7 ms·

I did not read the whole articles but from few paragraphs I can understand that it is stating about 'problem of evil' that believers face. Actually this proble

I did not read the whole articles but from few paragraphs I can understand that it is stating about 'problem of evil' that believers face. Actually this problem is faced only by western religious philosophy which is not wrong but have an incomplete conception of universe. Eastern philosophy states that God has created this world along with certain rules with which everyone should abide by i.e. 'law of karma'. Anyone who acts or tries to act in such a way as to harm any other living being will have to suffer reactions of his 'sin' either in this life or next life. And when that suffering is perceived it is termed as evil. But actually our acts are evil which come back as life lessons to help us introspect and improve ourselves. And this system given by God is a manifestation of his love else we may all have already be converted to Sickle wielding terrorists bent on taking each others flesh. (Of course above is a very brief description, there is much more to it)

drewcoo 3y ago
> about 'problem of evil' that believers face The problem of evil is something anyone studying Abrahamic religion encounters. Very few of the "believers" I've met have bothered. > Eastern philosophy states that . . . ORLY? Which one? > Of course above is a very brief description, there is much more to it I should hope so! I flagged this thing because it's going to lead to "religious battles," quite literally. And the article itself is full of nonsense. And fear of the natural world!
- utkarsh858 3y ago
  1) Sanatana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism they all have the concept of karma. 2) Yes!, It has lots and lots of description and details behind karma and ourselves.
canjobear 3y ago
Good luck coming up with karma-points-based explanations for all the pleasure and suffering in the world. What did the caterpillar do to deserve getting paralyzed and eaten alive by wasp larvae?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- archon1410 3y ago
  Obviously they must have done something very bad in their previous life as an animal with free will! Maybe they tortured someone as a human. I don't believe this explanation, but reincarnation usually comes along with karma in a package.
- utkarsh858 3y ago
  You are right caterpillar, and similar beings dont have much choice, whatever they do they are mistly dictated by nature and they have to act accordingly. That is why there is no karma for them. They cannot create any karma or 'sin' BUT they can suffer the reactions of the bad karma they have done in past life (in a species when they actually had the intelligence to differentiate between right and wrong). A crude example: A man torturing a caterpillar for fun, may have to take birth in a life of caterpillar and endure the same pain, either by a human or different species. Thanks for the good question, am open to more.
devwastaken 3y ago
Karma does not require suffering from sin. Karma does not require future lives either. Karmas base is much simpler - what you do has effects. It may be good, it may not be. We don't get to know, but we hope that we do good karma and avoid bad karma.
truculent 3y ago
Not sure this is the slam dunk you suggest. Isn’t this just the free will defence with extra steps? Or, perhaps, Swinburne’s argument that natural evil is a force for maturation and spiritual development. The basic conception of the argument (“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”) still seems valid if a God has created a karmic system. So I don’t think this is an issue uniquely facing Western perspectives. Personally, I don’t find the free will defence particularly convincing, either. Do we really have free will? Is free will truly necessary for education/moral goodness? And if so, is god truly capable of evil?
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > The basic conception of the argument (“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”) still seems valid if a God has created a karmic system. The difference, as I understand it, is that the free-will argument requires the existence of a creator who is either impotent, malevolent or evil (or some combination of all three). A karmic-based system requires no creator to exist.
- utkarsh858 3y ago
  1) not defending anything, just explaining what I know. 2) never heard of Swinburne. Natural evil is force for maturation and ALSO to uphold the principle of justice among all living beings. 3) No evil can harm a living being if he has not already bad stock of karma with him. And also God does not interfere with anyone's free will. If we are living with others then some laws will have to be followed. Now you will ask that how did evil actually generate because in beginning there was no bad karma. The thing is that even the intention of harming someone and attempts can generate bad karma. Our mindset towardds others must be good. 4) Nah, in eastern philosophy even beginners know this, yeah but in east also very less people actually know about themselves! 5) Yes we have free will. If given two paths with one path we know as thousand times better than other path, Still by our free will we can choose the bad one. 6) Free will is necessary for love i.e. relationship with ourselves and God. Love is morality harming any sentinent being is not. 6) God is capable of evil but he/she(whatever) does not do it.
throwaway14356 3y ago
imagine the accounting of it. It must be truly larger than life! The author is simply funny in his humanity. Without an observer nothing exists. What does exist depends on the perspective of the observer. If you were a lego structure, would it be upsetting to be made into something else? If you are trying to make the perfect widget, what to do with the previous attempts? What if reuse would allow for faster iterations? If perfection is the goal how hard is the choice? Old people need to make room for young ones who are always more deserving. The way we age we are still far from perfection. Nature needs a few more rounds. The cruel formula is how we got here. Im sure single cell organisms would have loved to be the final iteration but sadly for them that didn't happen. Our challenges are much like theirs. We also think we want a life without challenges eventho we are what we are because of them. Nice article tho, keep trying :)
antihipocrat 3y ago
What choice did the wasp have but to infect and inflict suffering upon the caterpillar? For through that suffering a hundred new wasps are given life, whose primary goal is to find other caterpillars and continue the cycle. The removal of this form of suffering from the existence of the caterpillar would require the extinction (and associated suffering) of every living member of that species of wasp. How can karma be negative to the wasp that has no choice but to act in the way it does by biological necessity? More generally, how does karma reconcile with any act originating from biology? If every creature on earth decided to inflict absolutely no harm on any other creature, then the only option would be to eliminate all life from the planet. Karma suffers from the problem of evil just as much as western religion.
- hypertele-Xii 3y ago
  The wasp can choose to start integrating non-caterpillar food sources into its diet, reducing suffering at first while it evolves the necessary digestive system, ultimately minimizing and eliminating suffering. Wasps are somewhat doomed that they haven't made this choice before. The pit gets deeper and deeper the more you dig. The climb will be longer and harder the later you start. If fish can learn to breathe air, walk on land, and care for their young, wasps can learn to not eat caterpillars.
  - tumsfestival 3y ago
    You seem to think that evolution is both an intelligent and controllable process. It isn't.
    - hypertele-Xii 3y ago
      It literally is though. Sexual selection, emphasis on selection, is conscious. You choose half the genes of your descendants. Unless there's only one mating option. You also choose where you hang, and what you eat, which drives adaptations to that environment.
      - 3y ago

