Why does a good God promote suffering?

[Darcy88]

Schopenhauer has some subtle ideas about religion... Basically, his argument is that man (well not just man, all life - "Will" to use S's term) took the option of abandoning timeless, desireless, uncontingent existence in order to acquire material form. Man/Will gains material consistency, a body to call his own - but he also gains an adversary in the form of an external world he can't control.

So by this argument, even things like natural disasters are just consequences of our having opted to live in a material, contingent world - well not "our" having opted for this, but the subconscious souls that we carry.

In a sense, the Devil can be interpreted as "the spirit of materialism" or "the architect of the world" - some argue that everything that is matter is the Devil's work. Hence earthquakes etc. can be blamed on the Devil rather than God. Where this leaves God's supposed omnipotence, I don't know... I kind of intuitively think of God as having agreed not to intercede (much) in the material world... and perhaps the suffering of humanity will seem, from the transcendent perspective, irrelevant - just as the second you awake from a nightmare, it's as though it happened to someone else.

Damn, that's some insight you have into this matter. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. According to Christianity at creation God became material or brought materiality into existence, and with that began this contingency you speak of. Thus began differentiation and contrast and strife. To wish that all be good and calm is to wish for universal death, a receding of creation and cessation of the material.

Please keep posting here. This post of yours is very well-written and informative, a joy.

[Paulclem]

Paul's point is very well answered and explained by darcy. "Being born is setting out to sea and if that sea is without ripple, without wave or tumult.......what's the point? " and also " if God created a crystal palace utopia then life would suck. Without evil life would suck. Indeed, without suffering and without evil life would cease" this is what i have already wrote. but these wordings are much better than mine which darcy used to interprete this view. What darcy if we replace the word suck with stuck ?

we cant say anything senseless without knowledge. i think i have shared a story or gave hint of that from quran about Moses and khizer. When Moses asked God in little pride that on earth is there anyone who have more knowledge then me? God suggested him to meet with khizer. he met him and asked him" whether i can walk with you to learn that knowlegde which u have" ? khizer replied you cant walk me coz u would nt hold patience! you are unable to make sense about the things which happens around me. Moses insisted. khizer said on one condition you can go with me that is you will not question me. Moses gave his words! They start their journey. They reached at river and aksed a poor professional boatman to drop them on the other side of the river, and sat in the boat. When they were leaving khizer made some holes in the new ship of poor boat man. Moses wondered and could not stop himself to make a question “why did u make holes in the only ship of poor boat man?” khizer taunt him that he was not supposed to make a question no matter how much senseless things happened. Moses was curious but revised his promise to continue his journey with khizer to learn what he got. They continued and reached at a place where some kids were playing. Khizer killed a child with no apparent reason. Moses now could not control himself and burst in wonder “why did u kill an innocent boy” this was totally sense less for Moses that boy was the only son of his parents. The same dialogue was spoken and moses said that give me last chance I’ll not ask question again and once more time they continued and reached at a village. Khizer asked some food from the dwellers but they refused to give strangers any compensation. Khizer now started to rebuild a wall of a plot which was about to fell. Moses helped him and when they finished, khizer step forward to leave the village. Moses was again surprised he caught the arm of khizer and asked why did not you ask for food again as wages?

Khizer stopped and said to moses “you and me cannot walk together” and here khizer unveiled the secret of patience “how can u keep patience without knowledge” if u dont have knowlegde you cannot keep patience.

Before leaving he also told him the reasons of his acts which were directly commanded and directed by God. On the otherside of the river there was a new cruel king who was snatching the new boats to make his naval fllet for deep waters so I made holes. That kid was the child of faithful couple, this kid would make trouble not only for himself but also would be caused to damage the faith of his parents. Now I killed him, his parents would keep patience that God does always good, in the reward God give them more children which would prove blessings for his parents. That kid would also be dwel in paradise for eternity. The last act, that plot belongs to a noble man who prayed while dying that o my lord, when my children reached at the age of maturity then the treasure which he buried under that wall would open to them.

i have a verse in mind about it. La hola wla quwata illa billa, beautiful and mind opening verse to understand the intention system , suffering and blessings. which also clarify the point what devil's work is, how many basics powers in the universe etc.. will write soon..

I have a problem, Usman, with trying to discuss contrary ideas when you just post texts and stories from your tradition. Although I would discuss the issues with you, I don't want to critique what might be important texts to you and your tradition, as this seems disrespectful.

