Good, Evil and Panentheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

The “Problem of Evil” as traditionally presented:

Question: Can an all-powerful and all-good God create an all-good world?
An all-good God would try to create an all-good world.
An all-powerful God would be able to make an all-good world.
The world is all-good.

Orthodox monotheism, as commonly understood, argues that all three statements are true. Like others on AF, I find traditional appeals to free-will and the ‘best of all possible worlds’ defenses less than compelling. The inability of orthodoxy to adequately defend against the problem of evil follows from its misunderstanding of the nature of God.

In this thread I will present a preliminary attempt to acknowledge the apparent evil present in the world within a theistic framework. I believe this framework more closely reflects God as presented in the bible without the speculations of the Scholastics. I will do so from the perspective of a Panenthestic, neo-Platonic interpretation of Emanuel Swedenborg’s theology, widely considered a heretical position by the larger Christian community. I have capitalized terms associated with absolutes, ultimates and universals to distinguish them from approximates or appearances of the same.

Unlike Pantheism, which means ‘the natural world is God’, Panentheism means ‘the natural world is within god’. Panentheism considers God to be all of reality, or the All. The All includes a natural aspect, but also includes other aspects inferred from the natural. In Panentheism (or at least the kind I advocate) creation simply means the process of substance taking a particular form. This conforms to Swedenborg’s assertion that God created the natural world ‘out of Himself’, as opposed to ‘out of nothing’. (Out of nothing, nothing comes.)

God is defined as the Supreme Being, or the All, understood as the unity of Ideal Form (ultimate Truth) and Primal Matter (universal good).

Reality is that which is considered self-evident and primary. Objective reality exists independent of human perception. Anything capable of apprehension by the senses of anyone falls with objective reality. Subjective reality is anything apprehensible only by the experience of a specific sentient being. Every real thing has two aspects: formal and substantial. Formal is synonymous with the conceptual, abstract and ‘spiritual’. Substantial is synonymous with physical and material. While form and substance can be thought of as distinct aspects of reality, one cannot exist independent of the other. Every substance has a form and every form has a substance.

The Good is identified with Primal Matter and its essence is Love. The Good subsists in-itself and, as Love, strives for completeness and coherence. Evil is a local lack of these qualities, i.e. imperfection and corruption. The Good is the highest of all goods from which all lesser goods are derived. The goals of goods are called goodwill. The actions of goods are called good deeds. The results of goods are called virtues.

The True is identified with Ideal Form and its essence is Wisdom. The True is the manifestation of the Good’s completeness and coherence. Things that appear true can be found within and conform to the Ideal Form. What we identify as true are those things that, in our estimation and judgment, accurately embody forms taken from the True.

Where orthodoxy sees Omniscience, I see subjective experience active at all scales of reality. As an advocate of pan-psychism, I consider proto-consciousness (‘knowing’ at the smallest scale) as a universal aspect of reality. Self-awareness becomes apparent when substance reaches the level of complexity needed to bind proto-conscious monads into higher forms that more closely approximate the Ideal Form. The soul of a sentient being is the unity of that beings highest formal attributes with the smallest necessary substantial basis. Since the All is the largest scale manifesting the highest degree of complexity, the totality has within it all consciousness. God with respect to His understanding is the ‘knowing that is within all’.

Where orthodoxy sees Omnipotence, I see the universal self-organizing power (potency) within the Good to subsist and support the subsistence of lesser goods. The All strives to create wholes that reflect its own coherence and completeness. Because the All is complete and coherent, no lack can be found within it. Thus evil cannot be ascribed to the All. Since only the All can be a perfect unity, i.e. the One, all creations within the all can only partially embody the Good of the All. Thus all creations, as partial goods, express some lack of good. These lacks are called evils. Because evils are the absence of the good that would make something a perfect unity, evils are really nothing at all, just fantasies without substance or form.

Thus evil is not a universal state that we can ascribe to the All, but rather we find evils within local conditions. This is what the statement by Heraclitus that “For God everything is good, but for mortals there is good and evil” means to me.

[Faith No More]

For this to work you have to actually prove that the lack of good is evil. Evil does lack good, but what lacks good is not necessarily evil. It appears to me that there can be a neutral state. For instance, I am holding my hand in the air right now. That act lacks any good, but does that make it evil?

[Neo-Scholastic]

My first response is that you ability to do so reflects the virtue of your good health and a true correspondence between your will and actions. You also express goodwill by making a good and true example to increase understanding. But I think you make a good point (pun intended) that deserves more reflection.

