Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


IF EVIL IS A LACK COULD GOD LET SUCH EVIL HAPPEN AS A WEAPON AGAINST ANOTHER FORM OF EVIL, PURE ONTOLOGICAL EVIL?

Analyse, “Evil is pure evil - a power.  Another form if evil is just evil as in that which twists good and which is not pure evil or a power in its own right.  Both are terrible but would God be right to let us suffer forever if it was the only way to stop say one second of pure evil?  Say that pure evil is contained and hardly seems to matter.  What then?

Another thought, is pure evil that lasts only a moment and hardly impacts as bad as pure evil that is eternally enduring?  Is what matters not what evil does or how long it lasts but what it is?"

Take the first bit.  So what are we asking?  Suppose evil could be a being or person.  It is something real in its own right and not just like a good that is not good enough and falls short and is a lack. Suppose there is another form - the lack type which is not a being or person.  Could God be right to allow terrible things as in that type to happen forever to all his creatures if it meant he could stop pure evil just for one second?  What if that evil is just like a bad person coming into existence for a few minutes?  That would not seem to matter if the person does not get a chance to hurt others.

An evil happens. The suffering is terrible. So God didn’t stop it. Why? Perhaps it was for a greater good? Or maybe it was because it prevented or will prevent some comparable or greater evil.

Pure evil by definition is intolerable.  So the answer is God is right to let evil as a lack torment everybody forever if it is the price to pay to stop even a momentary pure evil.  It is not about any damage it might do but principle.  It is about what the evil is.

Human nature recoils from this.  This shows we are about happiness more than good and evil.  We are not really what you would expect if we were made by a good God.  This means we all like evil in our own way.  We inherently fight the evil we don't like with the evil we do like.  It gets complicated for each person likes different evil.

Religion says that evil is just good going wrong and it remains good. So evil is not really evil but is abused good. But what if pure evil, evil as in a being, ontological evil is real? Evil being a mere abuse of good does not mean it is the only kind of evil. Would God then let terrible evils happen in order to prevent or contain or defeat pure evil? Pure evil because it is real means that if one person is pure evil even if just for a second it is better for the universe to be full of other people who suffer terribly from the other kind of evil if it could do something about that one person.

If God made pure evil then God is evil. If pure evil just exists and is a brute fact then maybe it can replicate. It may be like God and have the power to make the universe from nothing,  It may have the power to create new ontological evils out of nothing.

God then gives us another reason why pure evil is intolerable.  It implies he is not truly good or not he is another form of pure evil himself.  Pure evil is a God in its own way.  If we believe in God to avoid believing in pure evil that is evil.  Why?  We just don't want to recognise evil as pure evil if it is pure evil.  That says something about the kind of people we are.

The second option speaks for itself.  Huge vast pure evil is not better than a tiny pure evil.  That would be saying that what matters is not what evil is but how it lasts and how persistent it is.  That in fact would be an evil thing to say!