What is Evil?
Recently I've been involved in a discussion regarding Swedenborg's ideas. That discussion has taken place on a blog of Whistler. The blog is http://ltexperiences.blogspot.com/ and the name of the subject was "The Sun," posted Tuesday September 26, 2006. Here are some of my thoughts about the nature of evil, in comparison to Swedenborg's ideas, as I understand them.
It was in an email that I first heard about the theory that evil is just the absence of good. It was one of those stories passed around the Internet of how a humble Christian boy completely put to shame an old, experienced, and arrogant atheist professor who for many years had successfully shaken the faith of his students in his class. I didn’t know it might be called the Swedenborg principle.
While I thought the argument was brilliant and clever, it didn't seem quite right to me. It did a nifty job of explaining how God, who is all good, could create evil. The fallacy of the argument is a little subtle. There is some truth in the idea. I do agree with the scripture, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17.) But is a failure to do good all there is to evil?
It is true that darkness is not a physical thing, in itself. It is the absence of light. Cold also is just the absence of heat. Darkness and cold are just mental concepts, the physical reality is light and heat. Are good and evil like that, a monopole, or are they a dipole? We can measure light and heat, but how do you measure goodness?
It is possible to construct a box such that there is absolutely no light in the box. Complete and utter darkness is attainable. There is a zero point of light in a space. You can't get darker than completely dark. There is also a zero point of temperature. You can't get colder than absolute zero. It is physically impossible. This seems like an essential consequence of Swedenborg's theory of good and evil; there is a finite, definite lower limit to evil. If something has no good in it, then it is as evil as it can get. Do we really believe this?
Well, how do we judge between good and evil? All things which are good come from God. That which is of God invites and entices you to do good continually, love God, believe in Christ, and serve him. We have the Spirit of Christ to know the difference between good and evil.
To my way of thinking the zero point of goodness would be the complete lack of desire to do good, love God, believe in Christ, and serve him. According to the Swedenborg theory absolute evil should be complete indifference to God. Yet it seems to me that man is capable of sinking much lower in evil than mere indifference.
Evil, according to the LDS theology, is that which comes from the devil, for the devil is an enemy to God, and fights against him continually, and invites and entices to sin, and to do that which is evil continually, and teaches you to not serve God and to not believe in Christ.
The first recorded example of evil on the earth is when the serpent
(Lucifer) came to Adam and Eve to tempt them to eat of the forbidden fruit. It doesn't seem to me that Lucifer is merely indifferent to the well being of Adam and Eve. He is actively trying to bring them to harm. Lucifer wants them to die. He wants them to be disobedient to God. He wants them to suffer. If he merely lacked goodness he wouldn't care, one way or the other. Instead Lucifer or the devil is miserable, and he seeks to make all men miserable like himself. The devil is anything but indifferent.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan we read that a certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. A priest came by, who ought to have helped him, but passed by on the other side. A Levite did the same thing. Now, the priest and the Levite apparently had no good in them, because they did nothing to serve God. They were guilty of the sin of omission; knowing to do good, but doing it not. It seems to me, then, that by Swedenborg's principle the priest and the Levite should be at the extreme of evil. But weren't the thieves even worse? Had the thieves merely had no good in them they would have had no desire to harm the man; just no desire to do him good. Yet they seem to have had a very definite desire to take the man's money, which by itself would hurt the man.
It could have been worse. The Samaritan could have been a person who hated the Jews and wanted to hurt them. He could have seen the helpless Jew on the road and decided to go over and pour salt on his wounds. He could have tortured the helpless man, perhaps telling him how he was going to find the man's wife and kids and torture them as well. In fact, it seems to me, that there is no end to the depth of depravity that we are capable of imagining the Samaritan might have done. Where is the zero point of evil? What is the absolute worst thing a person could do in the situation? The sad thing is, that whatever evil thing you think of, someone can imagine an even more evil thing.
