So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
You think volcanic activity and strong winds are "evil"?
You think we need "redemption"? We need to be saved from the success of reducing poverty and disease? Does such "redemption" involve shifting back toward some kind of Drak Age where women are reduced to property again?
I don't follow.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
Natural events are unwitting and unwilled however their effects are sometimes evil effects.Burning ghost wrote:Belindi -
You think volcanic activity and strong winds are "evil"?
You think we need "redemption"? We need to be saved from the success of reducing poverty and disease? Does such "redemption" involve shifting back toward some kind of Drak Age where women are reduced to property again?
I don't follow.
Human behaviour is another natural event although humans can exert some self control and inhibit evil behaviour.
Throughout I define evil as that which causes death and suffering to man, beast, and species.
'Redemption' is a usually a religious word. But I use it in the sense that men do bad things. And that many people feel the need to redeem the debt that I believe we, as rational creatures, owe to ourselves and the rest of the living world to make reparation for our selfish destructiveness. The only useful idea of 'God' is the idea that God is the name of whatever useful work we do to redeem the above debt.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
Belindi, you clearly use the word "evil" to mean, essentially, "destructive". Some other people seem to use it as a way to avoid having to look for reasons why humans do things. They say things like "that was an act of pure evil" and leave it at that. That's always been the sense of the word "evil" that I've found least helpful because it leaves no possibility of ever preventing future evil acts by attempting to understand their causes.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
But bare survival is not a good enough criterion for good. Good is often present among the illustrious dead.Extinct species are not less good because they are extinct. Extinct and extant are factual: good and evil are moral.Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.
Steve, I do agree that evil is a word that needs defining by a description of evil. The description can be examples, and it can be comparison with a criterion for evil. I posted my criterion.
Evil is a lot easier to define than good. Why is this?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
I would call all of that pretty good. So, yeah! Spectrum is right to say 'good' is at the head of the human endeavor. That is not to say there are not individual acts of 'evil'. I would extend the argument further and even say that 'evil' is a natural necessity for the 'good'.
-- Updated October 9th, 2017, 10:19 am to add the following --
I would not define "suffering" as an "evil"? That is like saying life is evil. If that is your view then I whole heartedly wish to fight against you.
Maybe we'd be better off viewing "evil" in terms of encouraging destruction? Knowing a disaster is coming, knowing you can do something to prevent the extent of the disaster, yet doing nothing to help fend it of, is what I would call the first step toward actively initiating disaster. It starts with shirking responsibility and ends with actively feeding the fire of destruction.
We are all guilty of this "evil" to some extent. Some against themselves (causing the destruction to spread to others), and others by our failure to deal with ourselves and thus deflecting onto others.
Basically, I don't see how "evil" can be untangled from responsibility. This is why children are innocent. They have yet to reach a point where they are able to either take on or shirk responsibility to any large degree.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
Re 'evil' - a definition and consensus are necessary else the discussion is going nowhere.Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:But bare survival is not a good enough criterion for good. Good is often present among the illustrious dead.Extinct species are not less good because they are extinct. Extinct and extant are factual: good and evil are moral.Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.
Steve, I do agree that evil is a word that needs defining by a description of evil. The description can be examples, and it can be comparison with a criterion for evil. I posted my criterion.
Evil is a lot easier to define than good. Why is this?
I have always defined 'evil' as human acts [individual or groups] that are net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom the collective.
I think you can agree to confine 'evil' to human acts only which is a subject by itself. When we confine 'evil' to humans only, we have the possibility to research, objectify and control evil to some extent.
If you wish, you can define 'evil' by extending it to non-human acts, e.g. natural events, viruses, animals, theistic related, etc. I am not interested in this extended definition in this discussion.
I believe bare survival at the optimal* level is the very minimal base for what is 'good'.
If only one person survive that is not optimal for the preservation of the species. To be optimal there must be the minimum number of males and females left to ensure the preservation of the species.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
I don't agree because human beings are also part of nature. The fact that humans are moral beings does not exclude them from being part of nature.I think you can agree to confine 'evil' to human acts only which is a subject by itself. When we confine 'evil' to humans only, we have the possibility to research, objectify and control evil to some extent.
Only by the inclusion of humans as part of nature , and by extension humans and humanity as material for deterministic science, can we control what by consensus we deem to be evil in humans and humanity. Your predilection for survival of homo sapiens is served by inclusion of homo sapiens in nature like other species. Indeed other species can and do enlighten us as to human nature.