[genkaus]

Des this mean we are starting again? Ok, let's dance.

The “Problem of Evil” as traditionally presented:

Question: Can an all-powerful and all-good God create an all-good world?
An all-good God would try to create an all-good world.
An all-powerful God would be able to make an all-good world.
The world is all-good.

Orthodox monotheism, as commonly understood, argues that all three statements are true. Like others on AF, I find traditional appeals to free-will and the ‘best of all possible worlds’ defenses less than compelling. The inability of orthodoxy to adequately defend against the problem of evil follows from its misunderstanding of the nature of God.

In this thread I will present a preliminary attempt to acknowledge the apparent evil present in the world within a theistic framework. I believe this framework more closely reflects God as presented in the bible without the speculations of the Scholastics. I will do so from the perspective of a Panenthestic, neo-Platonic interpretation of Emanuel Swedenborg’s theology, widely considered a heretical position by the larger Christian community. I have capitalized terms associated with absolutes, ultimates and universals to distinguish them from approximates or appearances of the same.

Nothing much to be said here. You are just giving your background.

Unlike Pantheism, which means ‘the natural world is God’, Panentheism means ‘the natural world is within god’. Panentheism considers God to be all of reality, or the All. The All includes a natural aspect, but also includes other aspects inferred from the natural. In Panentheism (or at least the kind I advocate) creation simply means the process of substance taking a particular form. This conforms to Swedenborg’s assertion that God created the natural world ‘out of Himself’, as opposed to ‘out of nothing’. (Out of nothing, nothing comes.)

God is defined as the Supreme Being, or the All, understood as the unity of Ideal Form (ultimate Truth) and Primal Matter (universal good).

You know, you could have really made the definition of god very simple, but you chose to include fancy sounding words which seem to suggest intent at later subversion. You said god was "all" i.e. everything in the universe and beyond. Why not leave it at that?

But you put it as "unity of Ideal Form (ultimate Truth) and Primal Matter (universal good)", which can lead to a lot of sidetracking questions such as
1. How is ideal form different than non-ideal form and why isn't it a part of god?
2. Why is primal matter a part of god and not secondary matter?
3. Why is primal matter good? And if secondary matter comes from primal matter, how can it not be good as well?
4. Why do you refer the form to be true?

Reality is that which is considered self-evident and primary. Objective reality exists independent of human perception. Anything capable of apprehension by the senses of anyone falls with objective reality. Subjective reality is anything apprehensible only by the experience of a specific sentient being. Every real thing has two aspects: formal and substantial. Formal is synonymous with the conceptual, abstract and ‘spiritual’. Substantial is synonymous with physical and material. While form and substance can be thought of as distinct aspects of reality, one cannot exist independent of the other. Every substance has a form and every form has a substance.

Mostly fine except for the last part. As you say here, the objective reality (corresponding to the physical) does not need a sentient being. The subjective reality (corresponding to formal) does. Now, not everything that is a part of objective reality is perceptible (even if everything perceptible is a part of objective reality) - which means, not every substance has a form. Further, subjective reality requires experience - not perception and not every experience can be perceived. So, not every form has a substance.

The Good is identified with Primal Matter and its essence is Love. The Good subsists in-itself and, as Love, strives for completeness and coherence. Evil is a local lack of these qualities, i.e. imperfection and corruption. The Good is the highest of all goods from which all lesser goods are derived. The goals of goods are called goodwill. The actions of goods are called good deeds. The results of goods are called virtues.

Okay, now it just seems like you have lost track of philosophical discourse and are simply spouting mystical mumbo-jumbo.

First of all, you simply say "The Good" and equate it to "Primal Matter". Firstly, primal matter would be substantive and "the good" or "love" would be formal. So, I guess you are trying to say that "good" and "love" are forms of the primal substance. One problem with that - for that abstraction to occur, a sentient being must perceive the primal matter. You have given no argument for or about that sentient thing (and no - it cannot be god because using god to defined primal substance and primal substance to define god would be circular).

Secondly, use of "The Good" here, bears no resemblance to meaning of the word "good". The formal property of "good" is assigned - always - according to a set of rules or the purpose.

A knife is good if it performs its purpose well (cutting).
A book is good if it meets the standards of well written literature (entertainment etc.)
A person is good if he acts according to certain predefined guidelines (the moral code).

It doesn't matter where the rules come from or how the purpose is set, there needs to be something to ascribe the property of good. You have given no such criteria for "The Good". So why do you assume that the primal matter is the same as "The Good" and that should act as the absolute standard. It seems more like you are trying to redefine
"Good". Further, since "The Good" and "love" are formal, neither can subsist in itself. To do so would require the formal to be primary and as you stated earlier, it is the substantive that is the primary.

