What does your religion say about good and evil?
March 2, 2009
Baha'i
By Wade Caves
The nature of good and evil has been the subject of religious and philosophical discourse for centuries. Out of this discussion has come the concept of “original sin” and other related doctrines, stating that humans are born with inherent evil and that the only good in this world comes from the bestowals of God’s abundant grace. But is it possible for good and evil to coexist?
To make an abstract concept more tangible, let’s consider the sense of sight. We recognize that there is sight and there is blindness. There is a seemingly apparent dichotomy here — either you can see or you can’t. But what is blindness but a lack of sight? “Blindness” is a word we have attributed to mean “without the sense of sight,” but blindness itself doesn’t actually exist.
Similarly, “ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence” (‘Abdu’l-Baha).
And so we come to good and evil. The same principle applies: good is an existing thing, and so evil is necessarily nonexistent. The evidence of evil comes only when goodness is absent, in the way that darkness is only experienced when there is no light.
The purpose of a Baha’i life is to progress spiritually — to attain the endless spiritual qualities and perfections that God has created us for. The most that can be said about evil, then, is that it is imperfection — a lack of what is more perfect and good. Now that I’ve belabored the point, let’s move on to the implications of evil’s nonexistence.
The creature “Satan” has been used as an embodiment of all evil. Baha’i teachings deny the existence of evil, and so deductively the Baha’i teachings also deny the literal existence of Satan. “Satan” and “satanic” things are metaphorical terms used to describe the solely materialistic ambitions of our lower natures. Heaven and Hell are allegories, too, symbolizing the psychological and spiritual states of nearness to and separation from God.
So what of qualities like selfishness? Greed? Anger? Baha’is believe it’s how these qualities are used that determines their worth.
Selfishness is a form of self-love. It is important to remember that all love, even self-love, is admirable. It’s when self-love dominates all else to become the consuming motivator in one’s life that the use and purpose of love is perverted, and consequentially this love lacks goodness.
Selfishness, greed, anger, jealousy, ambition, power, etc., are not inherently evil qualities. All the forces and faculties within us are God-given and thus potentially beneficial to our spiritual development. To use and display these qualities in a depraving way, however, makes them blameworthy.
Baha’u’llah urges us to work and develop what is good and meaningful in this world, to bring light where only dark was before. As a reassurance, Baha’is believe “it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent” (‘Abdu’l-Baha).
Reach columnist Wade Caves at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Christianity
By Thomas Cloud
Entire lives have been spent contemplating the nature of good and evil and countless volumes written about it from many Christian perspectives. While I cannot explain all of the theodicies (theological arguments for why evil exists), I can explain why Christians of all denominations believe that an omniscient, infinite, perfect God can exist when there is evil in the universe.
Evil exists through reasons beyond our comprehension. As God is infinite and our minds are finite, we cannot fully comprehend his nature or actions. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts,” says Isaiah 55:9.
That God and evil can simultaneously exist because God’s ways are not fully comprehensible is logically irrefutable. The mere existence of evil does not disprove the existence of God. Where history’s great minds disagree is why God allows evil to exist; again, these paradigms are known as theodicies.
A common theodicy, one which I believe, is the free will theodicy. It argues that in order for human beings and angels to love God, they must have the free will to choose him. This implies that with their freedom to choose, humans and angels cause evil. Therefore God does not create evil, he just creates the possibility of evil.
What about deaths caused by natural disasters or animals — aren’t they evil? Possibly yes and possibly no. It could be argued, as theologian Peter Kreeft does, that as humans are imperfect due to their sinful nature, God uses natural disasters to teach humanity what courage is. But as with the case of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, God can also use natural disasters to punish mankind. In this sense, the disaster can still be “man made.” It is also possible that some events could be the result of demons, such as Job’s sickness in the second chapter of Job.
Regardless of why evil exists, Christians believe evil is part of the human condition, which is called a sin nature. Evil desires entered humanity when Adam and Eve, the first humans, disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This separated humanity from fellowship with God. God is just, and he must punish sin with death. But he is also merciful, and he sent his son Jesus to die in our place and pay the price of sin. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him,” says John 3: 16-17. Jesus is the only way to God, according to John 14:6: “I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.”
To use a common phrase, “God works in mysterious ways,” and we will never understand fully while here on earth the reasons God allows particular evil events to occur. We do know, however, that evil is not eternal and that when Jesus returns, as the Book of Revelation tells us he will, evil will be utterly destroyed for all time. Until that time, however, remember to put your trust in God. “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21).”
Reach columnist Thomas Cloud at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Islam
By Zakariya Dehlawi
Islam distinguishes between good and evil and recognizes that humans have an innate ability to differentiate between them. Namely, good comes out of following God’s prescribed way and evil is due to temptation from Satan. But all of this gets very complicated with philosophical arguments.
Going into the topic, we’ve got to understand we’re talking about arbitrary concepts that people have argued about for millennia. In fact, Muslim philosophers built upon and debated the same topics the Greeks had written about centuries before. No one has a good answer, and as I’m no philosopher myself, forgive me for any errors I make, while any benefit is thanks to God.
