[LMB] Belief: Was What makes a character irredeemable?
mathews55 at msn.com
Thu Aug 1 15:46:18 BST 2019
Epicurus accepted the definition of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. For anyone accepting that definition, the Problem of Evil is a very knotty one, subject to endless debate over several millennia. It is also an open invitation to either atheist or deism on the part of those who don't want to wrestle with it.
Most polytheism - like the Five Gods of Chalion (and apparently the rest of the planet) - accept limitations on the powers of their gods, which the Temple makes plain to anybody listening. Of course, the percentage of people listening may range from 0 to 100.
From: lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk <lois-bujold-bounces at lists.herald.co.uk> on behalf of Marc Wilson <marc.wilson at gmx.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2019 8:22 AM
To: LMB <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [LMB] Belief: Was What makes a character irredeemable?
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:29:28 -0400, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at mindstalk.net> wrote:
>> It's only from the Enlightenment onwards that we get people who fit
>> our modern definition of atheists
>Not at all sure that's true, especially since it was commonly fatal
>to be convicted of atheism. *Skepticism* is certainly found long before
>the Enlightenment. Carvaka were atheists in ancient India. Epicureans
>nominally believed in something they called gods but that were radically
>different from anyone else's god, and that might as well have not
>existed, and disbelieved in an afterlife.
Epicurus himself was pretty skeptical:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of demand.
Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to mathews55 at msn.com
Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
More information about the Lois-Bujold