Something logically worse than the devil, or is logic wrong?

[ChristianWDS]

My silly mind has come up with a dilemma that I’d like to share with my fellow Catholics.

I choose to view this as a problem with logic. Not as a problem with our beliefs.

Formal philosophy probably has addressed this area; however, I am not a philosopher. All research and searching that I’ve conducted has come up empty.

Simply -

What is worse -

a) Belief in God, and subsequently the devil
b) Belief in no God.

By my logic, the absence of God is worse than the belief/existence of God.

It gets slippery in a hurry, because, the absence of God would be worse than the devil.

Where is my logic, or this logic, wrong?

Thanks and God Bless.

 

[davidv]

My silly mind has come up with a dilemma that I’d like to share with my fellow Catholics.

I choose to view this as a problem with logic. Not as a problem with our beliefs.

Formal philosophy probably has addressed this area; however, I am not a philosopher. All research and searching that I’ve conducted has come up empty.

Simply -

What is worse -

a) Belief in God, and subsequently the devil
b) Belief in no God.

By my logic, the absence of God is far worse than the belief/existence of God.

It gets slippery in a hurry, because, the absence of God would be worse than the devil.

Where is my logic, or this logic, wrong?

Thanks and God Bless.

A couple of things that make this very difficult to respond to:

1. “worse” in regard to what criteria?
2. how does “and subsequently the devil” have anything to with the difference between a) and b)?

It seems that there is a lot “context” in your thinking is left to our imagination. Can you elaborate?

 

[ChristianWDS]

I’ll try David.

“1) “worse” in regard to what criteria?”

Logic allows an existence and a non-existence. Logic allows God and the absence of God.

AGAIN this is a logical dilemma, not a belief dilemma, because WE do not believe in the absence of God.

For those that simply believe in no God. Are they in a less favor with God, then those that are under the influence of the devil.

I think this is what I mean by worse.

“2) how does “and subsequently the devil” have anything to with the difference between a) and b)?”

Are you suggesting that the devil is synonymous with ‘Belief in no God’?

 

[CapIV]

No God means no truth. No truth means relativism. Relativism is the worst sin and breaks the first commandment of the Decalogue.

I think it would do you a great deal of good to read Thomas Aquinas.

 

[ChristianWDS]

No God means no truth. No truth means relativism. Relativism is the worst sin and breaks the first commandment of the Decalogue.

I think it would do you a great deal of good to read Thomas Aquinas.

Thanks Cap. I do read Thomas Aquinas. Is there a specific work of his that addresses the logic problem? If there is, I haven’t found it. Thanks for the help.

 

[davidv]

I’ll try David.

“1) “worse” in regard to what criteria?”

Logic allows an existence and a non-existence. Logic allows God and the absence of God.

AGAIN this is a logical dilemma, not a belief dilemma, because WE do not believe in the absence of God.

For those that simply believe in no God. Are they in a less favor with God, then those that are under the influence of the devil.

I think this is what I mean by worse.

So, I think your question is: Does ones “unbelief” affect God?

1. In the sense of His love for each of us, no. God’s love is unconditional.
2. In the sense of what he may allow to happen to us, possibly. He may allow some tragedy to occur that would trigger belief.

“2) how does “and subsequently the devil” have anything to with the difference between a) and b)?”

Are you suggesting that the devil is synonymous with ‘Belief in no God’.

No I am not suggesting that. Whether we believe the devil exists is a separate question as it is not necessarily dependent on the answer to the belief in God question.

 

[ChristianWDS]

So, I think your question is: Does ones “unbelief” affect God?

1. In the sense of His love for each of us, no. God’s love is unconditional.
2. In the sense of what he may allow to happen to us, possibly. He may allow some tragedy to occur that would trigger belief.

No I am not suggesting that. Whether we believe the devil exists is a separate question as it is not necessarily dependent on the answer to the belief in God question.

Thanks David.

I think I am looking for a logical answer and not a theological one.

I view the problem to be one with logic and not our beliefs.

 

[iamscifimike]

Disbelief in God can only come from the Devil if the Devil exists, and therefore God exists.

 

[davidv]

Thanks David.

I think I am looking for a logical answer and not a theological one.

I view the problem to be one with logic and not our beliefs.

I was trying to show you that I could not see clearly what you thought the “logical problem” was. I am still not clear what is.

 

[Mirdath]

I think I am looking for a logical answer and not a theological one.

I view the problem to be one with logic and not our beliefs.

The problem is, once you start talking about how God regards us, you’re out of logic and into theology. God according to the Catholics loves the Catholic, the devil-worshiper, and the atheist equally; God according to some Protestants only loves Protestants, according to others only loves theists, and still others agree with the Catholics; God according to Deists doesn’t much care for anyone. It’s just not a question of logic, but what you believe God to be like.

