Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3878196" data-attributes="member: 4937">But, just for the record, that isn't what dualism means.  Dualism means the belief that good and evil are equally real, necessary, and substantial forces in the universe.  Generally, in religions this involves a belief that the universe is governed by incarnations of two rival beings - a good one and an evil one, or a male and a female one, or a creating and a destroying one - but it can simply mean a belief in the balance of these two principals.  For examples of this, see Manichaeism, Zoastrism, and philosophies based on the afore mentioned Yen and Yang.  Dualism doesn't necessarily accept worship of either principle as being equally valid (though it can), but it does accept the necessary existance of both principles in the sense that neither can completely triumph over the other because they need each other.  All the Orthodox Abrahamic traditions (which pretty much covers all modern monotheism) reject Dualism.  You do occassionally see Satan elevated up to the rival of God by some thinkers, for example St. Augustine borders on dualism at times which is somewhat understandable given his conversion from Manichaeism and Milton and others have left a bad dualistic streak amongst populist Christian thinking.  But ,this isn't considered proper understanding of the scriptures by most students of those religions.Hmmm... ok.  I'm not here arguing that they are or are not.  I'm trying hard to avoid stating what you should or shouldn't believe.  Whether good and evil are independent of the creator being depends on which has primacy.  If good and evil exist prior to the creator and independent to him, then yes, what is goodly or lawful or chaotic are independent of any religion surrounding the creator or any other diety.  In polytheism this is almost certainly true, as the superhumanly divine polytheistic beings tend not to be powerful enough to actually create the universe but rather are incarnations of some principle that exists before they do.  For example, a God of Chaos.  But if you have a truly primal creator being, as you tend to have in monotheism, this isn't the case.  Everything that exists is created through the creator being, so anything with real existence exists and is defined according to the creator's design.  In that case, the being is the ultimate authority on what is right and wrong because he made the concepts of rightness and wrongness and they are subject to his authority.It probably shouldn't surprise you to consider that some religions deny that both good and evil exist, and see both as purely artificial constructs.  Likewise, most non-religious naturalists would object to your description of either as being as real as gravity is.I think that they are only consistant in so far as universes are consistant.  As to why values might seem absolute to you, that's not something I can discuss in this forum.This is a religious statement.  It is a statement of faith and conviction.  But the metaphysics of this statement cannot in anyway be considered settled.  Reasonable people from different philosophical traditions can disagree over the truth of the above statements.  Tolkien, for example, coming from a Catholic tradition would reject them utterly and does so within his fiction.  It is not a settled fact that if there is good in the universe that there must be evil, or that good is rendered lifeless and sterile in the absence of evil.A statement that could be interpreted in the framework of Dungeons and Dragons as being one of chaotic conviction, but which again, is not a philosophical point which could be considered settled. I'm always happy to agree to disagree.  I'm a strange guy.  Since people so seldom agree with me, this is usually the happiest result I can manage.Because you seem to be acting with good intentions, I'll overlook the implied insult in that and simply say that perhaps you should study a bit more comparitive theology and then get back to me on whether a solid argument can be made that good can exist in the absence of evil.</blockquote>

Verification