I do not see that hate is merely the lack of love. When we go in a direction of desiring to inflict pain and suffering on another, to glory in wickedness, we sink to greater and greater depths of depravity that seems to have no bottom, and we are in a place much worse than the complete absence of goodness.
If evil is a negative, destructive enticement to pull us away from God, we might ask, "So where did evil come from? Surely not from God." The LDS theology has a somewhat unique answer to that. There are some things that God did not create. For example, matter has always existed. God organized that matter when he created the universe we know. Creation for God is much the same thing as when we take paint, paint brush, and canvas and create a picture. We don't create the paint in the picture; we just organize the paint into a beautiful painting.
We like to think that everything had a beginning. Our finite minds have trouble contemplating anything else. Yet, some things have just always existed. You cannot logically question why they exist, because a reason makes sense only if someone or some force of nature brought them into existence. Then you can ask why. I believe that God, matter, good, evil, the light of truth, and the relationship between good and evil have always existed.
The difference between the Swedenborg principle and LDS theology may appear subtle, but I think there are significant ramifications. As I see it, for Swedenborg good and evil are states of being, not forces. If the universe were such that there is a pole for infinite goodness, but no opposite poll for evil, then the devil would be just a convenient abstraction for the lack of God. He could not be a physical being, but only the absence of everything good. He would be nothing. Evil could neither attract nor entice if this were the case. Evil could not fight against goodness, nor drive it out. In the physical world darkness does not fight against light, cold does not drive out heat. Cold things always absorb heat to a lesser or greater extent, and dark places accept light without active rejection. But in reality I believe we are active agents, and can be enticed by both good and evil, and we have the freedom to choose the direction we will go.
Recently I've been involved in a discussion regarding Swedenborg's ideas. That discussion has taken place on a blog of Whistler. The blog is http://ltexperiences.blogspot.com/ and the name of the subject was "The Sun," posted Tuesday September 26, 2006. Here are some of my thoughts about the nature of evil, in comparison to Swedenborg's ideas, as I understand them.
It was in an email that I first heard about the theory that evil is just the absence of good. It was one of those stories passed around the Internet of how a humble Christian boy completely put to shame an old, experienced, and arrogant atheist professor who for many years had successfully shaken the faith of his students in his class. I didn’t know it might be called the Swedenborg principle.
While I thought the argument was brilliant and clever, it didn't seem quite right to me. It did a nifty job of explaining how God, who is all good, could create evil. The fallacy of the argument is a little subtle. There is some truth in the idea. I do agree with the scripture, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin" (James 4:17.) But is a failure to do good all there is to evil?
It is true that darkness is not a physical thing, in itself. It is the absence of light. Cold also is just the absence of heat. Darkness and cold are just mental concepts, the physical reality is light and heat. Are good and evil like that, a monopole, or are they a dipole? We can measure light and heat, but how do you measure goodness?
It is possible to construct a box such that there is absolutely no light in the box. Complete and utter darkness is attainable. There is a zero point of light in a space. You can't get darker than completely dark. There is also a zero point of temperature. You can't get colder than absolute zero. It is physically impossible. This seems like an essential consequence of Swedenborg's theory of good and evil; there is a finite, definite lower limit to evil. If something has no good in it, then it is as evil as it can get. Do we really believe this?
Well, how do we judge between good and evil? All things which are good come from God. That which is of God invites and entices you to do good continually, love God, believe in Christ, and serve him. We have the Spirit of Christ to know the difference between good and evil.
To my way of thinking the zero point of goodness would be the complete lack of desire to do good, love God, believe in Christ, and serve him. According to the Swedenborg theory absolute evil should be complete indifference to God. Yet it seems to me that man is capable of sinking much lower in evil than mere indifference.
Evil, according to the LDS theology, is that which comes from the devil, for the devil is an enemy to God, and fights against him continually, and invites and entices to sin, and to do that which is evil continually, and teaches you to not serve God and to not believe in Christ.