The other thing is that I don't see texts and stories from your tradition as answering the question. It's asking me to adopt your viewpoint in a way that would give access to the significance of what you post. Obviously I can't do this. There lies the problem - stories told to believers are esily believed and given credence, but what do they mean to someone from a different tradition or religion?

[Paulclem]

Schopenhauer has some subtle ideas about religion... Basically, his argument is that man (well not just man, all life - "Will" to use S's term) took the option of abandoning timeless, desireless, uncontingent existence in order to acquire material form. Man/Will gains material consistency, a body to call his own - but he also gains an adversary in the form of an external world he can't control.

So by this argument, even things like natural disasters are just consequences of our having opted to live in a material, contingent world - well not "our" having opted for this, but the subconscious souls that we carry.

In a sense, the Devil can be interpreted as "the spirit of materialism" or "the architect of the world" - some argue that everything that is matter is the Devil's work. Hence earthquakes etc. can be blamed on the Devil rather than God. Where this leaves God's supposed omnipotence, I don't know... I kind of intuitively think of God as having agreed not to intercede (much) in the material world... and perhaps the suffering of humanity will seem, from the transcendent perspective, irrelevant - just as the second you awake from a nightmare, it's as though it happened to someone else.

Has a theology or tradition developed from this, or is it the speculation of a theological philosopher that just represents his thoughts on the subject? As it stands, it just seems another story/ explanation/ speculation withoput anything to back it up.

[FranzS]

Has a theology or tradition developed from this, or is it the speculation of a theological philosopher that just represents his thoughts on the subject? As it stands, it just seems another story/ explanation/ speculation withoput anything to back it up.

Schopenhauer's ideas are largely derived from the Hindu Upanishads and Buddhism. He had an interest in the occult and the paranormal, which influenced his belief that mind or spirit lay at the root of things. Anyone who takes a serious, and suitably detached, interest in these things will discover that they are real.

Interestingly, numerous scientists have been great admirers of Schopenhauer, including Einstein, Schroedinger and Pauli - all of them Nobel prize-winning physicists. His ideas support non-materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics.

[Paulclem]

Schopenhauer's ideas are largely derived from the Hindu Upanishads and Buddhism. He had an interest in the occult and the paranormal, which influenced his belief that mind or spirit lay at the root of things. Anyone who takes a serious, and suitably detached, interest in these things will discover that they are real.

Interestingly, numerous scientists have been great admirers of Schopenhauer, including Einstein, Schroedinger and Pauli - all of them Nobel prize-winning physicists. His ideas support non-materialist interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The problem I have with this is that there are major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, not to mention occult - pagan? - ideas. Buddhism/ mind Hinduism/ spirit/ soul ideas are difficult to reconcile, and how do the basic tenets of the religions - karma, reincarnation or rebirth, the wheel of life, caste - sit with his ideas?

Is the support of influential scientists proof of his veracity? It might be that they were attracted to a non-theistic interpretation of the uniiverse and religion. What do you think?

[FranzS]

The problem I have with this is that there are major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, not to mention occult - pagan? - ideas. Buddhism/ mind Hinduism/ spirit/ soul ideas are difficult to reconcile, and how do the basic tenets of the religions - karma, reincarnation or rebirth, the wheel of life, caste - sit with his ideas?

I'm not an expert on Eastern religion so I can't really answer your question. Also, I haven't read Schopenhauer's works in full. "The World as Will and Representation" is 1000 pages long and I doubt I'll read it in full anytime soon. But if you know his basic ideas, I find you can dip into his works at any point and get the gist. He writes with wonderful clarity and common sense, avoiding jargon and always getting straight to the point.

Schopenhauer actually described his philosophy as the true philosophy of the New Testament - he preached forgiveness, compassion and the interconnectedness of all life. (It's striking how at odds with his personality his philosophy is - as a man he was misanthropic, misogynistic and altogether rather unpleasant; his argument, I suppose, would have been that the nature of his soul was in conflict with his worldly ego.)

Broadly speaking, Schopenhauer believed that "the world is as we dream it". I'm not sure he explicitly espouses the idea of reincarnation... In a way that might not matter...

One thing I have come to understand is that belief is not just a passive state but that it affects reality. Anybody who has undergone hypnosis knows how profound the power of belief is. It's not to be treated lightly though: insight and insanity converge at a certain point. I think our material selves are not designed for full revelation of the immaterial essence of things: the body panics if the mind leaves it too far behind. To go "all the way" without losing your marbles requires exceptionally strong nerves, and you probably have to sacrifice something of your soul in the process.

