Problem of evil in Pantheism

[idav]

The problem of evil in pantheism or panentheism can be different from a personal sovereign god. For the personal god, god would allow evil. In Pantheism God is everything so god would also be the diseases so the problem is more than just allowing or creating evil.

I have found that pantheism have similar ideas found in Hinduism and Buddhism, and I have found Hindu's explain away the problem of evil by calling it an illusion.

Another alternative to me is that in pantheism the problem of evil isn't just a problem for humans. It is a problem for god. So if evil happens and suffering happens then god is suffering and not in an illusion sense. With god not being personal it is hard to say how this suffering would be at a universal level. In pantheism, with everything being god, then the gods are at each other trying to implement their will, whether it is another human or a disease trying to catch us off guard. The power to eliminate suffering is within everything and so the problem of evil is addressed within everything. A pantheist god isn't the sort of god that snaps his fingers and makes everything ok. When everything is potentially god then everything and everyone have a hand in creating or illuminating evil and the universal god ends up at it's own mercy.

 

[Quintessence]

I have never considered the "problem of evil" to be an issue for any theisms aside from classical monotheism. It is only the classical monotheists - to my understanding - that claim their god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Pantheists and panentheists claim no such thing, so there is no theological problem to wrestle with.

Furthermore, neither pantheism nor panentheism inherently subscribe to the kind of moralistic dualism that you see in the classical monotheisms of the West. That is, the way things are is not necessarily judged in terms of being "good" and "evil" in the first place. This is certainly the approach most contemporary Pagans who incorporate elements of pantheism/panentheism into their theology tend to take.

 

[Iti oj]

I don't think the good and evil dichotomy has much use in pantheism, at least for m any ways.

 

[idav]

I have never considered the "problem of evil" to be an issue for any theisms aside from classical monotheism. It is only the classical monotheists - to my understanding - that claim their god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Pantheists and panentheists claim no such thing, so there is no theological problem to wrestle with.

I don't think the good and evil dichotomy has much use in pantheism, at least for m any ways.

I have said similar things, that for pantheism, the problem of evil....What problem?

However the issue I see is that god is causing its own suffering. The way some panentheists put it is as if god is creating itself bad dreams.

At least with pantheism it wouldn't be intentional so maybe evil is too strong a word.

 

[Iti oj]

I have said similar things, that for pantheism, the problem of evil....What problem?

However the issue I see is that god is causing its own suffering. The way some panentheists put it is as if god is creating itself bad dreams.

At least with pantheism it wouldn't be intentional so maybe evil is too strong a word.

I don't think suffering is bad, Im not a Buddhist. Anyways I think Quint nailed the topic in the head.

 

[idav]

I don't think suffering is bad, Im not a Buddhist. Anyways I think Quint nailed the topic in the head.

I think your right. I'm somehow conflating Buddhism with Pantheism with the problem of suffering but I do believe it is a real problem, more so for pantheism if nature is supposed to be at all aware. I do tend to view pantheism as more apathetic which goes along the lines of "what problem" however being apathetic doesn't mean there isn't an issue. Clearly the issue is more at the human level as we don't tend to be as apathetic as nature.

 

[Iti oj]

I think your right. I'm somehow conflating Buddhism with Pantheism with the problem of suffering but I do believe it is a real problem, more so for pantheism if nature is supposed to be at all aware. I do tend to view pantheism as more apathetic which goes along the lines of "what problem" however being apathetic doesn't mean there isn't an issue. Clearly the issue is more at the human level as we don't tend to be as apathetic as nature.

I don't agree/follow . Could you explain what the issue is and why it is an issue. Also does the kinds of pantheism affect the issue?
Though I get what you mean by equating the human level at least. Is it a judgment/expectation issue?

 

[idav]

I don't agree/follow . Could you explain what the issue is and why it is an issue. Also does the kinds of pantheism affect the issue?
Though I get what you mean by equating the human level at least. Is it a judgment/expectation issue?

The only issue is of creating our own suffering, at least that which can be avoided. Whether it is because of ignorance or attachment. There may not be suffering in a real sense but it is very real to a human. The brain processes emotional pain just the same way as physical pain, a broken heart is real physical pain.

Here is something else to consider. We are not only causing ourselves suffering, we also cause other people suffering. When we consider the concept of everything being god then every human can be seen as a divine representation of something greater but what if that human is creating atrocities and great mass suffering? That person could be considered evil in a real sense but is still a divine representation of something greater? The thing about it is a supreme being can be a creator or a destroyer and we humans make the choice and have every ability to choose evil.

 

[Iti oj]

The only issue is of creating our own suffering, at least that which can be avoided. Whether it is because of ignorance or attachment. There may not be suffering in a real sense but it is very real to a human. The brain processes emotional pain just the same way as physical pain, a broken heart is real physical pain.

Here is something else to consider. We are not only causing ourselves suffering, we also cause other people suffering. When we consider the concept of everything being god then every human can be seen as a divine representation of something greater but what if that human is creating atrocities and great mass suffering? That person could be considered evil in a real sense but is still a divine representation of something greater? The thing about it is a supreme being can be a creator or a destroyer and we humans make the choice and have every ability to choose evil.

I still do not see what the issue is. Why would you expect anything else? Also as a pantheist I do not see "god" as greater then the whole. I think thats panetheism. Also I do not see the connection with divine and Good or lacking suffering. All that sounds like run off from as Quint says, "classic monotheism".

