4 ms·
It's interesting that many atheists seem to argue that the only two choices are either a Christian god, or a basically meaningless universe, and a keystone for
by warent 5y ago
It's interesting that many atheists seem to argue that the only two choices are either a Christian god, or a basically meaningless universe, and a keystone for Christianity to be the wrong option is the problem of evil. But there are so many other philosophies that have resolved this.
For example, some Hindu schools explain that god is the only one that experiences anything. The paradox of its infinite nature means the only way it can experience its own goodness is to play hide and seek with itself in a land of illusion that appears evil.
In Buddhism, it's a beginningless tangled web of karma. The meaning is to untangle and extinguish it.
In Hawaiian mythology, you have Kane, Lono, and Ku. There is no concept of an infinitely good infinitely loving god.
This isn't to say atheism/nihilism is necessarily wrong, but the problem of evil always seems like the weakest argument in its defense.
- dsego 5y ago> but the problem of evil always seems like the weakest argument in its defense. I can't understand why anyone would see religion or philosophy that says that some poor child deserved bone cancer because of karma or some balance of good and evil in the world as anything but despicable and disgusting. What is gained from any of them, what value do they bring?
- warent 5y agoThe words "deserve" and "not deserve" are very common misunderstandings of karma. I think it's not about deserving, more like being tossed around a terrible stormy sea with a terrible rudder. That's the point of Buddhism, is to be free of it. It's not considered a desirable thing.