I'm inclined to take seriously the whole idea of 'creation from nothing'. I can't give much of an argument for it, other than to note that the whole idea of big bang cosmology is premised on the notion that the entire universe came into existence from an infinitesimal point, which to all intents was nothing.

it's the fact that things come from nothing that makes spiritual freedom possible. creation, as Eagleton said in his review of Dawkins, is the original 'act gratuit', a completely free creative act, not done out of any necessity whatever.

furthermore there is an intuition that this original creation from nothing is being replicated by us and in us. That is why Christian mysticism teaches 'naughting' or 'being nothing' so as to attain identity via theosis with the source of being.

Either the ultimate Reality is alive, conscious and intelligent, or it is not. If it is, then it is what we call God. If it is not, it must be some blind process, law, energy, or substance entirely devoid of any meaning save that which man himself gives to it. — Alan Watts in Behold The Spirit

Non-dualism would not recognize this dualistic dichotomy in the first place.

This of course means that God must condone or accept evil in some sense: [...] Somehow he suggests that if one is strong enough to not be affected by it, then they have no reason to condemn evil. Which I think is wrong, and fails to avoid the ills of pantheism. — Agustino

Doubtless there are many facets to the issue addressed in the OP. I’ll here try to tackle the one addressed issue of evil.

As for me, while I prefer not to express God as first (to me, teleological) cause via pronouns, I can certainly relate to the expression of “He” when it is demarcated as specifying the first cause/prime mover (and not an anthropomorphic, omnipotent deity).

That stated, one way of accounting for evil being present alongside the first cause (which, within this outline, would also be absolute good), to me at least, can be traced back to ancient western religious outlooks. One such ancient view (I believe it was from the Greeks, thought it’s been some time since I read up on it) was that God is absolute love (love harmonizes, does away with conflict(s), makes disparate beings share a common sense of selfhood, etc.). All evil within this model then stems from a rejection of absolute love as real (“fear of love”, it can be simplistically phrased). The extents to which one pursues paths toward absolute love or away from absolute love will then have something to do with one’s context-limited/bounded freewill intentions.

The Zoroastrians held that their notion of the devil would need to be re-assimilated into inward desire for their notion of God in order for the universe to find harmony/peace (again, at the very least connoting the concept of absolute love).

To, at the very least, ancient monotheistic Judaism, Satan was understood as the “non-believer” in G-d (to slightly converge the expressions of different paths, the non-believer in the reality of absolute love … which, if it needs to be said, cannot be something physical but metaphysical).

I think that, to most people’s minds, evil is that which becomes overly self-interested at the expense of interest in the wellbeing of others. Most villains in books and movies hold this persona of pleasures obtained through egotism, necessarily conjoined with a lack of pleasure obtained via selfless strivings; the more so, the more evil the villain (one can well argue that the reality of absolute love is that of absolute selfless being). Complexities can emerge in terms of proximate and ultimate ends; e.g., a German who betrayed the common cause of those who willed the Holocaust would be viewed as overly self-interested as the expense of the wellbeing of the larger Germanic populace; other examples of complexity abound (and they’re always easiest to address when addressing “the other”).

All the same, these myriad complexities aside, within at least this one perspective that holds a long history in western cultures, it call be simplified into fear that love (ultimately, necessarily, absolute love) is a lie/illusion/wrong … at times expressed via the phrase “love leads to pain”.

Still, having mentioned this perspective, there is also a long history of wise men (and women, I would think) upholding that a mere desire and belief in (absolute) love is not enough; one must also hold wisdom in knowing how to best safeguard one’s proximity to it (paradoxically always then entailing the like proximity of others one cares for to this same metaphysical end). Sometimes that involves conflict—sometimes even harsh conflict—in the short term to optimally preserve one’s long term goal(s).

So, within this worldview, God doesn’t here condone evil but a) stands in stark contrast/opposition to it and b) would “forgive” anyone that would sincerely once again aspire toward God/absolute love (as opposed to those who merely give lip service). This can also be maintained in a roughly pantheistic worldview ... or, if one prefers, in a panentheistic worldview. Both I would think.

These being my best thoughts on the matter for the moment.

Ps. IMO, and speaking from within the perspective of the just mentioned outlook: Till anyone amongst us can validly be absolute love (a joke, actually) we all will then be in our own ways partly adverse to absolute love, i.e. fearful of it in our own ways. With this truism as a platform of our being, I’d say it’s what one then intends be eventually become that matters most. I heard one wise woman explain that we should, as a rule of thumb, strive to be 60% intent upon such absolute love and 40% adverse to it in our thoughts and actions. What a wonderful world it would be if all humans would actually so be! Huh? (And heck, imo, no need for asceticism to so intend; to mention just one example, loving sex regardless of how rambunctious and kinky will still be loving, will still be a striving toward closer proximity to absolute love ((else, it won’t be and it won’t be loving)).)

