.

If we follow His plan, we become changed into what is good - and that is what we want in every situation anyway,

Can his plan include planning for sin? Would this not conflict with his nature to accomplish good acts knowing it will create sin?

 

[rossum]

If Brahma is omnipotent creator - that is an equivalent to the Catholic God.

That passage comes from an analysis of errors found in non-Buddhist religions. That particular error is the belief that the universe is partly eternal: the god Brahma, and partly non-eternal: humans, animals etc. The passage goes on to explain why Brahma is mistaken, and how he came to be mistaken. See the Brahmajala sutta, the passage appears in the “Wrong View 5” subsection at the beginning of the Second Recitation section.

In Buddhism, it is an emptying and annihilation of self

This is a common error. Buddhism does not annihilate the self. Buddhism enables you to realise that what you think is your self is no such thing. It has as much reality as the “water” in a mirage. You cannot annihilate something which never really existed in the first place.

To paraphrase Heraclitus: “You can never step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.”

 

[rossum]

This is a key concern for you but you’re only looking at a limited part of it.

Frankly I am little interested in the excuses made for the wrong actions of the Old Testament God. Those actions are wrong – killing the unborn is an obvious one – by any reasonable moral standard. In Buddhism the gods do not get a free pass on morality. Karma applies to all living beings, gods included. Actions have consequences.

Buddhism lacks the concept of sin. It only has actions: useful, neutral and not useful. Useful actions move you closer to enlightenment, not useful actions move you further away. Of course, the lack of sin also means the absence of forgiveness of sin; you cannot avoid the consequences of your actions. Thus the great emphasis on mindfulness to make sure that an action you take is useful before you take it. There are no do-overs. If you do the crime then you do the time.

Suffering on earth is part of the plan

Suffering on earth can be avoided. The Buddha attained enlightenment at age 35. He died age 80. That was 45 years in nirvana while still living on earth. All those other people who have attained enlightenment since then have also avoided suffering for the rest of their lives.

 

[Noose001]

Buddhism lacks the concept of sin. It only has actions: useful, neutral and not useful. Useful actions move you closer to enlightenment, not useful actions move you further away. Of course, the lack of sin also means the absence of forgiveness of sin; you cannot avoid the consequences of your actions. Thus the great emphasis on mindfulness to make sure that an action you take is useful before you take it. There are no do-overs. If you do the crime then you do the time.

I’m interested in understanding the meaning of ‘useful’ in Buddhism;
Q. Is abortion useful especially when the mother and the child are in danger of sufferation?

Suffering on earth can be avoided. The Buddha attained enlightenment at age 35. He died age 80. That was 45 years in nirvana while still living on earth. All those other people who have attained enlightenment since then have also avoided suffering for the rest of their lives.

You also need to define suffering, to me death itself is sufferation, to a Muslim fundamentalist, shredding themselves into pieces while killing others is not sufferation but a guaranteed pass to their form of nirvana/valhalla.

 

[Zerg]

I believe the marvels of evolution to be true, in a theistic sense, directed by God. However, Adam and Eve were the first humans to have a soul.

I believe creationism is just one of many possible explanations for life originating on earth. I wouldn’t encourage the literal interpretation of the OT without pastoral guidance or the church teaching.

 

[rossum]

Also @rossum since you’re a rare voice with another viewpoint, in your faith is you concept of the divine incapable of doing evil acts? That is, can he do evil but chooses not to, or does his nature prevent him from doing so?

There is no special divine in Buddhism. Men can be reborn as gods; gods can be reborn as men. Moral law, karma, applies to all. If a god kills then the consequences of that action are on that god. ‘Actions have consequences’ applies to all actions. Who takes that action is of letter importance.

ETA: Whoops! s/letter/lesser in that last sentence.

 

[rossum]

I’m interested in understanding the meaning of ‘useful’ in Buddhism;

Read the Kalama sutta.

You also need to define suffering, to me

[The Buddha said:] “Now this, monks, is the noble truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering, separation from the loved is suffering, not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.”

Dhammacakkappavattana sutta

 

[o_mlly]

Not sure why you want to insist that environmental change is random.

A root problem in the scheme of evolution claims is the leap from observed microevolution to unobserved macroevolution. i.e., speciation.

If we see events which have equal probabilities of occurring then we call such events random. (The random designation may not be real but only reflect our present ability to discern the probability of future events.) We may be able to assign different probabilities to rain occurring tomorrow but we cannot do so for the number, frequency, place or time of hurricanes or droughts or floods or volcanic eruptions or earthquakes or forests or savannas or ice or deserts … in the next millennium. The environment in the long term, as far as we can now tell, is random.

