07/06/2017
Perhaps the most difficult problem toward establishing a unity of religions has been the intangible elements with which religion concerns itself. First there is the ontological element.
This concerns the nature of the first cause, a creative principle, mind, or deity, to which everything that man perceives may be tied fast. The assumption that such a cause exists, as we have previously depicted, is innate in the human’s reactions to his environment. Then there is the element of his attributing purpose to such a cause. What is the governing principle? Why does the cause function as it does? What are its ends?
These elements of religion lead to the question of good and evil. Having assumed a purpose for the cause, or an end for God’s function, the religionist finds it quite facile to call good that which conforms to the purpose. Conversely, that which seems contrary to conceived divine purpose is held to be evil. Man, of course, is not conceived as entirely outside of the bounds of divine purpose, no matter how frequently his conduct is evil, that is, does not conform to goodness. Consequently, the next element of religion is to try to explain this divine state of man, and how it is bound to God or the First Cause. This element of binding man to God is a perplexing one for the religionist. What is the nature of this Divine Nexus or Soul? The question offers an inexhaustible number of opportunities for polemic discussion and conflict.
We cannot explain the existence of good and evil to the satisfaction of every individual and to every type of thought.
Basically, evils can be classifed in two ways. First, those evils that are due to forces of nature beyond human control: foods, tornadoes, earth quakes; conditions that cannot always be anticipated and which bring much harm and suffering to individuals directly affected. Then there are the evils that are due to causes wholly or particularly within man’s power to control. These are, for example, bodily ills, diseases of body and mind, moral ills—sins, vice, and crime. It is the latter that is the most diffcult to explain because so frequently the innocent suffer. It is true, of course that the innocent suffer from evils caused by natural forces, but it always seems more pitiful when individuals who live good, upright lives and who are minding their own affairs and not interfering with anyone else should suffer the indignity of crime
that results in the invasion of the human right of an individual to live his own life and ends in pain, shame, or disgrace.Insofar as the problem of evil is concerned, man can make one of three choices. He can ignore the problem, he can speculate or philosophize about it, or he can assign the entire responsibility to a deity, a force outside himself and outside the universe. In these three choices we summarize what man has done concerning the problem of evil.
There are those who like to ignore any problem which seems to have no pat solution. There are those who continue to develop theories about the problem without really arriving at any fnal conclusion or satisfactory explanation. Then there are those, who, like the frst group, ignore the problem in the sense that they pass responsibility somewhere else. The latter is a form of religious belief upon the part of some individuals, and consists of assigning to a deity all the problems that man cannot solve.
Such a practice seems to me to be inconsistent with the concept that man is a living force, and the force of that life must have come from a source external to the material world, which we can call divine or by any other term we choose. If we are of that source, then it is part of our responsibility to try to explain the problems with which we must cope in life. If this latter concept is true, then it is man’s responsibility to learn all the intricacies of the force with which he is endowed, rather than direct problems back to its source and thereby attempt to relieve himself of any responsibility concerning them.
I have been interested in the problem of good and evil over a long period of time, as have many other individuals. Obviously, as we study a problem through the years our points of view will change. I believe any individual who has seriously considered the problem of good and evil, or as far as that is concerned, any other problem that is intimately related to our human experience on this earth, can trace a change of opinion and concept in regard to the problem.
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that good and evil must always be considered from the standpoint of a relative position. For example, it is impossible to classify all things as either completely good, or completely evil. We may use fre as a good illustration of this fact. Fire is useful. It warms us. It cooks our food. It contributes to our well-being. In these respects it is good, but that same fre can burn us and cause pain, or destroy our possessions and cause us much mental harm as well as bodily harm. In this respect it is evil. Therefore, we cannot put a label on fre and state that it is good or evil. The same can apply to water. Without water we cannot live. It quenches our thirst. It sustains life within our bodies, but it can destroy our property in a food, or we can drown in it if we are completely surrounded by it. It is therefore in one respect good and in another respect evil. If fre and water can have relative meanings, that is, can be good or evil depending upon how their effect is related to us, then is it not possible that if man could see beyond the limitations of his own self and his own environment all good and evil might not be a relative matter? It is possible that this relative nature makes it so diffcult for man to arrive at a complete understanding of the nature of good and evil, or to explain their meanings and functions within his life experience. To someother person, the writer of the post is wrong, to another, he is right. So there is no absolute judgement to the post, rather, let the lesson be learnt according to individual perception.