- Atreyu
- Posts: 1737
- Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
- Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
- Location: Orlando, FL
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
The issue seems to be more about most people not adhering to the idea that volcanoes get moody.
I am willing to accept that animal s have certain levels of "morality" and a sense of "fair play". I am saying VERY clearly that talking about 'evil' trees, the 'evil' of bodies of water, or 'evil' weather, is almost complete nonsense.
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
I was not clear. I understand humans are part, connected and interdependent with nature and the whole of reality. In this sense nature will effect humanity and the acts [not necessary evil acts] of humanity can effect nature.Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:I don't agree because human beings are also part of nature. The fact that humans are moral beings does not exclude them from being part of nature.I think you can agree to confine 'evil' to human acts only which is a subject by itself. When we confine 'evil' to humans only, we have the possibility to research, objectify and control evil to some extent.
Only by the inclusion of humans as part of nature , and by extension humans and humanity as material for deterministic science, can we control what by consensus we deem to be evil in humans and humanity. Your predilection for survival of homo sapiens is served by inclusion of homo sapiens in nature like other species. Indeed other species can and do enlighten us as to human nature.
My point earlier was, the word 'evil' a VERY loose term. Thus to be more effective in our communication and discussion in this instance and case, I would prefer to confine 'evil' to human acts only. For example in the case of Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, there is no necessity to extend the term 'evil' [bad] to non-human activities.
If you want to extend 'evil' to non-human things and events, there would be separate topic you can discuss with those who agree with your definition, but I am out of that.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
But don't you recognise that , despite that they may not conceptualise, animals other than men feel evils? And don't you recognise that even the inanimate world and universe might be a value in its own right so that destruction of it is an evil?If you want to extend 'evil' to non-human things and events, there would be separate topic you can discuss with those who agree with your definition, but I am out of that.
If you are going to disregard other sentient animals and/or the inanimate universe then you will have to claim that other sentient animals and the inanimate universe don't matter.
If you are in the business of limiting evil to men then why not impose further limits and limit evil to very intelligent men? I can answer that, Spectrum. It is because you want to discuss evil solely as social evil. That is okay, but it's legalistic not philosophical.
The idea of a good God which by definition has no evil is a good idea. It can be helpful to personify an idea. Whenever this good -God -personification becomes a political weapon it deteriorates into a power for lies, and lies are evil. Similarly when philosophy metamorphoses into legalism philosophy can serve lying behaviour.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
Is it? If evil is defined as destructive couldn't good be defined as constructive?Evil is a lot easier to define than good. Why is this?
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
It is matter of efficiency.Belindi wrote: If you are in the business of limiting evil to men then why not impose further limits and limit evil to very intelligent men? I can answer that, Spectrum. It is because you want to discuss evil solely as social evil. That is okay, but it's legalistic not philosophical.
I don't want to extend the term 'evil' to natural events as that will involve God [don't exists] and mess up with the theistic 'Problem of Evil.' This can be very messy when one get entangle into the the non-existent ontological evil.
I prefer to focus on 'evil' as restricted to [intentions and negligence of] humans and therefrom the Philosophy of Moral [dealing with good and evil]. In this case we are focused on researching and resolving the issue of human evils, i.e. genocides, murders, mass rapes, corruption, serial killers, drug wars, and the likes. With the advent of advancing knowledge in the field of genomics, neurosciences and others we are now is a good position to focus and work on human-based evils more efficiently.
Where it involves natural catastrophes they should be resolved by scientists, governments on a global scale and appropriate parties. I am not into this issues.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
If this particular usage of the word "evil" simply means "destructive", why does it have to involve a god?I don't want to extend the term 'evil' to natural events as that will involve God
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.
Note the 'problem of evil' re argument against theism.Steve3007 wrote:If this particular usage of the word "evil" simply means "destructive", why does it have to involve a god?I don't want to extend the term 'evil' to natural events as that will involve God
Example if God is so morally good, compassionate, omni-benevolent why is God introducing evil acts in terms of tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other catastrophes that kill millions, in addition to allowing evil-acts to exist.
Personally I do not use this 'problem of evil' [a sort of checkmate move] to counter the existence of God because God is illusory in the first place and is an impossibility.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023