In a particular environment particular characteristics of living creatures afford those creatures greater chance of reproduction. As long as that environment persists, those characteristics proliferate in the population; the population adapts to that environment, i.e., microevolution. The creatures have not evolved new properties but emphasized those that give advantage and repressed those that give disadvantage in that environment.

Change the environment and the process continues but different characteristics that give advantage in the different environment are emphasized and others repressed. The word “evolved” does not reflect this cyclic phenomenon but rather “revolved” would better capture the sequence.

Natural selection, therefore, does not as a process generate new kinds of creatures but randomly causes population changes bi-directionally, or multi-directionally if you like, to random changes in the environment whether those environmental changes are merely seasonal or over eons.

Species are not discovered but invented. The mind of man assigns creatures into categories. The principles that determine the requirements for a new species assignment are somewhat ethereal. As a science, evolution has a future but the idea that natural selection as a process explains microbes to man is imho faulty.

 

[Rau]

If a population becomes separated into 2 groups - experiencing different environmental conditions - the two populations can develop (evolve) in different directions. I see nothing inherently preventing the differences becoming such that we define the 2 groups as being different species.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

This is a common error. Buddhism does not annihilate the self. Buddhism enables you to realise that what you think is your self is no such thing. It has as much reality as the “water” in a mirage. You cannot annihilate something which never really existed in the first place.

To paraphrase Heraclitus: “You can never step in the same river twice, because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.”

The Catholic view holds that our self persists. We have awareness of self and even in old age, we can remember younger years as the same version of our self as we are when we are older. Self is not to be annihilated or rendered-illusory, but the demands of self for satisfaction are denied. In the end, the self is purified - so it can choose rightly.

In our view, we make conscious choices with free will. The choosing is done by our self. From that also we have our character and personality. When we practice virtue, our self improves.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Not sure why you want to insist that environmental change is random. Speciation is often driven by environmental change, such as when a population is separated - part of the population finding itself in one place and part in another. This creates the circumstances for the two populations to develop different characteristics.

The same random mutation in one environment may be beneficial and in another be detrimental. But the environment changes for the species itself. An adaptation for the cold will be harmful if climate turns warm. But this occurs at the micro level - as one adaptation fixes in the population, it changes the environment.
Evolution is random. This makes it easier to attempt a probabilistic view - and thus we realize how far-fetched the evolutionary story really is. There is not enough time to generate the information required for the new body plans in the Cambrian Explosion, for example, through this randomized process.

Natural selection is the result of reproductive success - a randomized output for reasons given. The creation of new DNA code for cellular function means there must be a massive amount of new information - that has to come from this randomized process, and is mathematically impossible.

Even computer simulations attempting to create new code via random mutation have been completely unsuccessful. And that’s with controlled, non-random environments. The same process, in the wild of nature? It can’t happen,

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Buddhism lacks the concept of sin. It only has actions: useful, neutral and not useful. Useful actions move you closer to enlightenment, not useful actions move you further away. Of course, the lack of sin also means the absence of forgiveness of sin; you cannot avoid the consequences of your actions. Thus the great emphasis on mindfulness to make sure that an action you take is useful before you take it. There are no do-overs. If you do the crime then you do the time.

It sounds like a rigorous process but as I see it, there’s a gap. First, there are do-overs. That’s the whole point. There’s a process of redemption. But most importantly, some sort of justice is assigned. We should know, by now, what is the punishment for the un-useful act of killing someone? Is it always exactly the same? Who admisters the justice? Is the justice weighed by various factors? This ends up being the same as forgiveness in many ways. A murder is committed. Karma has a punishment for murder. But one murder is done through cruelty, the other accidentally. Same punishment? If so, that’s unjust - so the law giver, punisher here must pay karma for an unjust punishment.
However, if deliberate murder and accidental murder get different penalties - then this is forgiveness. The person did the crime, but did not do the time. He committed murder. But it was accidental. What about a person, after committing the crime, who repents and makes up for it? The same karma as the person who does not repent? If so - then unjust. If not, then it’s the same as forgiveness.
So, it sounds rigorous - but do we know who is assigning the punishments? Is there a judge we can appeal to? How is the evidence weighed? Fairly, justly? Or is it weighed imperfectly and unjustly- with karma assigned incorrectly?