What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?

[PRmerger]

My topic is: “What exactly is the knowledge of good and evil?”

I already answered this. Pope JP2 answered this in Veritatis Splendor.

It is the usurpation of man of the right to call something good and evil.

That’s above our paygrade.

That belongs to God Alone.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Evil and good definitely don’t work together. “Grace upon nature”, remember?! Look at the practical happenings in the world and you will see that evil and good definitely do not work together but rather fight against each other. Start with practical reality and aim upwards from there.

In a certain sense, from our own perspective, yes, they seem to oppose each other, but in reality they are both being used to bring our world to its completion.

 

[friardchips]

In a certain sense, from our own perspective, yes, they seem to oppose each other, but in reality they are both being used to bring our world to its completion.

If man uses reason and reason and faith point to the Divine, then the use of good reason, although maybe imperfect knowledge still when compared to Divine Knowledge, does not point away from the Divine. And so to say that good and evil both work together is to say that reason and unreasonable behaviour points to the Divine. This is unreasonable. You see?

If however, you were to say, that good works for our good - as is witnessed in life - and good confounds evil, suffers evil, heals and so destroys evil, by preserving us despite evil, then this would make reasonable sense.

 

[fhansen]

Study the Kabbalah and tell me it does not reflect something much deeper. The rest of the bible deals with the harsh consequences of possessing the knowledge of good and evil. OTOH, perhaps I’m wrong; perhaps we need to take this passage at face value, but I’m still lost in defining “good” and “evil.” To say, for example, that evil is simply the absence of good does not make sense to me because there is “good” in this otherwise miserable and corrupt world. From my view of this world, good and evil are working together for the sake of our salvation.

But of course there’s good in this world; Its not hell. And that’s the point Robert. Ask yourself, what do we have knowledge of here? The answer, both good and evil. Whereas, in Eden before the Fall, only good was known. The knowledge of good and evil iteself was a consequence of the fall, simply because both were experienced from then on.

 

[friardchips]

But of course there’s good in this world; Its not hell. And that’s the point Robert. Ask yourself, what do we have knowledge of here? The answer, both good and evil. Whereas, in Eden before the Fall, only good was known. The knowledge of good and evil iteself was a consequence of the fall, simply because both were experienced from then on.

• this. From the Fall, humanity had to undergo or rather be vulnerable to and suffer evil, to be brought back to Paradise. This suffering is in humility of gratitude expressed in submission to the Divine Will, as opposed to pride, and this acceptance brings with it both joys and trials of life. So both good and evil are not directly Willed by the Divine Will, per say, but rather, thanks to not being left on our own unto death, and instead generously given Divine help, evil has been accounted for, in the bigger picture of Good Himself, in order that, despite the essence of evil which turns us from our Creator, our Creator has preempted the efforts of satan, the destruction of evil and the selfishness of an eternal Fall, with His Divine Mercy. We have to participate with Good that evil in us be destroyed. So the evil that occurs in life is a consequence of The Fall and humanity suffers it and sometimes cooperates with evil in order to escape it, unfortunately, but what is fortunate, and triumphant, is that Divine Mercy has the last say.

 

[Robert_Sock]

But of course there’s good in this world; Its not hell. And that’s the point Robert. Ask yourself, what do we have knowledge of here? The answer, both good and evil. Whereas, in Eden before the Fall, only good was known. The knowledge of good and evil iteself was a consequence of the fall, simply because both were experienced from then on.

I agree with much of what you say, but I’m not sure you define “good” and “evil.” Do you believe that they are working together in this world?

To say that we experience them both because of the fall is true, but how? For example, at least some Jews believe that we have two minds, one from the divine soul and the other from the animal soul. This may or may not be correct, but it does better job at explaining them than most of the other posts on this thread. (If we have two largely independent brains, one male and the other female, it stands to reason that we have two minds.)

 

[OneSheep]

Study the Kabbalah and tell me it does not reflect something much deeper. The rest of the bible deals with the harsh consequences of possessing the knowledge of good and evil. OTOH, perhaps I’m wrong; perhaps we need to take this passage at face value, but I’m still lost in defining “good” and “evil.” To say, for example, that evil is simply the absence of good does not make sense to me because there is “good” in this otherwise miserable and corrupt world. From my view of this world, good and evil are working together for the sake of our salvation.

