Refuting Zoroastrian style dualism

[FireFromHeaven]

I was reading an atheists attempted refutation of Aquinas’ fourth way. It went as follows:

IV. Fourth Way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection

In this argument, Saint Aquinas attributed all positive absolutes to God as the standard for all things. But it can also be logically possible that God is the absolute perfection of evil. For instance, if there are degrees of cruelty, then God must be the cruelest being. If there are degrees of insanity, then God must be the perfectly insane being. Hence, the so-called standard of “perfection” can be applied to both good traits and bad traits simply because these traits have gradations or degrees of perfection.

Now I’m not commenting on the refutation but this made me think. If there must be a being of perfect evil and of perfect good and since both are incompatible, wouldn’t there have to be seperate beings for each? Feel free to point out the massive (assumed) holes in my thoughts.

However this made me think to search for a refutation of the Zoroastrian idea of Ahriman and Ahura Mazda. Does anyone have such a refutation or an idea for such a refutation?

 

[valekhai]

I think the standard apologetic response here would be to say that evil is not something on its own, but a lack of good. Similarly, insanity is a lack of sanity. You’d then keep God as your standard of perfect goodness, perfect sanity, etc., but say that evil and insanity are what we call things that depart far enough from that standard.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I think the standard apologetic response here would be to say that evil is not something on its own, but a lack of good. Similarly, insanity is a lack of sanity. You’d then keep God as your standard of perfect goodness, perfect sanity, etc., but say that evil and insanity are what we call things that depart far enough from that standard.

Ok then that refutes my idea. Anything on refuting Zoroastrianism?

 

[valekhai]

Ok then that refutes my idea. Anything on refuting Zoroastrianism?

From a Catholic perspective, no.

 

[ccmnxc]

Now I’m not commenting on the refutation but this made me think. If there must be a being of perfect evil and of perfect good and since both are incompatible, wouldn’t there have to be seperate beings for each? Feel free to point out the massive (assumed) holes in my thoughts.

I don’t think so. Piggy-backing off of valekhai’s point on evil being the absence of good, I would also add that things can be perversions of good as well. Take eating, for example. Eating, in and of itself is generally a good thing. However, it can be twisted into gluttony, which is an evil. As to having two beings for good and evil, as stated earlier, you don’t need it. Adding onto that, Aquinas’s first way, there can only be one being who is pure actuality, as having two beings being pure actuality would be a contradiction. This is because they would still have that potential of being the other, which is not pure actuality. Hence, there can only be one being to make it all come together. As to Zoroastrian dualism, do you think you could flesh it out and explain a little bit more with regards to what it holds to? Thanks.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Pretty much Ahura Mazda is the good creator god and Ahriman is an evil deity. Both have existed eternally and Mazda has angels while Ahriman has demons. Mazda created the world.

 

[openmind77]

I think the standard apologetic response here would be to say that evil is not something on its own, but a lack of good. Similarly, insanity is a lack of sanity. You’d then keep God as your standard of perfect goodness, perfect sanity, etc., but say that evil and insanity are what we call things that depart far enough from that standard.

If evil is not something on its own, then what is this person known as Satan? (in whom Christians believe, although I personally don’t believe in such a person)

 

[openmind77]

Pretty much Ahura Mazda is the good creator god and Ahriman is an evil deity. Both have existed eternally and Mazda has angels while Ahriman has demons. Mazda created the world.

Actually I thought Zoroastrian dualism was pretty much like the Christian belief system - Ahura Mazda was God and Ahriman was the Devil or Satan. The main new thing in Christianity was the introduction of the Trinity (instead of just one God in Zoroastrianism).

Of course Jesus taught a lot of other things (besides the nature of God) which are not in Zoroastrianism, but otherwise the dualism does not seem to contradict any Christian doctrine.

 

[valekhai]

If evil is not something on its own, then what is this person known as Satan? (in whom Christians believe, although I personally don’t believe in such a person)

The first fallen angel, according to most. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the relevance.

And I don’t believe in him, either.

 

[openmind77]

The first fallen angel, according to most. I’m sorry, but I don’t see the relevance.