Then Watts goes on to critique part of Aquinas in light of mystical religion. Watts begins by saying that Aquinas reasons perfectly from the universe to God, but cannot reason back from God to the universe. Namely, it is not shown how the First Cause produces the universe. — Agustino

The reason why one cannot reason back from God to the universe is that the creation of the universe by God is a freely willed act. The nature of the free will act is that there is no necessity between the willing agent, and the act itself, it is freely chosen, and this denies the possibility of necessity, which is required for such a logical process.

So for example, when we see evidence of a freely willed act, we will say that a human being carried out that act. The evidence indicates that the act was an intentional act, just like the evidence in the universe indicates that it was created as an intentional act. So we can reason from the evidence, to conclude the free willing agent. But once we conclude that the act was an intentional act, the only way to reason from the agent to the act, is to have intimate knowledge of the agent, and even from this all we can do is speculate as to the intention. That is because of the lack of necessity between the agent and the act, which is the nature of the free will act. When we see the evidence of an intentional human act we might even proceed to determine who carried out the act, but without the intimate knowledge of the person we will not know why the act was carried out, and reasoning is fruitless.

In the case of God, it is common to judge the magnitude of the act itself, and speculate about the reasons for the act from the magnitude of the act. Since God created everything, from nothing, and it was His intention to create, it is assumed that the act is the most pure act of giving, an act of love.

The reason why one cannot reason back from God to the universe is that the creation of the universe by God is a freely willed act. The nature of the free will act is that there is no necessity between the willing agent, and the act itself, it is freely chosen, and this denies the possibility of necessity, which is required for such a logical process. — Metaphysician Undercover

(Y)

To say that [God] brought [the world] into being ex nihilo is not a measure of how very clever he is, but to suggest that he did it out of love rather than need. The world was not the consequence of an inexorable chain of cause and effect. Like a Modernist work of art, there is no necessity about it at all, and God might well have come to regret his handiwork some aeons ago. The Creation is the original acte gratuit. God is an artist who did it for the sheer love or hell of it, not a scientist at work on a magnificently rational design that will impress his research grant body no end. — Terry Eagleton

Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

the creation of the universe by God is a freely willed act. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, Alan Watts also assents to this. In fact, he says that precisely because creation is a freely willed act, and not necessary, we can distinguish from pantheism - in pantheism union with God is necessarily given.

is to have intimate knowledge of the agent — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly, and Watts wants to claim that in the mystical union that the mystic achieves with God, he has such knowledge. That is how he justifies the attempt to use mystical religion to complete the understanding from God to the universe.

Non-dualism would not recognize this dualistic dichotomy in the first place. — Janus

We have to be careful around this though because non-dualism is something that is applicable to God's essence in-so-far as He is uncreated, and not to creation (which is clearly dualistic). Thus, from the point of view of creation, Watts' and Aquinas' reasoning about the First Cause is valid (and the main point is that the Final Cause cannot be blind, non-living). So from universe towards God such reasoning works, his point is that from God to the universe such reasoning no longer works.

It's true in a certain way that we could be said to understand the created world dualistically, but it may be more accurate to say we understand it 'trinitistically' (because between any two things there is always either a relation or a median depending on the nature of the things in question. In another connection it could also be said we understand the world pluralistically, or in terms of the one and the many. So, I think it can be said that nature is also non-dualistic, insofar as it is both one and many.

created world dualistically — Janus

Yeah, I was referring to dualism / non-dualism as commonly used in the religious traditions of the East. For example, even Advaita Vedanta admits that there is such a thing as the dualistic mind - it is not ultimate reality, but nevertheless exists - is present qua illusion.

Non-dualism seems to be the attempt to solve the problem of monism. Namely that "one" - identity - can only be hypothesised through many - difference. So the ultimate reality according to this line of thinking cannot be "one" - for then it would not comprehend the many with regards to which it is itself the one. Without the many it could not be itself one, and if the many aren't included, then the one is not ultimate reality. So to make it ultimate reality both the one and the many need to be included, which leads to non-duality. Because it is a coherent and complete whole - and nothing is missing - it cannot be called one. Neither can it be called two, because two also requires one to be made sense of.

because between any two things there is always either a relation or a median depending on the nature of the things in question — Janus

That would depend, I suppose, between what the two things are. For example, is there a relation between squares and jealousy? It is only when we try to conceive things as forming a whole that we have to postulate relationships between them. Without interrelationships, there can be no wholeness or unity. So relationships are constitutive of wholeness and oneness, while the many and difference are constitutive of the objects which make relationships possible in the first place.

So, I think it can be said that nature is also non-dualistic, insofar as it is both one and many. — Janus

Maybe - we understand it in terms of both the part and the whole. But I think "natural" consciousness to call it so, does have a tendency towards seeing the world dualistically - as either/or - as separated by dichotomies such as living, non-living, and so on. This seems to be an integral part of creation. I suppose we would expect the uncreated to somehow be beyond the dichotomy since it is the source of the dichotomy itself.

That is why Christian mysticism teaches 'naughting' or 'being nothing' so as to attain identity via theosis with the source of being. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure if "identity" is the right word. You don't obtain "identity" since personality is still preserved. Rather you obtain communion with the divine Trinity.

Interesting with relation to some of these same points:

Interesting from a 'history of ideas' perspective. I might look at a few more Millbank videos.

As far as 'identity' is concerned - the distinction between Christian union or theosis, and the Eastern sense of union, is supposed to be that in the former, the person retains an identity, whereas in the latter, personal identity is annihilated. That is said to be the distinction between Plotinus' 'henosis' and the Christian 'kenosis'. It is a very arcane subject, though. Besides, the idea of 'identity' was more that the aim of any form of unitive mysticism is to realise an identity that is not subject to death. That is the theme of another of Watts' books, namely, The Supreme Identity.

As far as 'identity' is concerned - the distinction between Christian union or theosis, and the Eastern sense of union, is supposed to be that in the former, the person retains an identity, whereas in the latter, personal identity is annihilated. — Wayfarer

Indeed, that's what makes Christian mysticism different.

Besides, the idea of 'identity' was more that the aim of any form of unitive mysticism is to realise an identity that is not subject to death. — Wayfarer

Hmmm - maybe, but there are certainly forms of Buddhist mysticism where the goal is the blowing out of identity.

Yes, but.....the Buddha himself, as tathagatha, was presumably one whose identity was 'gone thus' - and yet, in all the dialogues, he is a figure of utmost civility, courtesy, and compassion (see for instance the story of the monk with dysentery). He devoted his whole life to patiently explaining, expounding, leading, and teaching, when he could just as easily have vanished from society at the outset.

What is 'gone' in Buddhism, is the 'burden of selfhood', the concern with me and mine. But, and this becomes especially so in the Mahayana, there is endless and infinite compassion for suffering beings. The idea of the detached and apathetic yogi, immersed in his private bliss and indifferent to the suffering of others, is I think a caricature in many ways.

Yes, but.....the Buddha himself, as tathagatha, was presumably one whose identity was 'gone thus' - and yet, in all the dialogues, he is a figure of utmost civility, courtesy, and compassion (see for instance the story of the monk with dysentery). He devoted his whole life to patiently explaining, expounding, leading, and teaching, when he could just as easily have vanished from society at the outset. — Wayfarer

No disagreement there.

What is 'gone' in Buddhism, is the 'burden of selfhood', the concern with me and mine. — Wayfarer

I think the concern with me and mine is valuable up to a point. Love your neighbour as yourself. I think this idea of complete and total abandonment of oneself is wrong. The point being that the personality of someone shouldn't be annihilated by enlightenment.

But, and this becomes especially so in the Mahayana, there is endless and infinite compassion for suffering beings. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know that the enlightened one in Mahayana refuses to cross over into Nirvana fully in order to save all other beings first.

The idea of the detached and apathetic yogi, immersed in his private bliss and indifferent to the suffering of others, is I think a caricature in many ways. — Wayfarer

It is present in some forms of Buddhism though. Not all of them, and not Mahayana, that is true.

I think the concern with me and mine is valuable up to a point. Love your neighbour as yourself. I think this idea of complete and total abandonment of oneself is wrong. The point being that the personality of someone shouldn't be annihilated by enlightenment. — Agustino

I too am a 'theistic personalist'. I think one of the reasons that Buddhism is perceived as hostile to the person also has a cultural origin, insofar as the person is not prized in traditional Eastern cultures which subjugates the personal to the familial or social. But even the Bible has Jesus saying 'He who saves his own life will lose it. He who loses his life for My sake will be saved'. I think Jesus crying out on the Cross, 'why have you forsaken me', and then actually dying, symbolises total sacrifice of the self.

insofar as the person is not prized in traditional Eastern cultures which subjugates the personal to the familial or social. — Wayfarer

Yes, this has certainly been my experience interacting with Eastern culture.

I think Jesus crying out on the Cross, 'why have you forsaken me', and then actually dying, symbolises total sacrifice of the self. — Wayfarer

To me, it symbolises the priority of God's will over man's will - of the divine nature, over the human nature.