For Muslims, any discussion of good or evil needs to mention fitrah. Fitrah is an Arabic word with intricate meanings, but in essence it’s the idea that humans are born in a pure state with an innate predisposition to good and the recognition of a monotheistic creator. It’s only environment, such as parents or society, which alters this purity and skews one’s character.
Interestingly, the idea of being born pure is in contrast to the Christian notion of original sin. Muslims also believe in the Adam and Eve (Adam and Hawwa in the Quran) story. They were both equally enticed by Satan, but were later forgiven for their transgressions. This story is used to illustrate human fallibility, especially due to Satan.
Satan, or Shaytan as he’s known in Arabic, is considered the tempter of humankind, tempting humans to commit evil. But although Shaytan is the tempter, people who actually sin commit it out of their own volition. The Quran states, “Indeed God does not wrong people at all; it is they who wrong their selves” (Chapter 10, verse 44).
Although Shaytan is the source of evil, he operates within the framework of God’s omnipotence. Shaytan cannot go against God, and only exists due to God’s will with his purpose to be a test for humankind.
If following Shaytan is evil, then following and obeying God is good. People follow God by abiding by the shari’a, which literally means clear path to water. Shari’a signifies much more than its modern usage where it’s often translated as Islamic law. Shari’a is living life in accordance to God’s desires, based on universal principles set forth in the Quran and in the examples of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). These principles are all recognizable to humans because of our fitrah.
Within the context of good and evil acts is the idea of niyah, which means intention. For Muslims, intention is as important, or even more important, then the act itself. An example is giving charity to the poor. In itself it’s a virtuous act obligatory to Muslims, but if it’s done with the intention of showing off, then it doesn’t please God. Also, the flip side doesn’t apply: A good intention can’t salvage an evil action.
In accordance with the idea of fitrah, I believe people are generally prone to goodness. We know what’s wrong and what’s right. Other than some tragic lapses of judgment in human history, I think we’re doing all right. I only pray that we continue to choose the right things and improve ourselves so that we don’t repeat the mistakes of our history.
Reach columnist Zakariya Dehlawi at opinion@dailyuw.com.
Judaism
By Natalie Sikavi
Some ancient religions believed that there are two forces in the universe, one good and one evil, and that they are constantly warring with each other. In Judaism, we do not see a conflict between good and evil. G-d created both good and evil.
Evil is defined as not fulfilling G-d’s will.
G-d created the Evil Inclination, the angel called Satan, to tempt us to do evil. If we ignore the Evil Inclination, then we get closer to G-d and become more holy. G-d gave us commandments and we are tempted to find reasons not to keep those commandments. By ignoring the temptations and fulfilling G-d’s commandments, we become more spiritual, and our souls gain more power over ourselves.
So it is not that there is an ultimate struggle of good versus evil. Within each of us there are many struggles. We want to do the right thing, but we desire to do the wrong thing. We have the free choice to choose. We can do either the right thing or the wrong thing. It is completely up to us.
When we let our Good Inclination prevail about one thing, we become stronger in that thing. The more we continue to let the good prevail, the more it becomes easier to do the right thing in that area.
Say, for example, we have a desire to tell harmful gossip about someone. If we hold ourselves back from doing it, and continue to hold ourselves back whenever we feel the temptation, it becomes easier and easier to stop gossiping. Conversely, the more we gossip, the harder it is to stop. And that’s the way it is with every individual characteristic trait.
But when we perfect one characteristic trait, it does not always help with another. For example, someone who has learned never to gossip might still steal. So each trait usually has to be worked on by itself.
Consequentially, there is no ultimate struggle of good versus evil; there is only the struggle within each of us. The Evil Inclination is doing what G-d has commanded him to do. He is giving us temptations because by fighting against our wrong desires, we are working to gain the ultimate goodness, and that is what G-d wants us to do.
Reach opinion editor Natalie Sikavi at opinion@dailyuw.com.
2 Comments
Wade Caves, I must be missing something because your argument about the nonexistence of evil seems nonsensical. You argue that evil doesn't exist because it is the absence of good, but what stops me from saying the exact opposite? That is, I could just as easily state that good is the absence of evil, so therefore good doesn't exist.
Does it make sense to ask whether good or evil "exist" at all? I would think that only good actions or evil actions have the ability to exist, since actions have tangible effects. In that case, saying evil is the absence of good is like saying evil actions are the natural void resulting from the absence of good actions. That would suggest that evil actions are the "resting state" of the universe, which is truly a frightening concept.
Hey Pascal,
I suppose you could say that good is the absence of evil, and therefore good doesn't exist. I don't necessarily see a problem with that line of thinking, if that's as far as you're going to go with it. But the purpose of these articles is to answer a prompt from our faith's perspective. Although the "evil only exists as an absence of good" argument can swing both ways, the founders of my faith have made it clear that good is the existent thing, not evil. If we take the Baha'i Writings out of it, then sure -- I think you have a good point. But this article is supposed to speak to a Baha'i understanding of the nature of good and evil.
As for your second point, it was stated in the article that (from a Baha'i perspective) all was created good. The natural resting state of the universe is either neutral or good, depending on how you look at it.