The first recorded example of evil on the earth is when the serpent
(Lucifer) came to Adam and Eve to tempt them to eat of the forbidden fruit. It doesn't seem to me that Lucifer is merely indifferent to the well being of Adam and Eve. He is actively trying to bring them to harm. Lucifer wants them to die. He wants them to be disobedient to God. He wants them to suffer. If he merely lacked goodness he wouldn't care, one way or the other. Instead Lucifer or the devil is miserable, and he seeks to make all men miserable like himself. The devil is anything but indifferent.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan we read that a certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. A priest came by, who ought to have helped him, but passed by on the other side. A Levite did the same thing. Now, the priest and the Levite apparently had no good in them, because they did nothing to serve God. They were guilty of the sin of omission; knowing to do good, but doing it not. It seems to me, then, that by Swedenborg's principle the priest and the Levite should be at the extreme of evil. But weren't the thieves even worse? Had the thieves merely had no good in them they would have had no desire to harm the man; just no desire to do him good. Yet they seem to have had a very definite desire to take the man's money, which by itself would hurt the man.
It could have been worse. The Samaritan could have been a person who hated the Jews and wanted to hurt them. He could have seen the helpless Jew on the road and decided to go over and pour salt on his wounds. He could have tortured the helpless man, perhaps telling him how he was going to find the man's wife and kids and torture them as well. In fact, it seems to me, that there is no end to the depth of depravity that we are capable of imagining the Samaritan might have done. Where is the zero point of evil? What is the absolute worst thing a person could do in the situation? The sad thing is, that whatever evil thing you think of, someone can imagine an even more evil thing.
I do not see that hate is merely the lack of love. When we go in a direction of desiring to inflict pain and suffering on another, to glory in wickedness, we sink to greater and greater depths of depravity that seems to have no bottom, and we are in a place much worse than the complete absence of goodness.
If evil is a negative, destructive enticement to pull us away from God, we might ask, "So where did evil come from? Surely not from God." The LDS theology has a somewhat unique answer to that. There are some things that God did not create. For example, matter has always existed. God organized that matter when he created the universe we know. Creation for God is much the same thing as when we take paint, paint brush, and canvas and create a picture. We don't create the paint in the picture; we just organize the paint into a beautiful painting.
We like to think that everything had a beginning. Our finite minds have trouble contemplating anything else. Yet, some things have just always existed. You cannot logically question why they exist, because a reason makes sense only if someone or some force of nature brought them into existence. Then you can ask why. I believe that God, matter, good, evil, the light of truth, and the relationship between good and evil have always existed.
The difference between the Swedenborg principle and LDS theology may appear subtle, but I think there are significant ramifications. As I see it, for Swedenborg good and evil are states of being, not forces. If the universe were such that there is a pole for infinite goodness, but no opposite poll for evil, then the devil would be just a convenient abstraction for the lack of God. He could not be a physical being, but only the absence of everything good. He would be nothing. Evil could neither attract nor entice if this were the case. Evil could not fight against goodness, nor drive it out. In the physical world darkness does not fight against light, cold does not drive out heat. Cold things always absorb heat to a lesser or greater extent, and dark places accept light without active rejection. But in reality I believe we are active agents, and can be enticed by both good and evil, and we have the freedom to choose the direction we will go.
posted by Nectar | 5:18 PM
7 Comments:
Well... how does that explain how Satan used to be good? It was his agency that allowed for evil, not some nebulous outside source.
And if evil were an equal pole, it would have some chance of winning... but it doesn't.
Thank you for your comments, Whistler.