Yes, this has certainly been my experience interacting with Eastern culture. — Agustino

Not that this is a bad thing, it's certainly much better than our Western rampant individualism :P

My view is that individualism is superior but only if it is anchored to a proper spiritual understanding, which is what has been undermined by materialism. That is what leads to the nihilism and emptiness of today's world, rather than individualism per se.

(Hey I stumbled on a great series of six lectures on Platonism by Peter Kreeft linked to the above video. Number 1 is here . I'm hanging out in a lakeside cabin this week, I will spend some time listening to these.)

My view is that individualism is superior but only if it is anchored to a proper spiritual understanding — Wayfarer

Yes, I too hold that in the debate between society and individual, the individual ultimately stands superior from a spiritual point of view. I'm not a Communist lol. Christianity would agree with this, especially in its anti-herd and anti-sacrificial (of others, not of self) elements.

Nevertheless, this idea is different from what is today generally understood by individualism.

(Hey I stumbled on a great series of six lectures on Platonism by Peter Kreeft linked to the above video. Number 1 is here . I'm hanging out in a lakeside cabin this week, I will spend some time listening to these.) — Wayfarer

Thanks for sharing that.

So the ultimate reality according to this line of thinking cannot be "one" - for then it would not comprehend the many with regards to which it is itself the one. — Agustino

That's what I think too. Unity over multiplicity cannot be the ultimate reality, reducing multiplicity (and hence individuation) to being an illusion. Unity and multiplicity are "interindependently" (Pannikar's term) real. They are the two faces of both God and nature, with the relation between them being the third principle.

That would depend, I suppose, between what the two things are. For example, is there a relation between squares and jealousy? — Agustino

Yes, the relation between those would be indifference, a difference that makes no difference, that carries no significance.

Maybe - we understand it in terms of both the part and the whole. But I think "natural" consciousness to call it so, does have a tendency towards seeing the world dualistically - as either/or - as separated by dichotomies such as living, non-living, and so on. — Agustino

I see those binaries as inhabiting opposite ends of a continuum. So between living and non-living, or hot and cold, light and dark, male and female and so on; there are infinite ranges of variation.

Exactly, and Watts wants to claim that in the mystical union that the mystic achieves with God, he has such knowledge. That is how he justifies the attempt to use mystical religion to complete the understanding from God to the universe. — Agustino

Notice though, how you present the position in the op. You claim that Watts wants to talk about "how" God produces the universe. You do not ask "why" God produces the universe. Why refers to the end, and how refers to the means. Each of these has a tentative answer. Why is answered with "love", and how is answered with "matter", God created the universe by creating matter. The difficulties, which lead to mysticism, arise when we ask of either of these, what is love, or what is matter. So we have two, very distinct forms of mysticism, one focuses on the inner, immaterial feelings of love, and the other focuses on the physical existence of matter. Both of these need to be respected, and balanced, because to place too strong of an emphasis on one tends to cultivate disrespect for the other.

Now I don't think Watts' solution works. He removes the difference between creature and Creator and re-inserts it, through the back door as it were, when it comes to morality. — Agustino

I don't understand the need to remove the difference between creature and creator. Where does this desire come from. If God created matter, as well as us, and we follow and use matter, instead of creating it like God did, why should this be seen as a problem? I think that it is the attempt to remove the distinction between creature and creator, which produces the problem of accounting for the existence of evil. If there is no separation between the creature and God, then why does the creature commit evil?

From this perspective we are forced to consider matter as the only thing which separates God from creatures, the creatures have material bodies, God does not. Then matter becomes associated with evil, as the source of evil, because these are the two things which the creature has, and God does not, a material body, and the inclination to commit evil.

So instead of maintaining the separation between God and creature, and allowing that God created matter out of love, therefore matter is good, we are forced toward the idea that matter is the source of all evil because we see it as an unwarranted separation between God and creatures.

that something has come out of nothing — Alan Watts in Behold The Spirit

Yes, something does come from nothing. https://www.thenational.ae/uae/science/something-from-nothing-is-a-quantum-possibility-1.542263 At least in the quantum world.

Yes, something does come from nothing. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596.300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing/ At least in the quantum world. — anonymous66

A quantum field isn't 'nothing'. If anything, QM proves that nothing (a pure vacuum) is impossible.

I suppose you could ask, "why are there quantum fields rather than nothing?" But if by something, you mean something physical, then it appears you can get physical stuff from the non-physical. (if quantum fields are defined as being non-physical).

I suppose you could ask, "why are there quantum fields rather than nothing?" But if by something, you mean something physical, then it appears you can get physical stuff from the non-physical. (if quantum fields are defined as being non-physical). — anonymous66

Of course quantum fields can't be defined as non-physical. Why would you think so?