Is the model of Good/Evil Dualism Innate?

[OneSheep]

Could it not be that we have an uncalled for discomfort with being created, finite, physical beings-as opposed to being God; an inferiority complex underlying our lives IOW, inextricably bound to pride, an inordinate desire to be more than-superior to- who we really are? IOW, is there not a reason why we often fail to choose the good, or mistake the lesser for the greater?

Yes, we naturally come to these questions. And naturally our motives that seem to lead us to harm we come to resent, and those that lead us to something positive we come to see as good. Then, it seems that one cannot say that what one resents is coming from a good source, but comes from a bad source.

There we have it, dualism. For example, does pride come from a good source, or a bad source? If it comes from a bad source, we are looking at a dualistic model.

 

[OneSheep]

Good luck!

Thanks! And thanks for your contributions!

 

[fhansen]

It comes from a good source. According to Aquinas pride is “inordinate self-love”, self-love being a God-created good.

 

[ratio1]

I think that formulation is dualistic, but not in a good/evil sense. What would distinguish would perhaps be to ask a person “are there bad parts of yourself”? Or maybe “are some natural drives bad?”

Actually I realised I didn’t actually understand what dualism means.

I do know fairly extensively what yin yang is though.

 

[IWantGod]

but I don’t think metaphysical ideas are particularly hard to grasp, to be fair.

They are for some people. Try convincing someone that something cannot come out of nothing without a cause. They will tell you that science has proven that it can…

 

[IWantGod]

In other words a perversion of something good.

 

[fhansen]

Yep, that’s a way to define evil, keeping in mind that everything is good in God’s creation, but can be perverted or twisted by abuse of our wills.

 

[OneSheep]

It comes from a good source. According to Aquinas pride is “inordinate self-love”, self-love being a God-created good.

Well, Aquinas, like others, is countering the natural perception of duality, if such a perception is natural. I think you can admit that people think of the “seven deadlies” as coming from a bad source.

Do you see the “seven deadly sins” as coming from a bad source, or is the “bad source” what influences the person to a perversion of will, or neither, or both?

Isn’t it true that in the formation of the conscience, we naturally come to resent certain internal motives and capacities, and that resentment helps guide our behaviors? If so, the it follows that dualism is a manifestation of conscience-formation.

 

[fhansen]

I think we often tend to see things in black or white, us vs them, good (usually ourselves) and bad (usually them). Evil is generally perceived, at least impulsively, as anything that opposes my desire in accomplishing or obtaining some good. But much of life does involve moral choices. My selfish desires may or may not align with true goodness, that which really ought to be done.

 

[OneSheep]

I think we often tend to see things in black or white

Perhaps, and the more mature person may see more shades of grey, but even shades of gray are on a one-dimensional continuum, with black on one end and white on another. It’s still dualism, correct?

good (usually ourselves) and bad (usually them)

But when we see another person as bad, this is a projection, right? It is a projection from the same conscience that uses resentment-laced images to guide our own behaviors and compels us to correct the behaviors of others. It is a beautiful system, isn’t it?

Evil is generally perceived, at least impulsively, as anything that opposes my desire in accomplishing or obtaining some good.

There we go. Substitute the word “innate” for “impulsive” and we have dualism, which again seems very natural. Sure, Aquinas and others said things contrary to the impulse, but it is still a natural impulse. Arguably, though, some religions, including Christianity, invite us to transcend the perception.

This is important because in the mind of every terrorist, mass murderer, or serial bomber, they are destroying something they perceive as evil.

My selfish desires may or may not align with true goodness, that which really ought to be done.

I think you would have to admit, for example, that people ordinarily come to resent “selfish desire” during conscience formation. And with this resentment comes the designation of “evil” concerning “selfish desire”, adding to the formulation of an internal dualism. Then, when we see someone else behaving in a way that is not considering the needs of others, our gut says “selfish desire”, and we feel a bit negative toward the person and we are internally compelled to correct the person, including use of punishment.

Notice in your statement also the use of the word “ought”, which is directly from the conscience.

 

[fhansen]

Perhaps, and the more mature person may see more shades of grey, but even shades of gray are on a one-dimensional continuum, with black on one end and white on another. It’s still dualism, correct?

We certainly must deal with good and evil in this life.

But when we see another person as bad, this is a projection, right? It is a projection from the same conscience that uses resentment-laced images to guide our own behaviors and compels us to correct the behaviors of others. It is a beautiful system, isn’t it?

IDK. It can just be our conscience-natural law-perceiving a real injustice and reacting to it.

There we go. Substitute the word “innate” for “impulsive” and we have dualism, which again seems very natural. Sure, Aquinas and others said things contrary to the impulse, but it is still a natural impulse. Arguably, though, some religions, including Christianity, invite us to transcend the perception.

Well, Christianity challenges us to see that our immediate perceptions or selfish desires aren’t necessarily right, that love -based morality is the only right “ought” which could truly guarantee peace and happiness for all.

This is important because in the mind of every terrorist, mass murderer, or serial bomber, they are destroying something they perceive as evil.