Finally, where the hell did the essence of "love" come from?

The True is identified with Ideal Form and its essence is Wisdom. The True is the manifestation of the Good’s completeness and coherence. Things that appear true can be found within and conform to the Ideal Form. What we identify as true are those things that, in our estimation and judgment, accurately embody forms taken from the True.

Again, you keep using these words, but within this context, they mean nothing. Truth is the judgment of a statement's correspondence to reality (or any other contextual premises). Wisdom is about knowledge. Saying things like "The True is identified with Ideal Form" doesn't mean anything unless you first explain what an Ideal form even means and why does it have full correlation with reality and which sentient being was the source of this ideal form (again, cannot be your god)?

Where orthodoxy sees Omniscience, I see subjective experience active at all scales of reality. As an advocate of pan-psychism, I consider proto-consciousness (‘knowing’ at the smallest scale) as a universal aspect of reality. Self-awareness becomes apparent when substance reaches the level of complexity needed to bind proto-conscious monads into higher forms that more closely approximate the Ideal Form. The soul of a sentient being is the unity of that beings highest formal attributes with the smallest necessary substantial basis. Since the All is the largest scale manifesting the highest degree of complexity, the totality has within it all consciousness. God with respect to His understanding is the ‘knowing that is within all’.

Where orthodoxy sees Omnipotence, I see the universal self-organizing power (potency) within the Good to subsist and support the subsistence of lesser goods. The All strives to create wholes that reflect its own coherence and completeness. Because the All is complete and coherent, no lack can be found within it. Thus evil cannot be ascribed to the All. Since only the All can be a perfect unity, i.e. the One, all creations within the all can only partially embody the Good of the All. Thus all creations, as partial goods, express some lack of good. These lacks are called evils. Because evils are the absence of the good that would make something a perfect unity, evils are really nothing at all, just fantasies without substance or form.

With your "proto-consciousness" argument, you have contradicted your earlier statements. Firstly, if it was a part of reality and perceptible (by your statement that it becomes apparent) , then it would be self-evident. It is not.

Consciousness does not equal sentience - proto-consciousness would be less so. Therefore, your problem of everything having formal attribute (which are formed due to sentience) would not be solved.

Thirdly, while the things in objective reality are always consistent and rational, those within subjective reality can be irrational and self-contradictory. If your ideal form is everything a subjective reality may contain, then it automatically includes self-contradictions, paradoxes and self-refutations - thereby making it by definition, not completely true.

Finally, since I've already criticized your reckless use of the words like good, evil, truth etc. I won't say anything with regard to your final argument unless you justify your prior concepts first.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yikes! I understand the confusion and will do my best to clear it up as best I can. I'm a bit preoccupied with SWTOR lately, but you can be assured that I've already started on a response.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah! My Jedi Sentinel made level 17.

You know, you could have really made the definition of god very simple, but you chose to include fancy sounding words which seem to suggest intent at later subversion. You said god was "all" i.e. everything in the universe and beyond. Why not leave it at that?

'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' I'm 46 years old and I haven't had anyone to talk with about philosophy since college. My learning has been piecemeal and I've picked-up a lot of language from so many sources I'm afraid I might have created my own private nomenclature. Ironic because I've been trying very hard to translate the terms from a large variety of sources into a common vocabulary. I seem to have failed miserably. Thanks for your patience.

How is ideal form different than non-ideal form and why isn't it a part of god?...

Perhaps the word 'ideal' carries too much baggage and I should avoid it.

Why is primal matter a part of god and not secondary matter?

Because Primal Matter is universal. Secondary substances are particular and local.

...Why is primal matter good?

Because it represents the pure will. "Nothing is good except the good will." - Kant. "Why do you call me good. No one is good save the Father who is in Heaven" - JC

...and if secondary matter comes from primal matter, how can it not be good as well?...

Because at scales greater that the primal, substances are composite and cease to have the purity of will. Since they lack complete purity they form and dissolve. Only Primal Matter endures. Imagine the power of will in the Green Lantern. Will serves as the substance that manifests itself according to the various forms imagined by Hal Jordan. In my philosophy there is no Hal Jordan. Will is an inherent part of substance, the fundamental striving of the universal to be.

...Why do you refer the form to be true?

Because it is the ultimate and complete unity of all things. Its perfect unity is the basis for judging the integrity of lesser forms. I use 'true' in the same way as oldie songs do when they talk about 'true love'. Or like when we say a 2x4 is 'true' because it is straight and dimensionally stable. All of reality is 'true' because it is the unltimate expression of a whole.

