4. The Problem Of Evil
Wed, 01/30/2008 - 12:37 — admin
The ‘Problem’ Defined
MICHAEL: Before we begin our discussion of the nature of the Supreme Being, I’d like to discuss one more aspect of the cosmological proof, if you are agreeable; and that is the problem of evil. I asked you about it during the first day of our discussions, and you asked me to bring it up at a later time.
TEACHER: Yes, I recall the instance. You explain the problem to me and then we can see if it’s really a problem after all.
MICHAEL: If God exists, and if He is omnipotent and full of compassion, how is it that He has created a world which is full of misery and suffering? If He is all-loving, all-merciful, and favorably disposed in every way towards His children, and if He is simultaneously all-powerful, how is it that He allows the occurrence of even the mildest form of suffering, such as a hang-nail or stubbed toe, what to speak of such massive human catastrophes as Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bangladesh, or Jonestown?1
The fact that evil and suffering do exist, some argue, is evidence that either there is no God, or, if God does exist, He cannot be both merciful and omnipotent.
TEACHER: It seems that through our previous discussions we have already determined a very sound basis for God’s existence, so I see no need to argue against that conclusion.2 To do so would be to backtrack into territory we’ve already covered fairly well. That leaves us, then, with the second conclusion.
MICHAEL: The second conclusion can be elaborated as follows. If God were all-merciful, He would certainly not want to see His children suffer. Moreover, if He were simultaneously all-powerful, then it would most certainly be a simple task for Him to initiate whatever appropriate measures were required to immediately cease all suffering for the living beings. Or, to be even more direct, being all-merciful, He would desire that the living beings should never come to know the experience of suffering in the first place. And, being all-powerful, He would have been able to prevent suffering from occurring.
Since suffering has occurred and is still being endured on a universal level, the second conclusion tells us that God can either be all-merciful and not all-powerful; or all-powerful, yet lacking in mercy. If He is all-powerful and His will is always done, then we can conclude that it is His will that suffering is felt by the living beings. This being the case, He must certainly be lacking in mercy, since He has the power to cause the living beings to experience whatever He may desire, and He has obviously used His power to make them suffer.
On the other hand, if God is full of mercy for the living beings, and is intensely desirous of relieving them from all varieties of suffering and of bestowing all good will upon them, then the very fact that they continue to suffer must mean that He is not all-powerful. This indicates that there is a force or power greater than His own which He cannot overcome, and which inhibits Him from carrying out His heart’s desire, namely, to stop the suffering of the living entities.
TEACHER: The question we are faced with is this: Is it possible that although suffering exists, God is nonetheless both all-powerful and full of mercy? Many theologians have attempted to answer this question in the affirmative, and one of the most common arguments they use to bolster their stance is that of the free will of individual persons.
An impersonalist yogi can be very dangerous because he may try to take the position of the Supreme Lord, believing himself to be the Supreme dominator and enjoyer of all that he surveys. This is the darkest region of ignorance. He may try to act on the illusion that he is God and that the world is his playground. He may become, in other words, a “super-hedonist.” One such “I am God”ist, Richard Alpert (Ram Dass), formerly a professor at Harvard University, declares that no one exists except oneself, and that after merging with the impersonal Brahman, one returns to the world and is the world and is everyone.4. The Problem Of Evil
If you come back into form from having merged with God … you fill the forms [bodies] though there is no one home, it is just more lila, the dance of God.1
The late Swami Muktananda, a well-known “I am God”ist who had thousands of followers, wrote:
Assuming physical bodies, He appears as separate entities.2
According to the “I am God”ist, the apparent existence of others is just a hallucination. And since you are God, you are the creator of the laws of the universe (or as Ram Dass puts it, “You are the laws of the universe!”).3 And since you are the laws of the universe — since you are God — then there is no higher person or law to which you must subject yourself. Your will, your desire, is God’s desire — God’s will — so there is no need whatsoever to check or control your desires or actions. As another “I am God” ist, Werner Erhard puts it:
What you’re doing is what God wants you to do. Be happy.4
So according to the “I am God” ist, since you and I — each of us — is God, whatever you and I and others are doing is what God wants us to do. You can be engaging in the most illicit or the most heinous activities, but since you are God, you are doing the will of God. Your will is God’s will. In other words, he believes his will is God’s will because he wrongly believes he is God.
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
1Ram Dass, Grist for the Mill (Santa Cruz, CA: Unity Press, 1976), p. 166.
2Swami Muktananda, Siddha Meditation, p. 59.
3Ram Dass, Remember, Be Here Now (Albuquerque, NM: Lama Foundation, 1971), p. 86.
4Quoted in Adelaide Bry, est (Erhard Seminars Training): 60 Hours That Transform Your Life (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), p. 66.
The ‘Problem’ Defined
MICHAEL: Before we begin our discussion of the nature of the Supreme Being, I’d like to discuss one more aspect of the cosmological proof, if you are agreeable; and that is the problem of evil. I asked you about it during the first day of our discussions, and you asked me to bring it up at a later time.
TEACHER: Yes, I recall the instance. You explain the problem to me and then we can see if it’s really a problem after all.
MICHAEL: If God exists, and if He is omnipotent and full of compassion, how is it that He has created a world which is full of misery and suffering? If He is all-loving, all-merciful, and favorably disposed in every way towards His children, and if He is simultaneously all-powerful, how is it that He allows the occurrence of even the mildest form of suffering, such as a hang-nail or stubbed toe, what to speak of such massive human catastrophes as Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bangladesh, or Jonestown?1
The fact that evil and suffering do exist, some argue, is evidence that either there is no God, or, if God does exist, He cannot be both merciful and omnipotent.
TEACHER: It seems that through our previous discussions we have already determined a very sound basis for God’s existence, so I see no need to argue against that conclusion.2 To do so would be to backtrack into territory we’ve already covered fairly well. That leaves us, then, with the second conclusion.
MICHAEL: The second conclusion can be elaborated as follows. If God were all-merciful, He would certainly not want to see His children suffer. Moreover, if He were simultaneously all-powerful, then it would most certainly be a simple task for Him to initiate whatever appropriate measures were required to immediately cease all suffering for the living beings. Or, to be even more direct, being all-merciful, He would desire that the living beings should never come to know the experience of suffering in the first place. And, being all-powerful, He would have been able to prevent suffering from occurring.
Since suffering has occurred and is still being endured on a universal level, the second conclusion tells us that God can either be all-merciful and not all-powerful; or all-powerful, yet lacking in mercy. If He is all-powerful and His will is always done, then we can conclude that it is His will that suffering is felt by the living beings. This being the case, He must certainly be lacking in mercy, since He has the power to cause the living beings to experience whatever He may desire, and He has obviously used His power to make them suffer.
On the other hand, if God is full of mercy for the living beings, and is intensely desirous of relieving them from all varieties of suffering and of bestowing all good will upon them, then the very fact that they continue to suffer must mean that He is not all-powerful. This indicates that there is a force or power greater than His own which He cannot overcome, and which inhibits Him from carrying out His heart’s desire, namely, to stop the suffering of the living entities.
TEACHER: The question we are faced with is this: Is it possible that although suffering exists, God is nonetheless both all-powerful and full of mercy? Many theologians have attempted to answer this question in the affirmative, and one of the most common arguments they use to bolster their stance is that of the free will of individual persons.