Yes, and this is why we cannot trust our natural -our fallen?-instincts, since pride (inordinate self-love) with it’s compadre, self-righteousness, tends to displace in us the better path. All of Christianity screams one thing: put God first, the one thing Adam was asked to do but failed to do. From that failure everything descends into a lower realm; evil enters the scene, which is why, from then on, evil is literally known, along with the good of God’s creation, by contrast. And the greatest evils are committed in the name of good.

I think you would have to admit, for example, that people ordinarily come to resent “selfish desire” during conscience formation. And with this resentment comes the designation of “evil” concerning “selfish desire”, adding to the formulation of an internal dualism. Then, when we see someone else behaving in a way that is not considering the needs of others, our gut says “selfish desire”, and we feel a bit negative toward the person and we are internally compelled to correct the person, including use of punishment. Notice in your statement also the use of the word “ought”, which is directly from the conscience

Conscience formation, in the right direction, can simply be described as aligning our wills with God’s will and the natural law that resides within us already. We already know many things are right and wrong-and most societies agree on many basics; moral patterns exist IOW.

 

[OneSheep]

It can just be our conscience-natural law-perceiving a real injustice and reacting to it.

Why yes, it is, fhansen. What I am suggesting is that the resentment, the negative depiction of parts of ourselves and others is a big part of that reaction, and that dualism is a logical, and natural, manifestation of this mechanism.

Well, Christianity challenges us to see that our immediate perceptions or selfish desires aren’t necessarily right, that love -based morality is the only right “ought” which could truly guarantee peace and happiness for all.

Yes, I agree. Jesus calls us to love our enemies, which begins with forgiveness. When we understand and forgive the “bad people”, we are on the road to transcending the dualistic outlook.

All of Christianity screams one thing: put God first, the one thing Adam was asked to do but failed to do.

So, if a person makes that statement feeling negative about Adam, and mankind, or feeling that there is something, some part of mankind that is negative because of such failure, then this is an example of a dualism.

If we start with the word “should”, then what is natural is that if one complies with the “should”, that person is “good” and if one does not, that person is “bad”. This is very much an oversimplification, and the mature person learns to temper the simplicity, but this is the general mechanism.

In my observation, it is this natural mechanism itself that leads to dualism .

 

[fhansen]

“Shoulds” are necessary only if the existence of evil, or the potential for its occurrence, is possible. God’s creation, while good as a result of being His handiwork and therefore a reflection of Him, is nonetheless inherently inferior to Him, and therefore could be considered evil relatively speaking. No evil act had occurred in Eden, and could not have occurred in the absence of free will. But that gift of free will, a good in itself, made possible the expression of creation’s inherent inferiority, the possibility of creation, of us, making an unwise or less-than-perfect choice. And with a wrong choice, the first such choice necessarily being that of disobeying the Creator, of denying the perfection of His will by failing to recognize His superiority, our imperfection now gives expression, and evil given freedom to blossom, to the point where it will be literally known in the brave new world obtained by this choice.

Man wasn’t planted in Eden so that he could sin, or experiment with freedom, in order that he may gain knowledge in order to be more godlike. But once fallen, once the wrong choice is made, then we are here, in this non-Edenic world, to gain the knowledge, and therefore the wisdom, to recognize how un-godlike we really are when apart from the true God, so that we may become wise enough to run back to Him who alone possesses infinite wisdom and knowledge and perfection and so be willingly subjugated to this perfection. This communion with the Perfect One is what constitutes man’s own justice and perfection-He’s where we find it. Then evil has no more place in our world.

 

[fhansen]

I think it’s interesting to consider that the two primary opposing positions are really pride vs love, mutually exclusive, one producing sin, the other excluding sin/producing obedience.

And pride isn’t a reality on it’s own, as a God-given virture or quality, but rather a twisting or perversion of a God-given quality

 

[OneSheep]

“Shoulds” are necessary only if the existence of evil, or the potential for its occurrence, is possible. God’s creation, while good as a result of being His handiwork and therefore a reflection of Him, is nonetheless inherently inferior to Him, and therefore could be considered evil relatively speaking.

Even if something existing and inferior is defined as “evil”, the definition of dualism I am using for this thread has to do with two separate powers. Unless the “inferior” creation is for intents and purposes against God, you are not describing a dualistic universe.

What is missing from this part of your statement is some kind of power in opposition to God.

No evil act had occurred in Eden, and could not have occurred in the absence of free will. But that gift of free will, a good in itself, made possible the expression of creation’s inherent inferiority, the possibility of creation, of us, making an unwise or less-than-perfect choice.

So, if the evil act had occurred because of the influence of a power opposed to God, then we have dualism. However if the “expression of inferiority” was a description of the lack of awareness of the human or the lack of capacity for discipline because of i.e. immaturity, then there is not necessarily a dualism involved.

What I am saying is that a person reading the A&E story would naturally think “they should have known better” which likely is part of a dualistic look at the characters. “When Adam is obedient, he
is good, when disobedient, he is bad.” Sounds like a natural characterization, right?

