What a nice post... yes Einstein for sure didn't say that. If I am correct ,his god's concept is probably what I also believe about god, the Deus sive Natura . What people call God for me is Nature and yeah, that is powerful and uncontrolled by us.
You know some interesting stuff. I was hearing the Star Talk podcast one of these days and they were debating about the usage of red and blue to establish hot and cold. But the blue light doesn't mean cold in the universe hehehe. Actually, blue light is hotter than red.
So yes, darkness and cold aren't worse than hot and light. We need darkness to slee,p right? We need less hot environment to feel ok!! I believe more in that Ying Yang concept for everything we need the balance of the ingredients, including evil and good.
Both evil and good are part of human nature and need active states of mind; nothing is passive. I don't wake in the morning in an automatic way, willing to help those who need. I see a person and think, then I take action. And the same for evil we need the same process. What changes is our experience and learning with feelings. Thinking about the consequences of our actions is also important in this case.
In the matter for to justify why the theory of good and evil doesn't match the god of religions, I wouldn't waste so much time finding the equation to prove it. The concept of a conscious, interventionist God is, to me, illogical.
Your reply is upvoted by @topcomment; a manual curation service that rewards meaningful and engaging comments.
More Info - Support us! - Reports - Discord Channel
Thank you for that thoughtful comment!
You do know how to serenade me with Astronomy😋
But it's actually such a good example! Culturally: Hot = Red, cold = Blue. But on the light spectrum, Red = cold, Blue = hot. Its exactly inversed.
It appears we, humans, have a flawed tendency to conflate cultural constructs, such as good and evil, with states in physics that have no moral intent at all. And that is really the crux of it all.
As far as God existence, I think I'm with you, but since Nature is already a word that is good enough to describe our surroundings, then I'll just use that. Because God implies some thinking, acting agent.
perhaps the balance is not necessarily the juggling between the two, but rather finding a reasonable grey-zone?
This is a tricky one... because you're going into what factors make someone act in accordance with their morality. But I propose that the minimal threshold for morality is non-harm. Everything above it is increasingly good. and everything below it, is increasingly evil. If you wake up, not harming anyone, you're already on the good side of history. If you finish your day never causing harm, you're a good person (at base line).
What do you think?