Imagine a nation where every hospital is free of cost irrespective to your status, caste, gender, religion, nationality. A multi-speciality hospital providing you a clothes, well furnished wards, delicious food, specialized doctors, that too free of cost. Not just this even giving the patient money and food as a compensation for being out of work during his hospital stay. Isn't it mind-blowing?? This is what hospitals were in the Islamic Civilization. In early medieval where Europe belief that illness is supernatural, uncontrollable, incurable. Muslims took completely different approach because of the saying of prophet Muhammadï·º, “God has sent down the disease and he has appointed cure for every disease, so treat yourself medically”(¹) Mobile Dispensaries The first known Islamic care center was set up in a tent by Rufaydah al-Aslamiyah r.a during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammadï·º. Famously, during the Ghazwah Khandaq, she treated the wounded in a separ...
If god wishes to not erase evil, he is not all-good and if he cannot erase evil he is not all-powerful. Let us first discuss the natural conclusion of this argument. This argument questions the nature of god not the existence of god. If this argument proves that god is not all-good then that's all it proves, a not all-good or evil god still may exist if we look at it logically. For example the head of a corporate company, if he exploits his employees, underpays his staff and harms the environment because of his projects does that mean he stops existing? If despite all this his employees that have not seen him believe that he is a good man, and one proves to them that he is not then can the employees stop believing he exists?
This goes against sound intellect. Hence this argument has absolutely nothing against the reasoning of our previous chapter. Next is, if God cannot erase all evil he is not all-powerful. If God were not all-powerful then “all” would not exist as previously established that something cannot come out of nothing. This only means that God by his own will does not erase what we see and define as evil.
Then does an ‘evil’ God exist?
Then does an ‘evil’ God exist?
Definition of Evil
Evil as a term is a moral standing. Usually used to define the one who purposely commits immoralities. The question if an Evil god exists can never be proven through our own intellect. How does one, without any external source decide what is moral? Humans by themselves disagree on the definition of morality 10/10 times. Some countries define prostitution as moral while some see it as a strict immorality and prefer death over it. Some cultures advocate same sex marriages being moral while some believe it is immoral. This simply proves that the criteria by which one decides what is evil is different all across the world. Then by whose criteria is God evil? If one says that morality is subjective, then can he ever describe anyone as evil, let alone God. The position of Human morality is such that one can never arrive at what is objectively evil. One can however subjectively believe that such and such is evil, but what volume does it hold if it's subjective. Like the example we quoted in our previous chapter if one was to be convinced that the sun is cold, would the sun perhaps start freezing? To claim that God is objectively evil one will have to bring forth an objective criteria of deciding that which is evil and that which isn't.
Objective Morality
The Existence of “evil” can only be acknowledged as objectively evil with belief in God. The Muslims unite objectively upon the fact that interest is immoral, alcohol is immoral, tyranny is evil, and subjective morality is evil. If one rationally believes that God created all then morality itself is one of his creations. Can it be argued now that the creator of mortal moral laws has to abide by them? One with more knowledge always has a higher moral ground. Look at it this way, for a child a vaccination is merely a needle that will be pierced into his skin for no reason at all. He does not know what is vaccination, does not know what are antibodies from the worldview of that child the needle is merciless, terrorising and hence immoral. However the adult supervising this vaccination has more knowledge in comparison to the child, he knows the vaccination is moral and he knows he does not have to convince the child that it is moral because his child does not have the worldview or the perspective to understand the moral laws of the society that the adult has had played a part in creating. Simply stating the moral laws of the child do not apply to the adult due to the child not knowing what the adult knows. This example is a contrast between a subject that knows too less and a subject that knows comparatively more. Let us now apply the same principles to a god that knows all there is in comparison to the human that knows comparatively less. Can one preach morality to the other? Just as the child by force or without it has to submit to the higher standard of morality that is the adult, the adult by force or without it will submit to the higher standard of morality. If something did not come out of nothing and man did not create the universe, and does not have complete knowledge of it he does not deserve to establish moral laws. The system of God is such that man is objectively incapable of deriving objectively moral laws.
Nature of God
Thus we establish that Nature of God cannot be derived and defined by human understanding. Nor does his ‘evil’ nature negate his existence. Nor can human define ‘evil’ without what he states as evil.
Which brings us to the question we will be pondering in our next chapter, if all religions have moral laws then what moral law is true? How do we know what God describes as moral? That is for the next chapter.
Evil as a term is a moral standing. Usually used to define the one who purposely commits immoralities. The question if an Evil god exists can never be proven through our own intellect. How does one, without any external source decide what is moral? Humans by themselves disagree on the definition of morality 10/10 times. Some countries define prostitution as moral while some see it as a strict immorality and prefer death over it. Some cultures advocate same sex marriages being moral while some believe it is immoral. This simply proves that the criteria by which one decides what is evil is different all across the world. Then by whose criteria is God evil? If one says that morality is subjective, then can he ever describe anyone as evil, let alone God. The position of Human morality is such that one can never arrive at what is objectively evil. One can however subjectively believe that such and such is evil, but what volume does it hold if it's subjective. Like the example we quoted in our previous chapter if one was to be convinced that the sun is cold, would the sun perhaps start freezing? To claim that God is objectively evil one will have to bring forth an objective criteria of deciding that which is evil and that which isn't.
Objective Morality
The Existence of “evil” can only be acknowledged as objectively evil with belief in God. The Muslims unite objectively upon the fact that interest is immoral, alcohol is immoral, tyranny is evil, and subjective morality is evil. If one rationally believes that God created all then morality itself is one of his creations. Can it be argued now that the creator of mortal moral laws has to abide by them? One with more knowledge always has a higher moral ground. Look at it this way, for a child a vaccination is merely a needle that will be pierced into his skin for no reason at all. He does not know what is vaccination, does not know what are antibodies from the worldview of that child the needle is merciless, terrorising and hence immoral. However the adult supervising this vaccination has more knowledge in comparison to the child, he knows the vaccination is moral and he knows he does not have to convince the child that it is moral because his child does not have the worldview or the perspective to understand the moral laws of the society that the adult has had played a part in creating. Simply stating the moral laws of the child do not apply to the adult due to the child not knowing what the adult knows. This example is a contrast between a subject that knows too less and a subject that knows comparatively more. Let us now apply the same principles to a god that knows all there is in comparison to the human that knows comparatively less. Can one preach morality to the other? Just as the child by force or without it has to submit to the higher standard of morality that is the adult, the adult by force or without it will submit to the higher standard of morality. If something did not come out of nothing and man did not create the universe, and does not have complete knowledge of it he does not deserve to establish moral laws. The system of God is such that man is objectively incapable of deriving objectively moral laws.
Nature of God
Thus we establish that Nature of God cannot be derived and defined by human understanding. Nor does his ‘evil’ nature negate his existence. Nor can human define ‘evil’ without what he states as evil.
Which brings us to the question we will be pondering in our next chapter, if all religions have moral laws then what moral law is true? How do we know what God describes as moral? That is for the next chapter.
@author
Fahad Salim Mom
Pursuing honors in philosophy and major
in
English,
student of islamic
psychology, Youtuber, social worker.
fahadmom94@gmail.com
Youtube
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting!