; our projections of human conceptions of value onto the absolute? — Janus

Isn't "the absolute" also a projection? I realize I've made similar arguments before, but ultimately arguments against projection break down unless we delineate what is reasonable projection and what is not. It also brings up a basic epistemic problem of whether we have knowledge of something like the absolute, or evil, or whatever, outside of experience, which includes projection. What's a different sort of epistemic tool other than experience? Divine revelation?

Google a copy of Evil and the God of Love by John Hick. It's out there.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/#SH3a

If we are going to be consistent in our projection of an absolute then we are projecting it as that which is beyond our understanding. It would seem absurd to then turn around and criticize our projection because a problem whuch is beyond our understanding (the existence of evil) presents itself to us.

If we are going to be consistent in our projection of an absolute then we are projecting it as that which is beyond our understanding. — Janus

I'm having trouble parsing through this sentence; can you rephrase?

It would seem absurd to then turn around and criticize our projection because a problem whuch is beyond our understanding (the existence of evil) — Janus

Aside from your response to my above request, are you saying that evil is beyond our understanding? Maybe your enumeration of your point will help with this.

Yeah part of my argument is that if there some sort of meaning then it's unlikely that this meaning to be the biggest jerk you can be. — MysticMonist

Another way to view that would be that the concept of "jerk" only obtains within a moral environment where being mean to other people is not good. So, the very concept of "jerk" only obtains within a broader moral concept where kindness (for instance) is an important moral concept ("jerk" being averse to kindness, generally).

Cultivating virtue and treating others well and seeking solace in prayer/study would suit one well regardless. — MysticMonist

Ah...if only this wisdom was proclaimed from the rooftops of The Philosophy Forum Dot Com...

I'm having trouble parsing through this sentence; can you rephrase? — Noble Dust

We think of the absolute as being that which is 'in itself' or beyond our experience and understanding. So absolute goodness would be pure goodness in itself; we can think of that only as something beyond our ken. The same goes for absolute beauty, the infinite, the eternal, and so on.

Aside from your response to my above request, are you saying that evil is beyond our understanding? Maybe your enumeration of your point will help with this — Noble Dust

No, I'm saying that the problem of evil, or the fact that evil exists in a world created out of love, is beyond our understanding. If the world is not created out of love then of course there is no problem of evil. The existence of evil cannot show that the world is not created out of love, though; because this would only follow if our imperfect understanding of the relationship between evil and love were instead perfect; which is a contradiction.

Ok, thanks. But I don't think that those absolutes are beyond our ken; rather, they poke through the fog of our perception as moments of clarity.

Yes, I agree. We have an intuitive feel for them, but no comprehensive discursive understanding. The Christian idea of the "Cloud of Unknowing"; the unknowing that knows. The problems start when we demand: "either/or". We are better to think "both/ and".

If the world is not created out of love then of course there is no problem of evil. — Janus

If the world were not created out of love, what would it be created out of? Evil? Indifference? But I see what you mean, and it looks similar to some of my arguments here: the so called "problem of evil" only exists within a context where the opposite: a world predicated on love, for instance, is the reality. Yes/no?

"Cloud of Unknowing" — Janus

Did you read that book? I bought it on a whim in a state of severe depression, and then left it on the park bench where I began reading it after it's purchase. Clearly just a result of my mental state, but...if you read it, it was worthwhile for you?

The problems start when we demand: "either/or". We are better to think "both/ and". — Janus

But yes, I agree here; both/and is better than either/or. But not by the metrics of modern Western culture.

If the world were not created out of love, what would it be created out of? Evil? Indifference? But I see what you mean, and it looks similar to some of my arguments here: the so called "problem of evil" only exists within a context where the opposite: a world predicated on love, for instance, is the reality. Yes/no? — Noble Dust

Well it could be, as according to science, created out of nothing. And I agree that the problem of evil would in that case be a pseudo-problem. So. it's either a pseudo-problem, or a problem that originates due to a our limited understanding of good and evil, creation and love.

Did you read that book? — Noble Dust

It's on my shelf, and I have taken several quick glances at it.

But not by the metrics of modern Western culture. — Noble Dust

So much the worse for the "metrics of Western Culture", then!

it's either a pseudo-problem, or a problem that originates due to a our limited understanding of good and evil, creation and love. — Janus

But I don't understand your reasoning here; why would a "real" (assuming it's not a psuedo) problem of evil be simply because of our limited understanding? Perhaps because of my own limited understanding? :-O But really, for my views on suffering (which relates to evil), see my first post in this thread in response to the OP. EDIT: I mention it because I feel like I would be repeating myself to go into more detail here.

So much the worse for the "metrics of Western Culture", then! — Janus

Indeed.

Well it could be, as according to science, created out of nothing. And I agree that the problem of evil would in that case be a pseudo-problem. — Janus

Also, the problem of evil being a psuedo-problem might obtain within a scientistic view of the world, but it doesn't obtain within actual experience. I may be preaching to the choir here, but it's at least worth it to put the thought out into this thread.