Oh, but Robert, we can take really do the topic some justice with an example.

I’ll provide an example. Jane deals with stress by abusing alcohol. She is an alcoholic. Are you saying that the alcoholism itself is an evil? Makes sense, alcoholic abuse is something that is occurring. The “evil” is the alcoholism itself because it causes suffering. Suffering, however, is the impetus for repentance, which is good. Repentance itself is another occurrence. As a result of alcoholism in humanity, people develop laws limiting the age when one can begin drinking, but there is also an underlying push from those who suffered the most to eliminate alcohol production altogether. Is this what you are talking about, “good and evil working together for the sake of our salvation?”.

But does “alcoholism” itself have an “existence”? Is it in itself a distinguishable piece of matter or energy? Perhaps the altering of the brain in the way that makes it very difficult to stop drinking is an alteration that we can call “evil”, but such alteration is the brain’s way of making the best of a bad situation, its function is selected for during evolution, in some way the capacity for alteration benefited our survival. So, alcoholism in the strict scientific sense does not have an existence that can be labelled evil.

So, what is working here is that good and evil occurrences “work together” for the sake of our salvation.

The problem with the word “work”, though, is this implies a separate mind in the act of creation/salvation. And if there is such a separate mind, it is a separate power, and then we run smack into dualism.

Is my example way off from what you are thinking?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Oh, but Robert, we can take really do the topic some justice with an example.

I’ll provide an example. Jane deals with stress by abusing alcohol. She is an alcoholic. Are you saying that the alcoholism itself is an evil? Makes sense, alcoholic abuse is something that is occurring. The “evil” is the alcoholism itself because it causes suffering. Suffering, however, is the impetus for repentance, which is good. Repentance itself is another occurrence. As a result of alcoholism in humanity, people develop laws limiting the age when one can begin drinking, but there is also an underlying push from those who suffered the most to eliminate alcohol production altogether. Is this what you are talking about, “good and evil working together for the sake of our salvation?”.

But does “alcoholism” itself have an “existence”? Is it in itself a distinguishable piece of matter or energy? Perhaps the altering of the brain in the way that makes it very difficult to stop drinking is an alteration that we can call “evil”, but such alteration is the brain’s way of making the best of a bad situation, its function is selected for during evolution, in some way the capacity for alteration benefited our survival. So, alcoholism in the strict scientific sense does not have an existence that can be labelled evil.

So, what is working here is that good and evil occurrences “work together” for the sake of our salvation.

The problem with the word “work”, though, is this implies a separate mind in the act of creation/salvation. And if there is such a separate mind, it is a separate power, and then we run smack into dualism.

Is my example way off from what you are thinking?

Your example of alcoholism is a mini example of how good and evil work together to bring about repentance. It’s scary to me how suffering can bring about “good.” Trauma is often needed for personal and religious growth. But these examples are at the personal level and not at the global level of our world.

 

[OneSheep]

Your example of alcoholism is a mini example of how good and evil work together to bring about repentance. It’s scary to me how suffering can bring about “good.” Trauma is often needed for personal and religious growth. But these examples are at the personal level and not at the global level of our world.

Okay, so can you provide an example at the “global level”?

Thanks.

 

[fhansen]

I agree with much of what you say, but I’m not sure you define “good” and “evil.” Do you believe that they are working together in this world?

To say that we experience them both because of the fall is true, but how? For example, at least some Jews believe that we have two minds, one from the divine soul and the other from the animal soul. This may or may not be correct, but it does better job at explaining them than most of the other posts on this thread. (If we have two largely independent brains, one male and the other female, it stands to reason that we have two minds.)

The Church teaches that we have two minds in a sense. One is led by the spirit and reason, drawn to delighting in righteousness and obedience, while the other doesn’t really care about anything except what it can get, what might benefit it or give it pleasure, etc. That side only wants; it doesn’t know what it wants for sure but is persuaded that, unless it continues to want, it won’t have, it won’t have all that it could have, or be all that it could be.