drewcoo 3y ago

> about 'problem of evil' that believers face The problem of evil is something anyone studying Abrahamic religion encounters. Very few of the "believers" I've met have bothered. > Eastern philosophy states that . . . ORLY? Which one? > Of course above is a very brief description, there is much more to it I should hope so! I flagged this thing because it's going to lead to "religious battles," quite literally. And the article itself is full of nonsense. And fear of the natural world!

utkarsh858 3y ago
1) Sanatana Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism they all have the concept of karma. 2) Yes!, It has lots and lots of description and details behind karma and ourselves.

canjobear 3y ago

Good luck coming up with karma-points-based explanations for all the pleasure and suffering in the world. What did the caterpillar do to deserve getting paralyzed and eaten alive by wasp larvae?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
archon1410 3y ago
Obviously they must have done something very bad in their previous life as an animal with free will! Maybe they tortured someone as a human. I don't believe this explanation, but reincarnation usually comes along with karma in a package.
utkarsh858 3y ago
You are right caterpillar, and similar beings dont have much choice, whatever they do they are mistly dictated by nature and they have to act accordingly. That is why there is no karma for them. They cannot create any karma or 'sin' BUT they can suffer the reactions of the bad karma they have done in past life (in a species when they actually had the intelligence to differentiate between right and wrong). A crude example: A man torturing a caterpillar for fun, may have to take birth in a life of caterpillar and endure the same pain, either by a human or different species. Thanks for the good question, am open to more.