Under the assumption "God doesn't want us to sacrifice scapegoats"
Why then does the human, the perfect creation of God, sacrifice the scapegoat? — Frank Barroso

Depends at what level of inquiry you are asking that. If you are asking at the level of metaphysics/religion, then it is because of the Fall - humans have rejected God's love and are thus left with Satan's violence.

If you are asking at an anthropological / evolutionary level it is because human beings are mimetic animals who imitate each other's desires. When this imitation moves to acquisitive behaviors, conflict ensues because both cannot possess the same object. As this mimesis spreads through the community there is a dissolution of the entire community in unanimous violence of all against all. This is resolved only when this unanimous violence of the community is arbitrarily projected unto a single victim, and the whole community unites in order to kill the scapegoat, which becomes both the guilty victim responsible for the mimetic crisis AND the solution to the crisis itself. That is why the sacred is born, because the victim is seen as responsible for the peace of the community that ensues after its immolation. Out of this founding murder are born both rituals (which are meant to be a partial reproduction of the mimetic crisis for the sake of its positive resolution) and prohibitions, which are meant to prevent the propagation of mimesis that leads to the crisis. Myth is the remembrance of the mimetic crisis that arises, and it is written from the perspective of the murderers - that's why the victim or the scapegoat always appears as guilty and deserving of death - and very frequently the request for the murder of the victim is attributed to the sacred, and thus responsibility is removed or hidden from humans - it is projected unto the gods.

I bought it on a whim in a state of severe depression, and then left it on the park bench where I began reading it after it's purchase. — Noble Dust

Did you find any books helpful in your depression?

Did you find any books helpful in your depression? — Agustino

At that period of my life, no, as far as I can remember. But I'm still in the relative depression now that I was in then. So as far as books that have been helpful during times of depression...I've yet to discover something revelational. I remember reading Tillich's The Courage To Be, and feeling a sense of unexpected peace. I remember reading through the book, feeling this heavy load, brought on solely by the context of the text, and then suddenly feeling this unexpected release of the heavy load during literally the last two pages of the entire book. Maybe that's his style? Idk. I also distinctly remember reading through Teilhard's "The Divine Milieu", and sitting in Union Square. There's a moment where he says that, essentially, there are "reasons for structured belief", or something along those lines. That's a terrible paraphrase. But, I was crying in the park, in front of strangers, to give you a sense of the impact. >:O

At that period of my life, no, as far as I can remember. — Noble Dust

Yes, when I was depressed I didn't find much help in books either. However, things like prayer, sports, and having a few close friends were all helpful to a certain extent - and just getting adjusted to feeling the emotions. You know there is a point when you have emotions but you realize they can't hurt you and you don't have to react to them - that moment was quite revelatory for me. It is much like how you feel the need to give up when you're running and you keep feeling it but don't give up. It's a strange thing because to a certain extent you escape your biological programming - but it's like a muscle, it must be trained.

I remember reading Tillich's The Courage To Be — Noble Dust

I read that when depressed too >:O - but I don't remember much now. I think I liked it at first, and then didn't like it anymore lol.

But, I was crying in the park, in front of strangers, to give you a sense of the impact. >:O — Noble Dust

Haha! Why were you reading the books in the park and not at home? And did the strangers approach you and start talking to you? :P I assume if they saw you crying they must have!

However, things like prayer, sports, and having a few close friends were all helpful to a certain extent - and just getting adjusted to feeling the emotions. — Agustino

Prayer was actually an additional determinant to my emotional health at that time; it was the time at which I "fell away". I came to the realization that prayer, clearly through my own unhealthy mode, was actually not only unhealthy, but directly affecting my spiritual health; the manner in which I was approaching prayer was simply a reification of the emotional issues I was dealing with. I still haven't been able to return to prayer as a healthy discipline because of those issues.

You know there is a point when you have emotions but you realize they can't hurt you and you don't have to react to them - — Agustino

- No, I don't know anything about that. :P

I read that when depressed too — Agustino

I guarantee you it's all in the title. A fucking misleading title, at that. >:O

Why were you reading the books in the park and not at home? — Agustino

Because reading books in the park can be profound. And no, its NYC, no one approached me. And I'm a white American young male; of course I did my best to hide my emotions. :P but even if I hadn't, no one would've offered a second glance. >:O

I guarantee you it's all in the title. A fucking misleading title, at that. >:O — Noble Dust

>:O I have literarily almost zero memory about what the contents of the book are anymore. I somehow remember Kierkegaard is mentioned and there's lots of talk about the ground of being?

Because reading books in the park can be profound — Noble Dust

I never tried that. I prefer to run in parks, or watch people :-O lol

And no, its NYC, no one approached me. — Noble Dust

Hmmm so is NYC the type of place where if you lie on the ground on the street nobody stops by to see what's happening with you?