Mostly fine except for the last part. As you say here, the objective reality (corresponding to the physical) does not need a sentient being. The subjective reality (corresponding to formal) does.

Perhaps this way of differenciating objective from subjective isn't serving us well.This may be an area of 'recklessness' on my part.

Now, not everything that is a part of objective reality is perceptible (even if everything perceptible is a part of objective reality) - which means, not every substance has a form.

To use the classic example, the unobserved tree in the forest has a substance (wood) and a form (the configuration of its trunk, branches, etc.) Maybe I'm not following you correctly. If you could give me an example of something that has a form but no substance, it might help me undestand.

Further, subjective reality requires experience - not perception and not every experience can be perceived. So, not every form has a substance.

I see subjective experience going all the way down to the smallest scales of reality. High order mental experiences like self-awareness and memory only occur at the everyday scale. These are built from lesser mental phenomena that occur even down to, say, electrons. In pan-psychicism, even electrons, while certainly not self-aware, still have an infinitesmal 'spark' of qualia with it. Admittedly, How a basic unit of qualia can generate multiple types of experiences is an open question until I can first provide a basis for experience itself.

...primal matter would be substantive and "the good" or "love" would be formal. So, I guess you are trying to say that "good" and "love" are forms of the primal substance.

That's not what I'm saying. I use love to describe the inherent will conjoin and make harmonious forms. Lovers desire to live as a couple in harmony. We love our country when we seek to make society more ordered and beneficial to all. Love, as Will, adopts and fills out form.

...use of "The Good" here, bears no resemblance to meaning of the word "good".

The word good has built in ambiguity that I hoped to dispell by talking about goodwill, virtues, etc.For example, a good as a thing in itself, as in "Have you got the goods?"
Or as an adjective. "This a is good steak." (where steak is the form taken by good) Or as a desired end. "I only wanted to do good."

...With your "proto-consciousness" argument, you have contradicted your earlier statements. Firstly, if it was a part of reality and perceptible (by your statement that it becomes apparent) , then it would be self-evident. It is not. Consciousness does not equal sentience - proto-consciousness would be less so. Therefore, your problem of everything having formal attribute (which are formed due to sentience) would not be solved.

Conscious self-awareness and sentience are aggregates made from smaller and smaller units of 'subjective experience'. Proto-consciousness monads are the fundantal qualia out of which the aggregate 'experiences' are created.

....while the things in objective reality are always consistent and rational, those within subjective reality can be irrational and self-contradictory. If your ideal form is everything a subjective reality may contain, then it automatically includes self-contradictions, paradoxes and self-refutations - thereby making it by definition, not completely true.

Partially correct. Things in objective reality may be incomplete and corrupted, like a bent 2x4 or muddy water. Likewise, subjective reality is irrational and delusional when its form lacks integrity and harmony with the larger reality.

[Epimethean]

"Thus evil is not a universal state that we can ascribe to the All, but rather we find evils within local conditions. This is what the statement by Heraclitus that “For God everything is good, but for mortals there is good and evil” means to me."

What do you make of the same man's observation that, "This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be eternal fire?"

[Neo-Scholastic]

What do you make of the same man's observation that, "This world, which is the same for all, no one of gods or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be eternal fire?"

The All is everything that is, was and ever will be, uncreated by any lesser being. 'Eternal fire' was what he considered to be the prime element because it contained within itself the essence of change.

[Epimethean]

The PreSocratics were interesting. Thankfully, they were just a middle stage of philosophy and a beginning of science. The old rub about the only thing that is constant being change gets us nowhere beyond the grandeur of sitting still and thinking on it. There is a case to be made for "what is ( the To On, if you will)" being more than transiency, and it takes no god or existence in god to determine this.

[genkaus]

'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' I'm 46 years old and I haven't had anyone to talk with about philosophy since college. My learning has been piecemeal and I've picked-up a lot of language from so many sources I'm afraid I might have created my own private nomenclature. Ironic because I've been trying very hard to translate the terms from a large variety of sources into a common vocabulary. I seem to have failed miserably. Thanks for your patience.

I usually try not to give the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I'll make an exception.

Because Primal Matter is universal. Secondary substances are particular and local.

Yes, but how are they separated form the primal matter? If primal matter is universal, then all "secondary" matter is also a part of it - therefore a part of god.