 

[CapIV]

Thanks Cap. I do read Thomas Aquinas. Is there a specific work of his that addresses the logic problem? If there is, I haven’t found it. Thanks for the help.

There is if you correctly understand the context and significance of the five proofs for the existence of God. One problem a lot of people have with Thomas Aquinas, is that they skip the very beginning, and thus treat his conclusions as solely theological instead of philosophical. But if you correctly understand the five proofs, than in Aquinas’s case, philosophy and theology are the same thing in the context of Summa Theologica.

For example, God is synonymous with Truth and Good in the sense that Aquinas teaches. The Eternal Law is the perfect Truth that only God is aware of, and we do our best to understand it through Natural Law. God is Truth. All that God does is Good because otherwise existence would not existing. (see the Summa for the much more detailed explanation.)

If this is all true, than if the Bible is the “word of God”, than it means that what is in the Bible represents Truth and Good to the best that we as humans can understand it. This means that when Aquinas makes a reference to the Bible, it is not just a “so it is written, so it be done” sort of thing, you have to have an understanding of the Catholic interpretation of the laws of the Bible. Keep in mind that Aquinas wrote for monks and priests at university, so they would have already had a Catholic interpretation of the Bible handy. So when Aquinas makes reference to Scripture, it is not just a reference to Scripture, it is a reference to the Truth that the Scripture represents which he presupposes that you (the student) already has an understanding of.

So, first you must read the entire first part of Aquinas. And if the references to God make you uncomfortable, replace the word God with Truth or Good. Plus in order to correctly read Aquinas, you have to have already read Augustine, Aristotle, Plato, and have a strong Biblical background. (universities back then were way tougher).

So if God is Truth and God is Good, than to reject God is to reject the True and the Good. And if you reject Truth, than all is relative. This is why relativism breaks the first commandment of the Decalogue.

This is why Catholics believe that God loves all equally in the sense of their souls. Because Truth is universal. Since Truth universally affects all people, God universally loves all people.

This is admittedly very basic, but the Summa is massive. So I really suggest reading the entire thing to anyone who is truly interested since you really have to read the entire thing and have the subsequent prerequisites to grasp the entire thing.

 

[Hastrman]

It’s very simple: yes, No God is worse than the Devil. That’s why the Devil still exists.

Eh? you doubtless say (because I was intentionally obtuse; you’re supposed to feel that way).

See, the Devil still possesses one goodness: he exists. God, who is Being itself, maintains him in existence because He loves him (capitalizing that H makes me feel like I got a whole nother set of pronouns), and loving is willing the good. To lack God is not to exist: pure evil.

But *denying *God is just suffering from the delusion that one’s existence, alone of all things, does not partake of its own essence (in other words, though things exist, their existence doesn’t). It’s usually emotionally motivated; people who are actually thinking, once they start out on that track, usually end by denying the existence of everything but God.

And God doesn’t punish you for your pathological emotional needs.

 

[ChristianWDS]

Thank you all for your contribution. The contributions have brought clarity.

Summary -

Mirdath -* “once you start talking about how God regards us, you’re out of logic and into theology”*

Yes, I see this. Furthermore, I think we all agree the judge is seated at the right hand of our Father.

CapIV adds (via some good stuff from St. Thomas) “God universally loves all people.”

Hastman contributes “It’s very simple: yes, No God is worse than the Devil. That’s why the Devil still exists.” Also the post points out* “See, the Devil still possesses one goodness: he exists. God, who is Being itself, maintains him in existence because He loves him”.*

Summary of confirmations and learning’s -

Confirmations -

God created all.
God loves all.
Jesus waits to judge the living and the dead.

As a mortal, to logically attempt to opine what is worse (from God’s view) - to be influenced and under the control of the Devil or not to believe in God is folly and more importantly inconsequential.

Learning’s-

With all that said, drawing a scale - with Heaven on top, and Hell on the bottom; placing an X where non-believers may lie is too simplistic?

An aside with a slight twist through extension – trust me, I know this is highly controversial and not correct! Is it not more gracious to our Father not to recognize the Devil?

Which view is more pleasurable to our Father?

a) A digression is the work of the Devil
b) A digression is due to the absence of God and not heeding to the Holy Spirit within.

It is awfully appealing not to recognize the Devil – but to only recognize the lack of God’s presence.

I don’t think this is a glass is half-empty glass is half-full situation.

Yes I know, a whole new can of worms and serpants!!!