In matter of fact I see at least some or some forms of suffering good. I worry about suggesting dualism, while of perceived level it seems operational but I think on a deeper level monism is truth. of course this stems from my ideas of "chaos" and everthying/nothing".

 

[idav]

I still do not see what the issue is. Why would you expect anything else? Also as a pantheist I do not see "god" as greater then the whole. I think thats panetheism. Also I do not see the connection with divine and Good or lacking suffering. All that sounds like run off from as Quint says, "classic monotheism".

In matter of fact I see at least some or some forms of suffering good. I worry about suggesting dualism, while of perceived level it seems operational but I think on a deeper level monism is truth. of course this stems from my ideas of "chaos" and everthying/nothing".

It really isnt the same problem as found in other forms of theology where a god can be seen as responsible for evil. Where in pantheism it is in the nature of things and rather seemingly unavoidable. I also understand the view of there not being any real good and bad but it doesnt explain a person who uses their god given abilities to intentionally harm which is what I woukd consider evil. It isnt like a pantheist god is going to snap fingers and put someone in check but rather others intervene, almost like nature fighting itself to some extent.

 

[Willamena]

There is good just as there is evil, that's not the problem--these terms are meaningful to us. The problem of evil depends on the idea that, in a god-made world, a god whose intentions are solely good cannot bring about/do/cause/create evil. That relation isn't necessary if the world is a perfect reflection of god, in either a pantheistic or panentheistic view, because then god is also what is perfectly reflected.

Edit: In Buddhism and other Eastern religions it is put forth that to truly see the world you have to be willing and able to look upon the suffering and horrors with as much acceptance and grace as you would the love and beauty.

 

[Me Myself]

God being "evil" with himself because it enterteins him and then punishing himself for it pretty much sums out my views on this.

To me, evil is lila, or simply put, god being masochistic.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

If God could suffer it would be a personal God.
if everything is God, everthing is equal.
Then good and evil are equal, then the distinction of good and evil are only in the mind and would thus be subjective to each mind.
So evil can only be illusory, because each being has different ideas about what evil is, and for good and evil to have validity in pantheism Gaia would have to be personal.
Which pantheism denies.

 

[idav]

God being "evil" with himself because it enterteins him and then punishing himself for it pretty much sums out my views on this.

To me, evil is lila, or simply put, god being masochistic.

I see humans as being sort of polytheistic manifestations of god, gods that dont really like pain but feel justified in inflicting it for whatver reason.

If God could suffer it would be a personal God.
if everything is God, everthing is equal.
Then good and evil are equal, then the distinction of good and evil are only in the mind and would thus be subjective to each mind.
So evil can only be illusory, because each being has different ideas about what evil is, and for good and evil to have validity in pantheism Gaia would have to be personal.
Which pantheism denies.

Not that god suffers but the mind does. It may very well be an illusion but the suffering is real to the mind. The subjectiveness does show there is a higher truth but doesnt take from the pain experienced at the level of an organism.

Even at the basic microscopic levels of life there must be a reason life struggles so.

 

[Willamena]

If God could suffer it would be a personal God.
if everything is God, everthing is equal.
Then good and evil are equal, then the distinction of good and evil are only in the mind and would thus be subjective to each mind.
So evil can only be illusory, because each being has different ideas about what evil is, and for good and evil to have validity in pantheism Gaia would have to be personal.
Which pantheism denies.

The primary illusion is that mind is distinct from the world. As "everything is equal," the knower is not distinct from the thing known. To "suffer" is to put yourself in an observational relation to things that are wrong (bent, tilted) about the world, "out there," and feel for them, and conversely to put things that are wrong about the world "out there" to be something you put yourself in relation to. When "you" are the world that's wrong, you are the power to right yourself.

/Gandhi moment

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think "evil" is very much an illusion, and the Way Things Go is exactly how it is supposed to be, it's perfect by its own measure, and the measure is the only measure, so by default God is neutral however at the same the Order of Nature is perfect, it's shaped exactly how it needs to be, it does exactly what it intends to do, for it can do nothing else.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There is good just as there is evil, that's not the problem--these terms are meaningful to us. The problem of evil depends on the idea that, in a god-made world, a god whose intentions are solely good cannot bring about/do/cause/create evil.

But if the Ultimate God can divide his attention to be more than One, then he is two. Then we have the possibility of a good God and a God that is an imperfect copy which then ultimately brings about evil. If this happens many times over, then the God of the Flesh of this corporeal realm is not even close to the One that he came from, even if taking the same Name still.

That relation isn't necessary if the world is a perfect reflection of god, in either a pantheistic or panentheistic view, because then god is also what is perfectly reflected.

again what is reflected is not complete in the Original sense, so not a problem

Edit: In Buddhism and other Eastern religions it is put forth that to truly see the world you have to be willing and able to look upon the suffering and horrors with as much acceptance and grace as you would the love and beauty.

interesting

 

[Willamena]

But if the Ultimate God can divide his attention to be more than One, then he is two.

Then neither is ultimate.

again what is reflected is not complete in the Original sense, so not a problem

How so?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then neither is ultimate.

I am guessing that there is a least one word missing there as it does not make much sense. What happens is that the Source brings into being its own Self as an Image. This in no way negates the essence of Source.

 

[Willamena]

But if the Ultimate God can divide his attention to be more than One, then he is two.

Then neither is ultimate.

I am guessing that there is a least one word missing there as it does not make much sense.

Then neither of the two is ultimate.

What happens is that the Source brings into being its own Self as an Image. This in no way negates the essence of Source.

This needn't be "two."