I have literarily almost zero memory about what the contents of the book are anymore. I somehow remember Kierkegaard is mentioned and there's lots of talk about the ground of being? — Agustino

The ground of being is the main gist; God is above God; beyond God. The ground of being.

or watch people :-O lol — Agustino

I do that on the regular as well. I don't run though, I'm too lazy, and I'm already too skinny. >:O

Hmmm so is NYC the type of place where if you lie on the ground on the street nobody stops by to see what's happening with you? — Agustino

It's the definition of that place.

The ground of being is the main gist; God is above God; beyond God. The ground of being. — Noble Dust

Ah, at least I remembered that... >:O

It's the definition of that place. — Noble Dust

LOL, that must be quite a depressing place to live then, no wonder you were depressed!

But I don't understand your reasoning here; why would a "real" (assuming it's not a psuedo) problem of evil be simply because of our limited understanding? — Noble Dust

I should have said that if the world is created out of nothing then there simply is no problem of evil, rather than saying it would then be a "pseudo-problem". Otherwise, in a world created out of love it is a real problem for us due to our limited understanding. This qualification is because it's impossible to imagine how it could be a real problem in itself. Could it be a real problem for God? Certainly not according to traditional theology.

Ah, at least I remembered that... >:O — Agustino

Actually, come to think of it, it was a useful concept. The idea of our conception of God being just a representation of the real God; the "God above God". That's how he phrases it; in other words, more accurately, it would be the "God above god".

LOL, that must be quite a depressing place to live then, no wonder you were depressed! — Agustino

You mean are depressed, right? I still live here :P

Actually, come to think of it, it was a useful concept. The idea of our conception of God being just a representation of the real God; the "God above God". That's how he phrases it; in other words, more accurately, it would be the "God above god". — Noble Dust

To a certain extent, but it's not that ground breaking :P

You mean are depressed, right? I still live here :P — Noble Dust

lol! See, that's why you should move to a chill, non-competitive place :P

To a certain extent, but it's not that ground breaking :P — Agustino

No? How so? It was groundbreaking within my own experience, regardless of the historical context of the concept.

lol! See, that's why you should move to a chill, non-competitive place — Agustino

Yeah, like where? Can I find cheap audio gear and rent, and somehow find a way to make a living while having time to write/record music? :s

No? How so? It was groundbreaking within my own experience, regardless of the historical context of the concept. — Noble Dust

I mean the idea itself is very old, and Tillich doesn't even express it in the best way. Also the idea itself, without the necessary experiences, isn't of much help either.

By the way, I remember this being much like Tillich's book, but much better. Significantly better ;)

Yeah, like where? Can I find cheap audio gear and rent, and somehow find a way to make a living while having time to write/record music? :s — Noble Dust

Are you kidding? You're living in probably one of the most expensive cities in the whole world! You can find much cheaper rent anywhere else, especially in third world countries where prices and rents are much cheaper for everything. That is provided you can sustain a similarly high income, which wouldn't necessarily be impossible - for example I know that if you worked online you could do it. If you were a web developer, say, you could continue the work you used to do in NYC from anywhere around the world, and earn about the same while living at a cheaper cost. If you are a musician you could probably do it if you're already somewhat established online and get funding/sales through things like Patreon.

How does dying encourage growth? — Banno

Compost.

Or, if you are an embryologist, selective cell death is the process whereby fingers and toes are differentiated. But suffering and death are not the same thing; to die is not to suffer.

humans have rejected God's love and are thus left with Satan's violence. — Agustino

God is like an angry ex-gf that slashes your tires after you told her you were gonna go hang with that other smexy bihh?

So all people who believe in Christianity readily admit we are all evil, will continue to be evil since we have fallen, but will be forgiven, its all ok, keep doing evil?

All mythology being Satan's work, does this mean Satan works through us to produce evil work? Could you elaborate on that a little?

it is projected unto the gods. — Agustino

This is telling, does this mean God is just an idea to make us feel better about our actions and actions done to us?

God is like an angry ex-gf that slashes your tires after you told her you were gonna go hang with that other smexy bihh? — Frank Barroso

No, that's ironically the mythical image of God that Christianity exposes. Violence belongs to man, not to God. So the one who slashed the tires is man.

So all people who believe in Christianity readily admit we are all evil, will continue to be evil since we have fallen, but will be forgiven, its all ok, keep doing evil? — Frank Barroso

Nope.

All mythology being Satan's work, does this mean Satan works through us to produce evil work? Could you elaborate on that a little? — Frank Barroso

Yes, what's the problem with that? All the works of evil are man's (and Satan's) not God's. That's what the Bible shows.

This is telling, does this mean God is just an idea to make us feel better about our actions and actions done to us? — Frank Barroso

That is a mythological hypothesis, because God doesn't make us feel better about our actions or what is done to us, but quite the opposite - God puts all the blame on us - it is revealed that we are behind the evil that is around us. That is precisely what makes the Biblical God different from the gods shown by mythology.