And with a wrong choice…

Choices are the manifestation of a power, not the power itself.

Man wasn’t planted in Eden so that he could sin

Here you are referring to evil actions, which is not the type of dualism I am talking about.

I think it’s interesting to consider that the two primary opposing positions are really pride vs love, mutually exclusive, one producing sin, the other excluding sin/producing obedience.

This is an expression of the very point I am making. “There is pride and there is love.” The view that pride, a power of evil, in opposition to love, a power of good, is dualistic, and quite natural.

And pride isn’t a reality on it’s own, as a God-given virture or quality, but rather a twisting or perversion of a God-given quality

Regardless of its other characteristics, if it has a power, an existence, we are expressing a dualism.

 

[fhansen]

Even if something existing and inferior is defined as “evil”, the definition of dualism I am using for this thread has to do with two separate powers. Unless the “inferior” creation is for intents and purposes against God, you are not describing a dualistic universe. What is missing from this part of your statement is some kind of power in opposition to God.

Yes, I don’t believe that a separate power, outside of God’s ultimate control, exists. But you may well be right that people act/think like it sometimes.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, I don’t believe that a separate power, outside of God’s ultimate control, exists. But you may well be right that people act/think like it sometimes.

It is my observation that it does not matter if a person is seeing that the “power of evil” is outside “God’s ultimate control” in order for there to be dualism. If there is a “power of evil” and a “power of good”, then that is a dualistic model.

What we have in Christianity is a dualism that with a batch of caveats to make it seem like a monism. If there is more than one power in the universe, then we have dualism (or polytheism).

I am not saying that Christianity is inherently dualistic, but if the innate mechanism for human spirituality is dualistic, then people will be compelled to formulate whatever religion in dualistic ways.

 

[fhansen]

I’m not sure I understand though. If there is one eternal, infinite, God we have monism, no? And why cannot there also be lesser, created, finite, contingent powers that are allowed to make choices which are easily enough identified as good or evil based on the good or harm they do to others. Daily in this world evil choices by one person no doubt impede or obstruct the good to be had and enjoyed by others-sometimes in awful ways. Gross injustices are committed against others- I don’t think we can reasonably argue that calling these acts unjust is a mere personal judgment-call, rather than an observation that some objective moral standard has been broken. But evil only has the power we give it. As we give into it, it flourishes, as we resist it, evil ceases.

If this still presents a dualistic model, so be it.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not sure I understand though. If there is one eternal, infinite, God we have monism, no?

Yes.

choices which are easily enough identified as good or evil based on the good or harm they do to others.

Yes, this identification is not dualism in the sense of powers, it is simply useful language to identify what is dangerous and what is helpful.

But evil only has the power we give it. As we give into it, it flourishes, as we resist it, evil ceases.

So when you say “give into it”, the “it” is a power. The question is, what is the limit of that power? If we are talking about human behavior, then we are also constrained by the same limits when it comes to obedience to God.

Certainly some dualistic spiritualities involve identification of anything destructive as coming from an evil source, i.e. poisonous snakes or hurricanes, etc. While most people of the Abrahamic traditions do not see the world this way, many still see certain thoughts, motives, and behaviors in people, and specific people in particular as coming from an evil source or being evil in their existence.

If the “contingent power” is pervasive (is basically everywhere) and has a purpose in opposition to the “main power”, this still fits the definition of dualism. And at the phenomenological level, when one hears people talk about “the power of the devil”, for example, it is very common to hear descriptions of powers that are essentially infinite. Do you witness the same?

 

[fhansen]

So when you say “give into it”, the “it” is a power. The question is, what is the limit of that power? If we are talking about human behavior, then we are also constrained by the same limits when it comes to obedience to God.

The “it” is the desire to do something that is morally wrong, while desiring to obtain some good from the act. And there is certainly power in desire since it motivates everything, from Mother Theresa’s acts to those of ISIS.

Certainly some dualistic spiritualities involve identification of anything destructive as coming from an evil source, i.e. poisonous snakes or hurricanes, etc. While most people of the Abrahamic traditions do not see the world this way, many still see certain thoughts, motives, and behaviors in people, and specific people in particular as coming from an evil source or being evil in their existence.

We naturally perceive and identify as evil things that do harm to us. For the most part, we intuitively know that savage beasts and hurricanes, etc, are not evil, but they can certainly seem to be, especially at the moment of some tragedy related to them. But when another human commits some heinous act, that we know was a matter of choice and so could’ve simply been not committed, then the sense of evil is much more present. Knowledge, intent, deliberateness-maliciousness -is involved. And to the greater degree that those things are involved, the more evil the act and the more culpable the person is for committing it.

If the “contingent power” is pervasive (is basically everywhere) and has a purpose in opposition to the “main power”, this still fits the definition of dualism. And at the phenomenological level, when one hears people talk about “the power of the devil”, for example, it is very common to hear descriptions of powers that are essentially infinite. Do you witness the same?

Yes, people, especially the less mature or educated for examples, often tend to give the devil much power, even seeing evil as unstoppable perhaps.