Why is man supposed to be evil?

[Neznac]

If someone shares some personal information on here, particularly about family, I think it places them in a position of much more vulnerability than when we're all simply talking in impersonal, abstract terms. I'm inclined to respect the bravery of doing that by trying to tread very lightly and sensitively in analyzing it, and by trying to bring to bear as much as possible of my own experiences of family dis-chord.

My point Steve was that perhaps enegue was drawing from his own personal family relationships when he cautioned you about what you teach your children and how you do that teaching. I didn't mean to denigrate or to judge him as a parent.

As I hope I've communicated, in the realm of morality I believe that opposition and rebellion can be caused by various things, but a major cause is what could be characterized as "going against the grain". Good leadership resonates with something that is already in the heart of the follower. I think, on that point, we agree.

I'm wondering now if enegue's reference to leader/leadership is simply his civil way of invoking God? If that's the case then the word "leader" will have different values for the theist and the non-theist. I don't think using God as what the word 'leader' refers to (even in a hypothetical sense) is very useful.

I agree that the curious wording of the reply to my question suggests a desire, on enegue's part, to obfuscate the answer. I can't think of any other reason why one would answer a question with the statement: "I simply don't believe you."

Here again Steve, for enegue, God is getting in the way. He either believes God or he believes you, so for his purposes it seems impossible to elevate YOU to the same status as God. Like you said in your answer further down about "absolute morality" this response just shows the obvious limitations of the theistic ethic.

How's that working with your son?

As I said at the top, what you choose to say is up to you, but I personally want to tread sensitively on this, as I would hope others would do for me if I shared some information about the intricacies of my family relationships. But, on the general point I do agree that no convincing case has yet been made for the efficacy of the God-backed approach to moral leadership.

I think I realized when I wrote that sentence that I had crossed over a line, but I wanted enegue to personally reflect on what he was saying. Yes, I took advantage of his vulnerability, probably made him shed a tear or two. It's a tough sell.

[Skycloudnz]

It has been said that love is the absence of fear. Why do we fear things?

[Spectrum]

It has been said that love is the absence of fear. Why do we fear things?

Nah, in general the primary human emotions are on alert and active in parallel to each other at the same time.
Whilst one emotion can dominate in relation to a critical situation on hand, it does not totally negate other primary emotions.

Therefore an animal lover may have great love the wild cats, but at the same time s/he will also have great fears when in the presence of tigers or lions in the wild or in captivity.

So love is not the absence of fear.
Love is love and fear is fear.

[Skydude]

I personally veiw many religious texts to be a tool that is used in order to teach the concepts of morality and other ethical veiwpoints in a way that the common man can understand. An example of my point would be the scriptures in the bible about the apple from the tree of knowledge, when you look at this story in a non literal way it could symbolize many things one of which could be the point when man developed the concept of good and evil therefore in a way he created both. In my experience stories last through the ages more effectively than simple observations and facts, so maybe all these stories were created to help others form A lasting idea of the human condition and our place in the universe.

[Spectrum]

I personally veiw many religious texts to be a tool that is used in order to teach the concepts of morality and other ethical veiwpoints in a way that the common man can understand. An example of my point would be the scriptures in the bible about the apple from the tree of knowledge, when you look at this story in a non literal way it could symbolize many things one of which could be the point when man developed the concept of good and evil therefore in a way he created both. In my experience stories last through the ages more effectively than simple observations and facts, so maybe all these stories were created to help others form A lasting idea of the human condition and our place in the universe.

Note this "Religion within the Limits of Bare Reason" by your favorite Immanuel Kant, whom I highly respect.

In the above book, Kant explained very clearly Christianity's role in terms of morality and ethics within humanity. Kant criticized Christianity heavily but admit Christianity did and still contribute critically to humanity but only relative to time and history.
For Kant, human morality in the long run eventually has to be leveraged absolutely and unconditionally on the Categorical Imperative to guide ethics in the practical sphere.

-- Updated Tue Aug 30, 2016 11:42 pm to add the following --

Note I am not referring to any ontological evil, e.g. the existence of Satan, devil, etc., in this post.

Re: Why is man supposed to be evil?
DNA wise, All humans are born with the inherent POTENTIAL to be beastly and evil.
note potential meant dormant within and is not active until activated

To facilitate survival all humans are endowed with a neural circuit to kill and maim [including other physical and mental harm to others] within the basement of their brain.
Because the potential to be evil is embedded deep in the brain as an instinct, there is no way of getting rid of it physically. However through 6 millions of progress this potential to be evil is suppressed in humans at the present by inhibitors and triggered when necessary.

One critical point relevant in this case is, based on empirical evidences, all human variables are naturally and Normally Distributed over a range of degrees from low to high. Thus what we have with humans is the inhibitors that suppressed the evil potential in all humans come within a range from very strong, average to very weak.
Since a percentile of 'very weak' inhibitors will naturally exist, there will be human who has weak to very weak inhibitors that are unable to suppress the evil potential within them. These are the percentile of humans who are born with an active evil tendency to commit evil of various degrees [from low, average to high].
These are the people who are compelled to commit evil on their own evil impulses or when their evil tendencies are trigger by external stimuli, e.g. violent elements in various medias, movies, books, etc.

There are a percentage of people who are born with a good set of strong inhibitors that suppressed their inherent evil potential. However all neuron inhibitors are subject to atrophy and damage [various reasons]. Thus some humans who are born with good tendencies can turned to be evil prone if their inhibitors are weakened due to various reasons.

So it is not a question of "Why is man supposed to be evil" rather as long as there are humans, a percentile [%] will be evil prone naturally from birth due to nature and some turned evil due to nurture factors.