devwastaken 3y ago

Karma does not require suffering from sin. Karma does not require future lives either. Karmas base is much simpler - what you do has effects. It may be good, it may not be. We don't get to know, but we hope that we do good karma and avoid bad karma.

truculent 3y ago

Not sure this is the slam dunk you suggest. Isn’t this just the free will defence with extra steps? Or, perhaps, Swinburne’s argument that natural evil is a force for maturation and spiritual development. The basic conception of the argument (“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”) still seems valid if a God has created a karmic system. So I don’t think this is an issue uniquely facing Western perspectives. Personally, I don’t find the free will defence particularly convincing, either. Do we really have free will? Is free will truly necessary for education/moral goodness? And if so, is god truly capable of evil?

lelanthran 3y ago
> The basic conception of the argument (“Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?”) still seems valid if a God has created a karmic system. The difference, as I understand it, is that the free-will argument requires the existence of a creator who is either impotent, malevolent or evil (or some combination of all three). A karmic-based system requires no creator to exist.
utkarsh858 3y ago
1) not defending anything, just explaining what I know. 2) never heard of Swinburne. Natural evil is force for maturation and ALSO to uphold the principle of justice among all living beings. 3) No evil can harm a living being if he has not already bad stock of karma with him. And also God does not interfere with anyone's free will. If we are living with others then some laws will have to be followed. Now you will ask that how did evil actually generate because in beginning there was no bad karma. The thing is that even the intention of harming someone and attempts can generate bad karma. Our mindset towardds others must be good. 4) Nah, in eastern philosophy even beginners know this, yeah but in east also very less people actually know about themselves! 5) Yes we have free will. If given two paths with one path we know as thousand times better than other path, Still by our free will we can choose the bad one. 6) Free will is necessary for love i.e. relationship with ourselves and God. Love is morality harming any sentinent being is not. 6) God is capable of evil but he/she(whatever) does not do it.

throwaway14356 3y ago

imagine the accounting of it. It must be truly larger than life! The author is simply funny in his humanity. Without an observer nothing exists. What does exist depends on the perspective of the observer. If you were a lego structure, would it be upsetting to be made into something else? If you are trying to make the perfect widget, what to do with the previous attempts? What if reuse would allow for faster iterations? If perfection is the goal how hard is the choice? Old people need to make room for young ones who are always more deserving. The way we age we are still far from perfection. Nature needs a few more rounds. The cruel formula is how we got here. Im sure single cell organisms would have loved to be the final iteration but sadly for them that didn't happen. Our challenges are much like theirs. We also think we want a life without challenges eventho we are what we are because of them. Nice article tho, keep trying :)

antihipocrat 3y ago

What choice did the wasp have but to infect and inflict suffering upon the caterpillar? For through that suffering a hundred new wasps are given life, whose primary goal is to find other caterpillars and continue the cycle. The removal of this form of suffering from the existence of the caterpillar would require the extinction (and associated suffering) of every living member of that species of wasp. How can karma be negative to the wasp that has no choice but to act in the way it does by biological necessity? More generally, how does karma reconcile with any act originating from biology? If every creature on earth decided to inflict absolutely no harm on any other creature, then the only option would be to eliminate all life from the planet. Karma suffers from the problem of evil just as much as western religion.

hypertele-Xii 3y ago
The wasp can choose to start integrating non-caterpillar food sources into its diet, reducing suffering at first while it evolves the necessary digestive system, ultimately minimizing and eliminating suffering. Wasps are somewhat doomed that they haven't made this choice before. The pit gets deeper and deeper the more you dig. The climb will be longer and harder the later you start. If fish can learn to breathe air, walk on land, and care for their young, wasps can learn to not eat caterpillars.
- tumsfestival 3y ago
  You seem to think that evolution is both an intelligent and controllable process. It isn't.
  - hypertele-Xii 3y ago
    It literally is though. Sexual selection, emphasis on selection, is conscious. You choose half the genes of your descendants. Unless there's only one mating option. You also choose where you hang, and what you eat, which drives adaptations to that environment.
    - 3y ago