Duality

[sferrari17]

I've seen this opinion expressed a couple of times in various topics here, so I thought I would settle this once and for all.

It is not possible to have two equal and opposite divine beings (i.e., a good deity and a bad deity)

There are multiple reasons for my position;

First of all, if there are two equal powers, why does humanity consider good to be better than evil?  What would make one better than the other?

Second, anything bad is a perversion of good.  Lying is a perversion of truth.  Murder is a perversion of life.  In order to be bad, there has to be something good that was corrupted.  Evil cannot create evil; it can only change something that was good.  An evil deity could not be pure evil, because it couldn't exist; existence itself is a good thing.  See my point?  Just thought I'd settle the matter.

On a side note, this leads into a conversation about Satan.  There is no way for Satan to be anything but a creation of God.  However, many non-theists object to the fact that a perfect God would create a being that had the choice of being evil.  My question is, how do you create something, whether it is Satan or humanity, and give it free will without letting it do wrong?  If you are not able to make the wrong choice, then you aren't making a choice at all.  I have heard many people complain about this, but none of them has a satisfactory answer.  Please explain to me what your thought process is.

[Acumen]

It's simple.  The duality thought process of divine equality is riddled with logical problems from perfection to moral goodness.

[sferrari17]

Wow, that was much more succinct than my post.  Nice job.

[sferrari17]

Still, no answer to my question about free will....maybe that's because there isn't one 

[jacknky]

"Still, no answer to my question about free will....maybe that's because there isn't one"

Some of us postulated that free will is an illusion.

[sferrari17]

I remember Dald claiming that our subconsciousness controls us and that we have no ability to make decisions.  I pointed out that our subconsciousness is a part of us, and he then said that 'something' controls us without specifying.  I was hoping for something better than that.

[jacknky]

I think we are affected by our genetics, our subconscious and our experiences. We are not without the ability to reason and choose even though we have these limitations on our choices.

Do you think if you had been born to Hindu parents in India you'd be a Christian at 17? Perhaps the Hindu religion has the true conception of the gods and yet, limited by your experiences, you can't really exercise free will enough to accept the Hindu faith because the Christian faith got to you first.

[sferrari17]

You've said that about twelve times since I've been here.  I've never disagreed with you, so I'm still not sure why you keep bringing it up.  Not trying to be overly sarcastic; I'm just wondering what your point is.  Yes, if I was born in Iran, I would grow up Muslim.  Does that mean I'd die a Muslim?  I can't really make that call, but I sincerely believe that everyone has a chance at salvation.  I think that the doctrine of predestination is bull.  There may be Biblical evidence for that stand point, but there is some Biblical evidence for just about whatever viewpoint you want to try and squeeze out of the book by twisting the words.  I think the Bible is clear that God is just; a just god would not condemn someone to hell without giving them a chance to choose him.

[jacknky]

"You've said that about twelve times since I've been here.  I've never disagreed with you, so I'm still not sure why you keep bringing it up."

Well, you said a few posts up that no one had answered your question about free will so I thought perhaps you weren't paying attention. perhaps what you meant to say was that no one had explained it to your satisfaction.

 "Not trying to be overly sarcastic; I'm just wondering what your point is."

My point is that free will is an illusion. My point also is that you and others are perfectly free to believe in free will because it is the nature of religious belief to be unverifiable. That's probably the main reason no one can answer your question.

[sferrari17]

I find it amusing that you go on and on about how religious belief is unverifiable, when non-theistic belief is just as lacking in proof. 

[sferrari17]

"My point is that free will is an illusion. My point also is that you and others are perfectly free to believe in free will because it is the nature of religious belief to be unverifiable."

According to you, I'm not free to believe in whatever I want.

[Acumen]

"My point is that free will is an illusion."

If this is true, then you can toss your Buddhism out the window, Jack.  Without free will, good luck with reducing human suffering.

[jacknky]

"I find it amusing that you go on and on about how religious belief is unverifiable, when non-theistic belief is just as lacking in proof."

Like many theists, you have a hard time thinking outside the box of dualistic religious belief.

I don't need to believe in the supernatural to believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I don't need religious belief to understand my life and the lives of others is enhanced through living a compassionate life. I don't need a Holy Book to tell me so because I can see that truth in my life and experience. I personally don't need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to motivate me although some might.

The Dalai Lama agreed to allow the brains of his monks to be scientifically studied while they meditated. he was asked what he would do if the findings of the scientific research contradicted Buddhist teachings. He replied "Change the teachings." That kind of flexible belief and openness is anathema to the religious belief of most Christians. I can hardly imagine many Christian leaders making such a statement.

[Acumen]

The Dalai Lama agreed to allow the brains of his monks to be scientifically studied while they meditated. he was asked what he would do if the findings of the scientific research contradicted Buddhist teachings. He replied "Change the teachings." That kind of flexible belief and openness is anathema to the religious belief of most Christians. I can hardly imagine many Christian leaders making such a statement.

I don't necessarily agree with the Dali Lama.  Science is not infallible, nor does it have a perfect track record.  "Change the teachings", I believe, is a politically correct statement meant to demonstrate an openness to correction without regard to the presuppositions of individual scientists.  That, I believe, is not in the better interest of truth.  I've seen some pretty faulty scientific conclusions in the past century.  And studying the brain is a particularly tricky task because we don't know a whole lot about that organ.     

[jacknky]

"I don't necessarily agree with the Dali Lama.  Science is not infallible, nor does it have a perfect track record."

Agreed. I imagine the Dalai Lama would require a pretty definitive proof of the results of scientific research to actually change some of the 2500 years of wisdom in Buddhism. But one of the tenants of Buddhist teaching is to test everything and blindly accept nothing. I think it is out of that understanding the Dalai Lama made his statement.

BTW, I fully see the irony of a teaching that tells us to not blindly accept teachings. I remember in the 70's I went to see Krishnamurti in Switzerland and he said words to the effect "Don't believe anyone, including me". That really got my attention.

[Acumen]

Agreed. I imagine the Dalai Lama would require a pretty definitive proof of the results of scientific research to actually change some of the 2500 years of wisdom in Buddhism.

Well, i would certainly hope so.   

[SquirleyWurley]

I don't need to believe in the supernatural to believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I don't need religious belief to understand my life and the lives of others is enhanced through living a compassionate life. I don't need a Holy Book to tell me so because I can see that truth in my life and experience. I personally don't need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to motivate me although some might.

You would need it if you hadn't already grew up in a society that had those precepts of "religion" already established. 

Agreed.  One of the functions of upbringing, of socialization, is to foster various norms of social inter-action and personal character, and all sorts of cultural things are a part of that, including religion.  Ideally, secular culture maintains and preserves, conserves, the core aspects of pro-social, rational, responsible attitudes, encouragement of building personal character, etc.  Unfortunately, in trying to be rid of coercive religious interference or religious presumption, our culture has become a bit too rebellious in a knee-jerk way, a bit too individualistic in an irresponsible way, a bit too cynical/scoffing/iconoclastic in a harsh/closed way.

Encouraging compassion, character, aesthetics, ethics, personal challenge and responsibility, positive social interaction, is very important.  Unfortunately, those who speak for the traditional cultural and religious heritage too often discourage these things in their frustration at the other faults of our culture, and so the rebels as well as their opponents are both contributing to this problem, and when either side does try to encourage it what is too often really encouraged is mostly in-group attitude/identification/ideology/superior attitudes.