lpetrich

By "theodicy" is meant attempts to reconcile the hypothesis of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity with all the Bad Things that happen. That is a serious difficulty for Abrahamic religions; how do non-Abrahamic religions usually resolve that problem?

One way is to supposed that the the Gods have been wicked -- which sometimes provokes the response of punishing them in some way. Thus, in some parts of ancient Greece, statues would be beaten on the occasion of some calamity -- something that has supposedly been done with statues of saints in remote parts of Mexico.

Laxity in worship is sometimes cited as a reason for disasters. In the Mediterranean of 310 BCE, Carthage (in what's now Tunisia) and Syracuse in Sicily were fighting a war; Carthage's forces were closing in on Syracuse, but that city's leader, Agathocles, decided on an end run, and sent his armes to besiege Carthage.

Which provoked a curious response. The citizens of Carthage had worshipped Moloch in their usual fashion, by sacrificing little children to him, but aristocratic families had taken to substituting the children of poor families. But when Carthage was besieged, those aristocratic families decided that they had to sacrifice their own children to Moloch.

Eventually, Agathocles had to withdraw because of rebellions back home; that might be interpreted as "evidence" that Moloch is real and that he was satisfied with this diet of aristocratic children.

stryder2112

I cannot speak for all non-Abrahamic religions, but for many of them there is no concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity. An overarching concept of divinity (if such a concept exists) can be an impersonal force (much like Star Wars) or can even be remote from the world (like Deism). In polytheism, sovereignty over varies spheres of influence is divide between multiple divine agents. This, however, often leads to a modified "problem of evil" when propitiated deities fail to come through in their area of influence. This is usually explained by noting that numerous divine agents exist, many of who are antagonistic towards humanity, and that "supernatural" struggles occur between the various factions of deities.

In pagan Europe, many people were quite pragmatic about such things. If a specific deity wasn't able to "come through" for the devotee, the person would simple switch allegiance to another deity in the hopes that they would be able to "come through" for them. This is true in many polytheistic societies.

Someone else may have to speak to the issue of other non-Abrahamic religions.

Stryder

hinduwoman

As I said in another thread, in Hinduism theodicy is not a problem. Brahman is omnipotent, but he is beyond good and evil. he created the world so that he can become many instead of one. Hence Brahman is in everything and everyone. Both what men call good and evil come from him.
The various gods each have their own spheres of soveriegnity, but they cannot go beyond the limits with which they were originally created.
The question of unjust suffering is answered with the belief in reincarnation. If anyonone suffers unjustly or if the wicked flourish like the green bay tree, then it is the result of their bad and good karma respectively from previous birth.

By the way, Brhaman is genderless. Do read 'it' instead of him.

Ojuice5001

I am a non-Abramic believer in a supreme God. (And non-supreme gods--I don't apologize for it!) Now I think the Supreme God is not all-good, so there is no problem of evil. But there is a related problem, which I call the problem of conflict. The problem is this: It seems strange that one supreme God would create a world with so many opposing creatures. And some of them, such as the suicide bombers, are motivated by hate of the other creatures. It doesn't seem rational. But I think that there is a reason that humans cannot understand. I think of it as being like the situation that exists when a lion kills another male's cubs. An entity such as the cubs' mother can have no idea of what purpose exists. But there is such a purpose, knowable only to those who are smarter than a lion. Needless to say, that purpose is benefit to the male lion's genes. In the same way, the purpose of hatred may be knowable only to those who are smarter than a human. (But it's not necessarily a morally good purpose, any more than gene survival is morally good.)

hinduwoman

But this is the same argument of many Christian apologists --- we are ignorant so we must not criticise: "God is his own interpreter, and in time will make it plain".

Hinduism will say that it is because these terrorists failed to recognize Brahman in themselves and in other creatures; they were too wrapped up in their ego/this present material self to realize that Brahman is in their victims too.

Dr. Jagan Mohan

A fantastic question, ..
The problem of reconciling evil with the idea of God in Abrahamic religions is well known with our readers..
to put it in perspective and to sum up what we already know:

• God is omnipotent and omniscient
• God created the world Ex Nihilo with full knowledge of the future arisal of evil and He purposely created Satan or what-ever-you-name-it.
• By allowing evil, He can be credited to indirectly being the ultimate cause of evil
• The above (imperfectly) mentioned points do not seem to agree with the benovelent nature of God.

What does Hinduism say about Evil..
(I am Lazy) A short intro.. please follow the URL:A Short Article On Hindu View of Sin and Suffering

To add a few words:

In Advaitic Hinduism, 'We' are just egos identifying ourselves with our bodies along with our mind and intellect. The Soul which is the real 'Us' lives in this world and universe.
This world/universe and our bodily existence as egoistic beings have no 'real' basis since the world/universe depends on the Brahman for its ultimate source.
Only the 'Self' or 'Soul' has real existence which is 'Oneness and Identity with Supreme Existence variously called Brahman/God etc.

Ignorance of our real nature (i.e the true nature of our 'Self' or Soul) is the cause of our being here in this world which seems to bind us to existence as such.

All the experiences and lives that the soul undergoes are resultant of the wrong notion of 'Myself, Mine and I'. The soul thus undergoes various facets of life with temporary joy and suffering, lost in illusion that 'all these are true'... The Soul 'suffers' because of its wrong identification with the body and because of the resultant 'attachments' to worldly things such as kinship, family, wealth, fame, sexuality, etc. This attachment gives rise to various Human tempraments, some noble, others animalistic. Anger, Anxiety, sadness are all results of 'want of something'..

Thus suffering is the by product of attachment. This is also the core teaching of Buddhism. In Theistic Hinduism, this is taken one stem forward and determined that Ignorance of our own real nature and that of our relationship with God/Brahman which is Oneness is the reason for our mundane existence along with all the unpleasantness of life. This ignorance is also the root cause of evil.

But since the whole world/universe has no real existence, logically it follows that EVIL also has no real existence, but is a illusion.

I am lazy not to format what I have typed so far.. am sure its a bit confusing as well as has fallacies in my wordings.. if so, please point and I will try to elaborate.

Anyway, the bottom line is:
In Hinduism, there is no intrisic Evil. Suffering as well as Pleasure ar

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Sattwic ]

kctan

FWIW,

Buddhistic view - All sufferings arise from the self. Natural disasters are natural, not some act from a mystical being.

Taoistic view - All things good & bad are in the Path. Theres no avoiding them. By understanding the Path, you can reconcile with yourself why things happen.

Taoism as religion view - The gods punishes the bad & rewards the good. Thus the gods will let bad things happen to you if you do bad things & let good things happen to you if you do good.

lpetrich

Thanx for all the responses; all the solutions are rejections of at least part of the premise of an omnipotent, omniscient, and completely benevolent deity; the deities are either omnipotent/omniscient or benevolent, but never both.