That is the state or attitude or persuasion or concept initiated by Adam, requiring a breech from his Creator. It’s essence, in fact, is lack of trust in God, that God will satisfy us. Once we lose trust in God, we have no God for all practical purposes; we become our own god. But, as Jesus tells us, “apart from Me you can do nothing.” And Aquinas: “God, alone, satisfies.” We’re here, with the opportunities we have which include the knowledge of good and evil, to learn those lessons: God exists and He is trustworthy and true and man needs Him; man was made for communion with God. At some point, in full communion, we will have all we can possibly want.

Evil, in one sense, is anything less than full communion with God. The worst evil we now experience is a sort of semi-detachment from Him in our exile here, even as belivers. Again, anything that detracts from or takes away from the perfection that otherwise issues from God, is evil to one degree or another, even if only slightly, relative to the perfect good He has in mind.

But as all perfection depends on and comes from Him, it lies in being aligned with Him and His will. Anything outside of that tends towards chaos , disorder, injustice: evil- the evil that we all know here in a million different ways. To the extent that we’re in union with God we acheive our own perfection.

In this life were asked to walk by faith-faith, itself, being a relatively dim foretaste of that union, of the “vision” of God. But here we’re challenged to seek it, to develop a hunger for it, to come to want only Him, the ultimate Good, above all else, to turn from the evil we know here, to begin on the road to perfection that finally is consummated in complete Union with Him in the hereafter.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Okay, so can you provide an example at the “global level”?

Thanks.

I’m not sure if I said this before on this thread, but look at all the world growth that occurred over the past 150 years. How could our world have gone through such change if good and evil opposed each other? Indeed, if good and evil were always opposed to each other, our world would have crashed long ago.

Why does God allow evil to flourish in today’s world? Surely He is powerful enough to eliminate it.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m not sure if I said this before on this thread, but look at all the world growth that occurred over the past 150 years. How could our world have gone through such change if good and evil opposed each other? Indeed, if good and evil were always opposed to each other, our world would have crashed long ago.

Why does God allow evil to flourish in today’s world? Surely He is powerful enough to eliminate it.

Robert, this is an argument that makes sense, but I am trying to understand what “good and evil working together” actually means in a global example versus the “personal example” I presented.

Let me try with a “global example”.

We human have had a tendency to put a lot of bad stuff in the air and get really sick before we start doing anything about air pollution. The air pollution is the “evil”, which we suffer globally, and the efforts to curb the pollution are “good”. “Salvation” takes place in the knowledge we gain and in discipline. Is this what you mean by a global example?

In this case, again, the good and evil refer to occurrences. Industry in itself is well-intended, and so are the environmental activists, so the they are both “good”.

Does this example illustrate what you are saying?

Thanks.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert, this is an argument that makes sense, but I am trying to understand what “good and evil working together” actually means in a global example versus the “personal example” I presented.

Let me try with a “global example”.

We human have had a tendency to put a lot of bad stuff in the air and get really sick before we start doing anything about air pollution. The air pollution is the “evil”, which we suffer globally, and the efforts to curb the pollution are “good”. “Salvation” takes place in the knowledge we gain and in discipline. Is this what you mean by a global example?

In this case, again, the good and evil refer to occurrences. Industry in itself is well-intended, and so are the environmental activists, so the they are both “good”.

Does this example illustrate what you are saying?

Thanks.

Now I’m not sure what it is you’re asking of me. Let me use another example: Suppose Satan has the power to place us under a spell. Now consider that placing us under a certain spell motivates people to work and procreate. The spirit from Satan is the “evil” and the survival and growth of our world are “good.” Here, good and evil are being used together in our world for the survival of God’s creation.

 

[friardchips]

Now I’m not sure what it is you’re asking of me. Let me use another example: Suppose Satan has the power to place us under a spell. Now consider that placing us under a certain spell motivates people to work and procreate. The spirit from Satan is the “evil” and the survival and growth of our world are “good.” Here, good and evil are being used together in our world for the survival of God’s creation.