"Good" and "evil" as concepts was the nature of the discussion today; "good actions" and "evil actions" are another topic entirely, one of practical applications based off this principle. You said: "In that case, saying evil is the absence of good is like saying evil actions are the natural void resulting from the absence of good actions." I would disagree, for reasons this article is not nearly in-depth enough to explain.
I appreciate you looking into the topic so much, though, and giving your feedback.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
3 Comments
Thomas Cloud, I think it's an over-statement to say that "God and evil can simultaneously exist because God’s ways are not fully comprehensible is logically irrefutable." If God is omnipotent and the creator of everything, and if God is not fully comprehensible, then nature itself is not fully comprehensible. If that is the case, then how do we know that anything we see, think or understand is true in any sense? What validity does logic have at all? Your claim is not logically irrefutable; it defeats the entire enterprise of logical reasoning in the first place.
The reason God allows evil to exist temporarily is that he knows destroying people because they disagree or hold a conflicting viewpoint does not solve all problems. Actually, simple-mindedly covering up a question of logic can introduce serious doubt. If a person vehemently argued that a war is wrong, and the government simply killed him what would onlookers think? Obviously, this would introduce doubt in the minds of onlookers and the question would remain: "was the accuser correct actually correct?" Allowing such doubt to remain unanswered results in a never-ending self-perpetuating source of doubt for creatures with thinking abilities and free-will. The only way a question can be answered is with reason and with evidence. By allowing imperfect mankind to exist over thousands of years, God has supplied evidence that self-rule and the political ideology of Satan, the original serpent is wrong and results in nothing beneficial. In fact, mankind is on the verge of destroying itself and its home - not to mention single-handedly exterminating many of earth's co-residents (plants and animals). Self-rule, Satan's brain-child is a failed ideology. Satan's secondary charge that no human will serve God while suffering or threatened with death (as introduced in the book of Job) is also refuted. At the end of what we can see as a universal court-case, there is ample evidence to all free-willed, thinking children of God that self-rule is a miserable, contemptuous ideology. At that time also will all pain and suffering be "undone" by Jesus Christ, the king of God's Kingdom, or organisational structure designed to undo Satan's works. Satan, his cohorts, and supporters of his political ideology will be sentenced with destruction for their crimes, and those who have lived through-out history who will ascribe to the true political ideology of God-rule will live together in a world in which evil has been removed. Memories of previous pain suffered will cease to cause psychological harm, and earth's problems will be undone.
Any further attempts to introduce self-rule will be summarily crushed, backed by the evidence gathered from Satan's social experiment.
Pascal:
You said, "If God is omnipotent and the creator of everything, and if God is not fully comprehensible, then nature itself is not fully comprehensible."
That's simply not true. God could have just as easily created something more comprehensible than himself.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
1 Comments
For both Zakariya and Natalie, I don't understand why the role of "tempter," embodied by Satan or Shaytan, is necessary for your theology. You both say that God created Satan for the specific purpose of testing humankind, but in what way is Satan separate from God? What exactly is the demarcation between the two entities? Isn't it simpler, and just as accurate, to say that God tempts humans to do sin? For comparison, shouldn't I be held accountable if I design a robot for the purpose of robbing banks?
Zakarya writes, "Although Shaytan is the source of evil, he operates within the framework of God’s omnipotence." That is equivalent to saying that evil is fully under the power of God, and that evil is one consequence of God's nature (as is everything else in the universe). Perhaps it is only subjective human reasoning that distinguishes good from evil. I'm not convinced that God takes either side in the matter.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
4 Comments
This is a general comment. I think there is value in this series of articles on various subjects from differing "faith" perspectives but there are two main flaws in my view. One - why Bahai? Bahai is a minor religion with maybe 5-6 million adherents worldwide. We might as well be discussing the views of scientology...where are the great Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism - why aren't they represented? Surely there are many practicing Buddhists and Hindus on campus who would be willing to contribute a response.
Further, where is the secular perspective? Hundreds of millions of people in the world and a large percentage of this campus are areligious or shares some form of humanist secular perspective that embraces reason and science over religion. There are answers from this point of view that don't rely on ancient texts or esoteric teachers and The Daily should give this group a chance to address issues like good and evil...leaving them out is a tacit way of saying that there are no answers for life's big questions outside of religion.
Hear, hear. I'd love to hear the Hindu, Buddhist, secular, and other perspectives, as well.
It seems they were trying to go for the Abrahamic faiths, of which all four are a part of, more than anything else, which leaves out the likes of Buddhism and Hinduism. And as far as an atheist one goes, considering that these are usually about one's religion, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense of include somebody who has no religion as they'd only be representing themselves and not any coherent system of beliefs.
I don't think there was any particular attempt to only include the Abrahamic faiths or to exclude any others. I think this is just the result of only being able to find people who wanted to write about these religions. It tends to change each quarter, at least a little.
Post a comment
You must login with your dailyuw.com account or connect with Facebook to post a comment.
If you have any questions about this policy, send us an email. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
#1 Pascal C.
(UW Campus)
on March 2, 2009 at 9:26 a.m.