And I don’t believe in him, either.

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought Satan is all evil, i.e. personifies evil and currently rules Hell (or the underworld) just like God rules the heavens (according to Christian doctrine). You said ‘evil is not something on its own’ - wouldn’t evil on its own be Satan?

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Actually I thought Zoroastrian dualism was pretty much like the Christian belief system - Ahura Mazda was God and Ahriman was the Devil or Satan. The main new thing in Christianity was the introduction of the Trinity (instead of just one God in Zoroastrianism).

Of course Jesus taught a lot of other things (besides the nature of God) which are not in Zoroastrianism, but otherwise the dualism does not seem to contradict any Christian doctrine.

More or less you are correct. However from my study of Zoroastrianism Ahriman is an eternal and uncreated being. Unlike Satan he was not subservient to God.

 

[jimmy]

If evil is not something on its own, then what is this person known as Satan? (in whom Christians believe, although I personally don’t believe in such a person)

Satan isn’t an opposite of God. Satan is a created being that chose evil. Really not much different than a man like hitler or Stalin.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought Satan is all evil, i.e. personifies evil and currently rules Hell (or the underworld) just like God rules the heavens (according to Christian doctrine). You said ‘evil is not something on its own’ - wouldn’t evil on its own be Satan?

I think you are misunderstanding. Satan is evil however he is not the cause of evil or its personification. At least from what I know.

 

[openmind77]

More or less you are correct. However from my study of Zoroastrianism Ahriman is an eternal and uncreated being. Unlike Satan he was not subservient to God.

OK thanks. I see the difference.

But I hope they believe that Ahura Mazda is more powerful than Ahriman then.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

OK thanks. I see the difference.

But I hope they believe that Ahura Mazda is more powerful than Ahriman then.

They believe in the end that Ahura Mazda will triumph and Ahriman will either repent or be consumed by his own rage.

 

[openmind77]

I think you are misunderstanding. Satan is evil however he is not the cause of evil or its personification. At least from what I know.

I just checked wikipedia (not that it is the last word), but it says Ahura Mazda created Ahirman (Angra Mainyu).

So Zoroastrian dualism is pretty close to the Christian God and Satan dualism.

Though Satan is not the cause of evil, but he does tempt man? (Sorry don’t mean to derail the topic but I want to see the essential difference between Zoroastrianism and Christianity - other than the Christ himself)

 

[valekhai]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought Satan is all evil, i.e. personifies evil and currently rules Hell (or the underworld) just like God rules the heavens (according to Christian doctrine). You said ‘evil is not something on its own’ - wouldn’t evil on its own be Satan?

I see where you’re coming from now.
He definitely isn’t seen as ruling over Hell (in popular belief he is, but that’s never been an orthodox belief). He may be viewed as the most evil being in existence, but that isn’t incompatible with the belief that evil is just a departure from the standard of good set by God. Satan would just be the being that has fallen furthest from that standard.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

I just checked wikipedia (not that it is the last word), but it says Ahura Mazda created Ahirman (Angra Mainyu).

So Zoroastrian dualism is pretty close to the Christian God and Satan dualism.

Though Satan is not the cause of evil, but he does tempt man?

Here we go!!! This site explains that Angra Mainyu/Ahriman is the counterpart of Spenta Mainyu. Both emanated from Ahura Mazda and have free will. It seems Spenta Mainyu resembles Jesus.

altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/AhuraMazda.htm

Does that fit into Christian Theology? I don’t think so but you never know.

 

[openmind77]

Here we go!!! This site explains that Angra Mainyu/Ahriman is the counterpart of Spenta Mainyu. Both emanated from Ahura Mazda and have free will. It seems Spenta Mainyu resembles Jesus.

altreligion.about.com/od/mythologicalfigures/a/AhuraMazda.htm

Does that fit into Christian Theology? I don’t think so but you never know.

Interesting, thanks.

I had many Zoroastrian friends in high school in India. India used to have the largest Zoroastrian community in the world (originally refugees from Iran), but they are slowly dying out (I think). Many have moved to the US.