Please look at the OP’s introductory post to this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=984851

To quote the Cardinal:

“…[m]ercy isn’t tolerance, in as much as it does not limit itself to “endure” the sinner, leaving him to continue to sin; rather, it denounces sin openly, and, precisely in this way, it loves the sinner: it recognizes that the sinner doesn’t consist of his sin, but is more; it leads his actions to the light of truth, the whole truth: and thus offers him salvation. Hence, [m]ercy doesn’t justify sin, in virtue of the socio-cultural, political-economic or personal circumstances that exist, but it so esteems man as to ask him to give an account of all his actions, thus recognizing him to be “responsible” before God.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Please look at the OP’s introductory post to this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=984851

To quote the Cardinal:

“…[m]ercy isn’t tolerance, in as much as it does not limit itself to “endure” the sinner, leaving him to continue to sin; rather, it denounces sin openly, and, precisely in this way, it loves the sinner: it recognizes that the sinner doesn’t consist of his sin, but is more; it leads his actions to the light of truth, the whole truth: and thus offers him salvation. Hence, [m]ercy doesn’t justify sin, in virtue of the socio-cultural, political-economic or personal circumstances that exist, but it so esteems man as to ask him to give an account of all his actions, thus recognizing him to be “responsible” before God.”

My post says nothing about sin, but one possible explanation of how the evil of Satan can work in conjunction with “good.”

 

[truetofaith]

I’m not sure if I said this before on this thread, but look at all the world growth that occurred over the past 150 years. How could our world have gone through such change if good and evil opposed each other? Indeed, if good and evil were always opposed to each other, our world would have crashed long ago.

Why does God allow evil to flourish in today’s world? Surely He is powerful enough to eliminate it.

It’s not God’s plan to eliminate evil…if it was, He would have done so in the Garden of Eden.

 

[friardchips]

My post says nothing about sin, but one possible explanation of how the evil of Satan can work in conjunction with “good.”

Try replacing the word ‘sin’ with ‘evil’ in the excerpt from the Cardinal’s words and you might get the point.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

In a certain sense, from our own perspective, yes, they seem to oppose each other, but in reality they are both being used to bring our world to its completion.

It sounds as if you had the ability to switch from “your own perspective” to “reality” at wish. But “your own perspective” is the apprehension of an object within a limited context, while “reality” would be the apprehension of the same object within the set of all possible contexts, which is impossible to any human being. Instead of saying “I choose to believe…”, you prefer to say “in reality…”, without further explanation, but if you were able to visualize every possible context, explanations would flow freely from your mouth.

How is the world “complete”? With dinosaurs or without dinosaurs? With every individual creature that has existed or with just a few of them? With all my possible gestures displayed simultaneously or with just one of them (the ugliest or the most beautiful)? With “evil” or without “evil”?

You are getting inspiration from Judaism, but you depart from its doctrines immediately: they do not believe on a substantial “evil”, so to say; but when you reject the Augustinian approach which explains “evil” as the absence of a good or being that should be, you tend to substantialize “evil”. Augustine is more Judaic than you in that respect. When he proposed his idea, he was precisely opposing it to the Manichaean doctrine of “evil” as a substantial being.

I hope you don’t take my comment bad. Anyway, I might be playing the role of the “evil” which is collaborating with the “good” to complete the world.

 

[OneSheep]

Now I’m not sure what it is you’re asking of me. Let me use another example: Suppose Satan has the power to place us under a spell. Now consider that placing us under a certain spell motivates people to work and procreate. The spirit from Satan is the “evil” and the survival and growth of our world are “good.” Here, good and evil are being used together in our world for the survival of God’s creation.

I was asking for an example to illustrate your point. Does my example work for you? Your example needs some explanation.

For example, satan as ordinarily depicted would not be in the business of motivating people to work and procreate. That is God’s doing, right? So, we have the work, the procreation, the survival, and the growth all resulting from the same source. Therefore, I do not see “two” in operation, only “one”.

Did I miss something?

 

[Robert_Sock]

I was asking for an example to illustrate your point. Does my example work for you? Your example needs some explanation.

For example, satan as ordinarily depicted would not be in the business of motivating people to work and procreate. That is God’s doing, right? So, we have the work, the procreation, the survival, and the growth all resulting from the same source. Therefore, I do not see “two” in operation, only “one”.

Did I miss something?

Satan tempts people with greed which motivates them to work and he tempts people to lust, which leads to procreation. But that aside, I still believe that Satan can cast us under a spell that has positive qualities that promote the ongoing “success” of God’s creation. Again, good and evil can work together to promote creation, and this is the reason God allows evil to exist.

Isaiah 45:7 - “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.” (Douay-Rheims)