Because it represents the pure will. "Nothing is good except the good will." - Kant. "Why do you call me good. No one is good save the Father who is in Heaven" - JC

Firstly - justify that it does represent will.
Secondly - justify that that will is "good". All your quotes show is that JC's father has good will (IF we accept the validity of the statements - which I don't). It does not conclude that primal matter is good - nor does it say anything about god.

Because at scales greater that the primal, substances are composite and cease to have the purity of will. Since they lack complete purity they form and dissolve. Only Primal Matter endures. Imagine the power of will in the Green Lantern. Will serves as the substance that manifests itself according to the various forms imagined by Hal Jordan. In my philosophy there is no Hal Jordan. Will is an inherent part of substance, the fundamental striving of the universal to be.

Firstly, you are not making much sense here.
Secondly, equating primary matter with pure will is incorrect, because -according to your metaphysics - will would be a part of subjective reality and matter (primal or otherwise) would be part of the objective one that exists independent of any consciousness or will. In which case, your attempts to tie will to primal matter are incorrect.

Because it is the ultimate and complete unity of all things. Its perfect unity is the basis for judging the integrity of lesser forms. I use 'true' in the same way as oldie songs do when they talk about 'true love'. Or like when we say a 2x4 is 'true' because it is straight and dimensionally stable. All of reality is 'true' because it is the unltimate expression of a whole.

No, not all things. Remember - the form belongs to the formal reality which by definition excludes physical reality. Therefore, it cannot be completely true.

To use the classic example, the unobserved tree in the forest has a substance (wood) and a form (the configuration of its trunk, branches, etc.) Maybe I'm not following you correctly. If you could give me an example of something that has a form but no substance, it might help me undestand.

In your example - the configuration or the pattern does not exist unless observed.

For example, I have the concept of a Balrog in my head. That concept has a form (by definition), but no substance since there is no such thing as a Balrog. And no, the neural arrangement in my brain that forms the concept is not the substance, because you may have the same concept, but your substance would be completely different.

I see subjective experience going all the way down to the smallest scales of reality. High order mental experiences like self-awareness and memory only occur at the everyday scale. These are built from lesser mental phenomena that occur even down to, say, electrons. In pan-psychicism, even electrons, while certainly not self-aware, still have an infinitesmal 'spark' of qualia with it. Admittedly, How a basic unit of qualia can generate multiple types of experiences is an open question until I can first provide a basis for experience itself.

I guess this belief lies at the root of your error. Any experience first requires capacity for awareness - that is, capacity for perception. What we know is that perception requires a certain level of complex mechanism in place - even if it is as rudimentary as a sunflower turning towards the sun. What you are claiming with your pan-psychicism is perception is possible without the mechanism - which is an untenable position, both philosophically and scientifically, since a) it contradicts your earlier position of consciousness-independence of reality and b) there is no evidence to suggest it.

That's not what I'm saying. I use love to describe the inherent will conjoin and make harmonious forms. Lovers desire to live as a couple in harmony. We love our country when we seek to make society more ordered and beneficial to all. Love, as Will, adopts and fills out form.

Disregarding the gross redefinition of the word "love", it brings us back to the previous objection - problem with the inherent will of the primal matter.

The word good has built in ambiguity that I hoped to dispell by talking about goodwill, virtues, etc.For example, a good as a thing in itself, as in "Have you got the goods?"
Or as an adjective. "This a is good steak." (where steak is the form taken by good) Or as a desired end. "I only wanted to do good."

The first example is invalid - the "goods" there refer to commodities. That has nothing to do with "Good" or moral "good".

Secondly, I believe I resolved any ambiguity when I defied good as a judgement (a formal attribute) assigned to a substance according to a set of rules. So, in your second example, the judgment is taking place according to the rules about how a steak should be cooked (in my case - rare, juicy and stuffed with chicken).

The third one, ofcourse, refers to rules set by morality.

Conscious self-awareness and sentience are aggregates made from smaller and smaller units of 'subjective experience'. Proto-consciousness monads are the fundantal qualia out of which the aggregate 'experiences' are created.

That does not solve the problem unless the proto-consicousness monads are capable of experience as well. In which case refer to the point regarding perception.

Partially correct. Things in objective reality may be incomplete and corrupted, like a bent 2x4 or muddy water. Likewise, subjective reality is irrational and delusional when its form lacks integrity and harmony with the larger reality.

Un-huh. Completeness and corruption are formal attributes assigned on basis of other concepts, not on basis of objective reality. That is we have a concept of what 2x4 should be like and we have a concept of how water should be. We judge them by these conceptual standards and declare them incomplete or corrupted, but by objective standards they are nothing of the sort.