Is the support of influential scientists proof of his veracity? It might be that they were attracted to a non-theistic interpretation of the uniiverse and religion. What do you think?

Oh no, nobody can prove that Schopenhauer was right. He very often invokes intuition as justification for his ideas, which is part of why I like him. I dare say that his writing alone wouldn't convince me - but experience and other reading, I think, helps me to understand what he is getting at.

Those scientists were attracted to Schopenhauer because they were interested not just in the mathematics of science, but the ultimate nature of reality. Schroedinger, in particular, was a card-carrying mystic - but not a woolly one; he was also a great logical thinker. I highly recommend his essays "Mind and Matter" and "My View of the World": few of our fashionable materialist atheists seem to be aware that their heroes had such scientifically hereticial views, and I take great satisfaction in pointing it out to them. It always shuts them up

Basically, belief creates the world. If you believe in the Catholic God, purgatory etc., that's what you'll get. If you believe in reincarnation, that's what you'll get. If you're a Buddhist, nirvana is the ultimate revelation.

At least, that's how I see it. Everything is belief, there is no immutable hard-and-fast reality. All form emerges out of the primeval soup of possibility.

[FranzS]

Damn, that's some insight you have into this matter. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. According to Christianity at creation God became material or brought materiality into existence, and with that began this contingency you speak of. Thus began differentiation and contrast and strife. To wish that all be good and calm is to wish for universal death, a receding of creation and cessation of the material.

This is something all religions seem to share: the idea of a primordial Fall - also the idea that that the mission of humankind is to reattain the state of grace before that Fall, in which all was undifferentiated.

This state of grace is both a gift and a sacrifice. The fundamental condition of our material selves is desire. We enjoy desiring, and we enjoy the satisfaction of desire: these seem to be what being alive is all about, and we can't imagine a state without desire that would not be death.

Hinduism regards time as cyclical. So, it seems, did the ancient religions of the Egyptians and the Meso-Americans. And indeed astrology. The last sign of the zodiac is Pisces, which represents the final state of the soul: undifferentiated, where possibilities are constantly bubbling forth but never acquire solidity - until the cycle starts again in Aries, which represents pure will, pure individuality.

Time and again, from culture to culture, one finds the same ideas manifesting themselves, so that one starts to wonder whether there isn't some profound semi-hidden knowledge that resides in all of us about the real nature of things.

Please keep posting here. This post of yours is very well-written and informative, a joy.

Shucks, thanks

Rock on, Albert C, eh?

[cafolini]

Damn, that's some insight you have into this matter. Everything you say makes a lot of sense. According to Christianity at creation God became material or brought materiality into existence, and with that began this contingency you speak of. Thus began differentiation and contrast and strife. To wish that all be good and calm is to wish for universal death, a receding of creation and cessation of the material.

Please keep posting here. This post of yours is very well-written and informative, a joy.

Agree with Darcy about this one. 100%.

[Paulclem]

I'm not an expert on Eastern religion so I can't really answer your question. Also, I haven't read Schopenhauer's works in full. "The World as Will and Representation" is 1000 pages long and I doubt I'll read it in full anytime soon. But if you know his basic ideas, I find you can dip into his works at any point and get the gist. He writes with wonderful clarity and common sense, avoiding jargon and always getting straight to the point.

Schopenhauer actually described his philosophy as the true philosophy of the New Testament - he preached forgiveness, compassion and the interconnectedness of all life. (It's striking how at odds with his personality his philosophy is - as a man he was misanthropic, misogynistic and altogether rather unpleasant; his argument, I suppose, would have been that the nature of his soul was in conflict with his worldly ego.)

Broadly speaking, Schopenhauer believed that "the world is as we dream it". I'm not sure he explicitly espouses the idea of reincarnation... In a way that might not matter...

One thing I have come to understand is that belief is not just a passive state but that it affects reality. Anybody who has undergone hypnosis knows how profound the power of belief is. It's not to be treated lightly though: insight and insanity converge at a certain point. I think our material selves are not designed for full revelation of the immaterial essence of things: the body panics if the mind leaves it too far behind. To go "all the way" without losing your marbles requires exceptionally strong nerves, and you probably have to sacrifice something of your soul in the process.



Oh no, nobody can prove that Schopenhauer was right. He very often invokes intuition as justification for his ideas, which is part of why I like him. I dare say that his writing alone wouldn't convince me - but experience and other reading, I think, helps me to understand what he is getting at.