First, let me say that much of what I posted about good and evil comes from Moroni 7:6-19. I think it is also instructive to read 2 Nephi 2: 15-17, and D&C 29:39. We see from these scriptures that a man cannot act for himself unless he is enticed by both good and evil, by God and by the devil. There is a pull toward God, and a pull toward the devil, and we with our God-given agency cast the deciding vote. But when we continually give in to the enticing of the devil we gradually lose the power to turn back. Satan’s hold on us becomes stronger, and God’s power to attract us becomes weaker, because our will to do good grows weaker. We can also give in to the enticing of God and find evil less and less attractive.
It would be a mistake to think that evil is just some nebulous outside source, just as much as it would be a mistake to think the same of good. Satan has real power, and it is very strong. Evil is a real thing.
Lucifer (also known as the devil and Satan) was a son of the morning, but evidently he had hidden flaws that were not brought out until he was tested in the first estate. In 2 Nephi 2:17 we read that Lucifer fell from his position in heaven when he sought that which was evil before God. He was attracted to evil power (is that what you call a nebulous outside source?), and sought to destroy the agency of man, overthrow the kingdom of God through rebellion, and unrighteously take to himself the honor of God, which is God’s power (D&C 76: 25-38; 2 Ne. 9: 8; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4).
As God defines winning, God will always win. That is, God is able to save all those who come unto Him in meekness of heart, with a contrite spirit, and a desire to repent of all their sins and keep all the commandments. But what about those who choose to do evil? Amulek taught “And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins” (Alma 11: 37.) However, God still wins when He cannot prevent an unrepentant soul from going to hell, because this is God’s purpose for giving us an earth life – that by our choices we should receive what we merit. God’s plan means some of us will be lost to evil.
I believe Satan defines winning to mean that he is successful in making men miserable like unto himself. True, he would like to thwart the plans of God and take over God’s kingdom, and this Satan does not have sufficient power to do. However, Satan has already succeeded in wresting a third of all of God’s children away from the power of God and into the power of evil, where they will be miserable forever. These spirits will never be saved (see D&C 76: 25-38.) God does not have sufficient power to save them. So, from a certain point of view, evil has already won over a third of God’s children. Does evil have a chance of winning even more souls? You bet. Sounds pretty powerful to me. The devil could win every soul, if everyone let him.
___________________________________
2 Nephi 2: 15 – 17 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.
16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.
17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
D&C 29:39 And it must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves; for if they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet—
I'll have to admit that I there's much I have yet to understand on the subject.
I agree, Nectar. There certainly seems to be an infinite capacity for evil, just as there is for good. And if God wins the battle with Satan by saving a greater number of souls than are lost, it will be because of our agency, because more of us chose God than chose Satan.
Enjoyable read. I hadn't thought of that before, and you're very persuasive.
Whistler, I must admit the same thing when I read your blog about the psychology of learning - I have much to learn about the subject.
Ambrosia, exactly right.
Bawb, thanks for the compliment!
nectar,
Great post, even if we don't agree on everything! We have much to agree on (Swedenborgians and LDS).
Some differences that popped out at me right away, from Swedenborg's theology:
* God created all (and creates all continuously)
* There are only angels and devils from those who lived on earth and died. No devils were once angels and are now fallen. People die, their interiors are revealed to them in the spiritual world, and they gravitate to their eventual "home" of heaven or hell.
* Humans are built with an inherent love of themselves. I guess that loving God and the neighbor is -- for us -- the opposite of loving self.
I think Swedenborg would say that evil is more than an indifference to God. Evil is love of self. And in its pure form (without any countervailing influences that everyone experiences here on earth), that is incredible hatred towards the Lord and the neighbor.
And, Swedenborg would also say that each of us is in contact with the spiritual world through influencing spirits. Some are good and some are evil. And this enables us to be in complete spiritual freedom.
So, we, here on earth, would be bombarded with evils of varying degrees. And that would be more than indifference -- to us.
Swedenborg relates a story about seeing some devils from the lowest hell, and they appeard like petrified logs with no movement at all. But to themselves, they were actively engaged in their hatreds. To angels they appeared lifeless.
Post a Comment
<< Home