4 ms·

As a fairly traditional religious type, I'm not too worried that, say, the folks in my Bible study can't explain the theological basis for natural law, any more

As a fairly traditional religious type, I'm not too worried that, say, the folks in my Bible study can't explain the theological basis for natural law, any more than I'm worried than the folks who use my software can't explain how a compiler works. You can gain value from something without being able to explain the details - though it's also true you can do yourself quite a few favors by trying to understand at least a couple of levels down, whether as a Christian or a computer user. (And by the way, reasonably nuanced philosophical perspectives are by no means incompatible with belief in supernatural evil: just ask Thomas Aquinas, or, for that matter, I suppose, me. :-)

brownbat 11y ago
I completely agree that people don't need to know all the nuances of something to get some value out of it, in the general case. I read your response to api as suggesting people held a more nuanced view than I think they actually do. My mistake. More importantly: > reasonably nuanced philosophical perspectives are by no means incompatible with belief in supernatural evil... There are a lot of ways to take this, so just to be clear, are you saying that you believe an all-loving and omnipotent god created a willful being of pure evil?
- smithkl42 11y ago
  Sorry for the delay, just now saw this. My clarification to your last question is to fall back on the traditional understanding of evil, going back to at least Plotinus: evil is real, but it's a derivative reality, parasitic on good. So you can't have a being of pure evil: it's sort of ruled out (in this understanding) by definition. What you can have is a being that, through the good of free will, chooses lesser goods - in this case, itself - and in the process corrupts itself and effectively revolts against its Creator. Evil, yes, but not pure evil, and not originally created as such. It's not as if this line of defense doesn't have its holes, but it's plausible enough that I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. And it also explains enough that, given my other philosophical and theological predispositions, I tend to think it (or something like it) quite probable.

brownbat 11y ago

I completely agree that people don't need to know all the nuances of something to get some value out of it, in the general case. I read your response to api as suggesting people held a more nuanced view than I think they actually do. My mistake. More importantly: > reasonably nuanced philosophical perspectives are by no means incompatible with belief in supernatural evil... There are a lot of ways to take this, so just to be clear, are you saying that you believe an all-loving and omnipotent god created a willful being of pure evil?

smithkl42 11y ago
Sorry for the delay, just now saw this. My clarification to your last question is to fall back on the traditional understanding of evil, going back to at least Plotinus: evil is real, but it's a derivative reality, parasitic on good. So you can't have a being of pure evil: it's sort of ruled out (in this understanding) by definition. What you can have is a being that, through the good of free will, chooses lesser goods - in this case, itself - and in the process corrupts itself and effectively revolts against its Creator. Evil, yes, but not pure evil, and not originally created as such. It's not as if this line of defense doesn't have its holes, but it's plausible enough that I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand. And it also explains enough that, given my other philosophical and theological predispositions, I tend to think it (or something like it) quite probable.