Those scientists were attracted to Schopenhauer because they were interested not just in the mathematics of science, but the ultimate nature of reality. Schroedinger, in particular, was a card-carrying mystic - but not a woolly one; he was also a great logical thinker. I highly recommend his essays "Mind and Matter" and "My View of the World": few of our fashionable materialist atheists seem to be aware that their heroes had such scientifically hereticial views, and I take great satisfaction in pointing it out to them. It always shuts them up

Basically, belief creates the world. If you believe in the Catholic God, purgatory etc., that's what you'll get. If you believe in reincarnation, that's what you'll get. If you're a Buddhist, nirvana is the ultimate revelation.

At least, that's how I see it. Everything is belief, there is no immutable hard-and-fast reality. All form emerges out of the primeval soup of possibility.

Thanks for that. I know little of Schopenhauer and your post was helpful. Perhaps I'll have a look sometime.

[cafolini]

Wilson. It was Twain who said that hell was populated with more interesting people. Nietzsche didn't.

[usman.khawar]

I have a problem, Usman, with trying to discuss contrary ideas when you just post texts and stories from your tradition. Although I would discuss the issues with you, I don't want to critique what might be important texts to you and your tradition, as this seems disrespectful.

The other thing is that I don't see texts and stories from your tradition as answering the question. It's asking me to adopt your viewpoint in a way that would give access to the significance of what you post. Obviously I can't do this. There lies the problem - stories told to believers are esily believed and given credence, but what do they mean to someone from a different tradition or religion?

they should solve the basic questions 1st.

if u read story again, all its trying to give the answer of the thread's question. we human have limited intellect in some matters. the story tells that every act of God has some reasons behind. if our intellect is not reaching there due to lack of knowledge than what we can do ?

No matter from where the tradition/quote, story/wisdom come, if it has really wisdom i m ready to accept it. no matter from where it comes.

[Paulclem]

they should solve the basic questions 1st.

if u read story again, all its trying to give the answer of the thread's question. we human have limited intellect in some matters. the story tells that every act of God has some reasons behind. if our intellect is not reaching there due to lack of knowledge than what we can do ? no matter from where the tradition/quote, story/wisdom come, if it has really wisdom i m ready to accept it. no matter from where it comes.

There's a similar story in Buddhism where a beggar man dies, and they discover that the spot where he begs is over a hoard of treasure. This too comments upon a person's lack of wisdom.

The stories are fine, but they are illustrations of thought, not the origins of the thought.

[Patrick_Bateman]

The Cathars and Bogomils of the Middle Ages believed in a mitigated dualism.

Basically that there is an Evil God and a Good God that are constantly in conflict with each other.

Other beliefs suggest evil exists because, following the Fall of Satan and his creation of an Underworld, God gave license to Satan to kind of purge humanity of evil souls by tempting people away from love of God and piety.

These ideas are far more reasonably that a sole deity who allows misery and privation.

However, if we are in fact being invited to proffer our own views, I do not believe in a Creator God but rather a God who is identical to the Universe. I believe the Universe is a sub-set of God and that the God does not intervene in humanity and its state, but instead the God oversees or regulates the perfection of nature and the workings of the Universe.

Humanity itself is responsible for evil and is also culpable for the perpetuation of evil and evil deeds. The God's responsibility is merely in supervising the workings of everything around us.

[Paulclem]

The Cathars and Bogomils of the Middle Ages believed in a mitigated dualism.

Basically that there is an Evil God and a Good God that are constantly in conflict with each other.

Other beliefs suggest evil exists because, following the Fall of Satan and his creation of an Underworld, God gave license to Satan to kind of purge humanity of evil souls by tempting people away from love of God and piety.

These ideas are far more reasonably that a sole deity who allows misery and privation.

However, if we are in fact being invited to proffer our own views, I do not believe in a Creator God but rather a God who is identical to the Universe. I believe the Universe is a sub-set of God and that the God does not intervene in humanity and its state, but instead the God oversees or regulates the perfection of nature and the workings of the Universe.

Humanity itself is responsible for evil and is also culpable for the perpetuation of evil and evil deeds. The God's responsibility is merely in supervising the workings of everything around us.

This is ok as a theory, but it does not resonate with the conception of a creator God who is personal and involved in the world. I think that's the main focus of the question.

[usman.khawar]

Paul would u plz explain the difference between lllustration of thoughts and origin of thoughts? any example to explain as well. ? seems interesting..