 

[puzzleannie]

My
Simply -

What is worse -

a) Belief in God, and subsequently the devil
b) Belief in no God.
.

worse meaning what?
worse for the fate of the immortal soul?
worse objectively
worse psychologically?
worse in what sense?
more shameful
more scandalous
more irrespective of the truth
more damaging to the individual

 

[davidv]

Which view is more pleasurable to our Father?

a) A digression is the work of the Devil
b) A digression is due to the absence of God and not heeding to the Holy Spirit within.

It

You have presented here a false dicotomy by 1) not including all things that may be pleasureable to our father and 2) presenting as an option (b) that is a direct contradiction to to premise that God exists (“Which is more pleasurable to our Father?” assumes God exists). As such there is no logical answer.

 

[Mirdath]

Is it not more gracious to our Father not to recognize the Devil?

Which view is more pleasurable to our Father?

a) A digression is the work of the Devil
b) A digression is due to the absence of God and not heeding to the Holy Spirit within.

It is awfully appealing not to recognize the Devil – but to only recognize the lack of God’s presence.

Who’s gracious to whom? The devil is just as much a creation and child of God as we, even if he is held to be irredeemably lost. I may not believe in either, but it seems unbecoming to me for the believer not to recognize and even to love the prince of darkness – there is no such thing as wasted love.

Isn’t a favorite quote of several around here that ‘the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was in convincing the world he didn’t exist’? If you avert your eyes so, you’re falling into exactly the same trap many accuse we godless heathens of walking right into.

And I don’t see exactly how recognizing a ‘lack of God’s presence’ jibes with the idea that God is omnipresent.

Anyway, this is an entertaining little chapter of Cabell’s Jurgen that seems apropos:

*They tell, also, that in the old days, after putting up the shop-windows for the night, Jurgen was passing the Cistercian Abbey, on his way home: and one of the monks had tripped over a stone in the roadway. He was cursing the devil who had placed it there.

“Fie, brother!” says Jurgen, “and have not the devils enough to bear as it is?”

“I never held with Origen,” replied the monk; “and besides, it hurt my great-toe confoundedly.”

“None the less,” observes Jurgen, “it does not behove God-fearing persons to speak with disrespect of the divinely appointed Prince of Darkness. To your further confusion, consider this monarch’s industry! Day and night you may detect him toiling at the task Heaven set him. That is a thing can be said of few communicants and of no monks. Think, too, of his fine artistry, as evidenced in all the perilous and lovely snares of this world., which it is your business to combat, and mine to lend money upon. Why, but for him we would both be vocationless! Then, too, consider his philanthropy, and deliberate how insufferable would be our case if you and I, and all our fellow parishioners, were to-day hobnobbing with other beasts in the Garden which we pretend to desiderate on Sundays! To arise with swine and lie down with the hyena? -Oh, intolerable!”

Thus he ran on, devising reasons for not thinking too harshly of the Devil. Most of it was an abridgment of some verses Jurgen had composed, in the shop when business was slack.

“I consider that to be stuff and nonsense,” was the monk’s glose.

“No doubt your notion is sensible,” observed the pawnbroker: “but mine is the prettier.”*

 

[iamscifimike]

Perhaps I should elaborate:

If God exists then disbelief in Him comes from the devil and therfore the not worse than the devil.

If God does not exist then disbelief in him is merely an accurate assessment and therefore not worse than the devil. (who does not exist either)

 

[St_Aloysius]

The reason we count the Devil as our enemy, the reason he enjoys such ill-fame, is precisely because he, by his own choosing, is evil. It is not that he is the “personification of evil,” just the first sinner and the foremost. What we deplore in him is evil, which is the deprivation of goodness–God the Ultimate Goodness.

Likewise, we would account the absence of God that comes with the basic principles of atheism to be similarly abhorrent.

In both cases, it is the deprivation of God that, ultimately, we hate.

I for one do not hate the Devil himself. I pity him… He is wicked and evil and disgusting–and these things I hate–but I do not hate him.

If this is somehow contrary to Catholic teaching, please inform me.

 

[Hastrman]

Who’s gracious to whom? The devil is just as much a creation and child of God as we, even if he is held to be irredeemably lost. I may not believe in either, but it seems unbecoming to me for the believer not to recognize and even to love the prince of darkness – there is no such thing as wasted love.

Personally I consider it a great credit to God’s mercy that the Devil still exists–since God’s love is what maintains anything in existence.

And the whole “more gracious to Our Father” thing sort of implies they’re covering up a mistake–that is, that they think God errs in maintaining Satan’s existence. They should be singing from the rooftops that even the Supreme of all Traitors is still the recipient of that existence-sustaining Love.