The above is the reason why there is so much evil acts being committed by SOME humans at any time. There is no Satan, devil, Iblis existing out there seducing humans to be evil. The so-called "Satan" is within humanity and active in SOME humans due to weak inhibitors.

[Gertie]

I roughly agree with you Spectrum, though I'd say the big neurological picture is less binary and much more complex.

Our earliest genetic 'default conditioning' if you like, is based around survival (retaining homeostasis) and reproduction. With no care for how this impacts on the welfare of others. But as our forbears evolved into cooperative social mammals we in addition evolved genetic predispositions towards cooperation. Hence as you say a greater ability to inhibit selfish aggressive behaviour, but also bonding, empathy, reciprocal altruism, guilt, etc. Which helped us to survive and reproduce as a result of the evolutionary advantages of looking out for each other in a social grouping (tribe), as well as ourselves.

So in reality healthy brains are a kludgey mix of competing impulses, elements of which will be more heavily 'triggered' in particular circumstances, and also 'sculpted' by experience (particularly early on when our brains are still developing and most plastic).

To me this makes terms like 'Evil' rather misleading, as it implies some external force at work on us, but all the evidence suggests it's brains all the way down. Even with psychopaths, neuroscientists are now beginning to identify areas of the brain with abnormalities which correlate with psychopathic behaviour.

[Fooloso4]

Vijaydevani:

A few theists in the forum are convinced that man is intrinsically evil. They are also convinced that man is made in the image of God. So the question is, why did God make a man in His own image, and make him intrinsically evil, considering that God is intrinsically good? Also, if God is all that is good, how did evil get created? If Satan created evil, who created Satan?

We should first distinguish between what Genesis says with regard to man and what Paul said. There is a dynamic dualism in the original stories that play no part in Paul’s condemnation of man. Man in the Genesis story is neither good nor bad, but had knowledge of them and became capable of both. Sin was not something unavoidable, one could choose what path he would take. This may be one of the ways in which man was said to be the image of God. We do not find in the Genesis story the notion that God is intrinsically good. God is vengeful, wrathful, jealous, and must be told by Abraham to do what is right.

Paul advocates a perverse image of man as perverse. Man has inherited sin as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. It is not that man is intrinsically evil but that he has inherited sin. He refers to Christ as the “new Adam” because through Christ man can be born again without sin. This is, as I said, a perverse theology because a) it perverts the story of the Garden, and b) it seems to have resulted from Paul’s own perverse loathing of the physical world, including the body of man, which in turn perverts the notion of sin.

There is no single notion of Satan in the Bible. Various attributes and characteristics have been attributed to Satan over time. It is difficult for the casual reader and those who automatically reject the work of scholars who have anything to say that goes against their beliefs to de-sediment these layers, but when it is done the picture that emerges is quite different than what is commonly thought.

We might then ask the question why was Paul’s Christianity was accepted? The answer, I think, has to do the promise of salvation. Belief in the coming of the Messiah preceded Jesus and Paul. Paul took this belief, packed it with his own baggage, and assimilated it to pagan beliefs in order to appeal to his target audience. It was the promise that was accepted by most of his followers, but it was the perversion that appealed to a few who came to exercise power over the Christian community who emphasized what was for Paul only preliminary. For Paul the message was about transcending sin, but others became mired in sin and made it a prominent feature of their religion. It should be pointed out that Paul had no intention of perpetuating a new religion. He believed the world was about to end and used whatever means were available to him to save those he could before it was too late. As to why they should feel they needed to be saved, it seems to have less to do with the problem of sin as it did with the promise of a new, transcendent life as was described in Romans.

[Spectrum]

To me this makes terms like 'Evil' rather misleading, as it implies some external force at work on us, but all the evidence suggests it's brains all the way down. Even with psychopaths, neuroscientists are now beginning to identify areas of the brain with abnormalities which correlate with psychopathic behaviour.

My view is 'evil' is not from an external independent force like what most religions believed, e.g. Satan or the devil influencing humans to be evil.

My starting point of 'what is evil' is based on empirical evidence of human acts that are recognized as 'not good' thus 'evil' [abominable, vile, bad, ugly, negative, etc.].

Based on empirical evidences, the next question is what are the root causes of such acts labeled as 'evil' of various degrees.

From the investigation of root causes, the main basis is 'brains all the way down' but evil is also triggered by external stimuli, such as natural or human events.

You seem to have overlooked this point which is critical,

"To facilitate survival ALL humans are endowed with a neural circuit to kill and maim [including other physical and mental harm to others] within the basement of their brain. "

When the above impulse is not suppressed and get perverted, then there is where one of the worst evil can arise.

[Lucius]

hello everybody...my apologies if I did not read the entire thread up to this point thoroughly enough...

This is a fascinating question...it is not what we normally expect to be asked. What people usually ask is "why is man evil", or "Is man evil"...

Let me re-phrase the title as, "Why is man said to be evil." And let suggest that the reasons have more to do with materialism and the institutions which have been built up in the name of religion than it does to any religious text.

It is hugely important to understand that there is an ideology involved. Ideology requires an institution to spread and maintain itself, and "church" is the institution of a religious ideology...and the ideology is only vaguely related to religious texts it claims to promote. As the institution of an ideology, the church is always concerned with itself, promoting itself, acquiring sufficient money to sustain itself and it's agents, who serve the purpose of teaching and spreading the ideology. (This is in contrast to actual Christianity, because Jesus was driving people AWAY from the institution that existed around the Jewish religion, rather than creating an ideology.)

Materialism. I make the argument (just vaguely and without proper philosophical language) that materialism leads to empiricism, which leads to the possibility of a "provable" truth. When an institution has a provable truth, the institution has the obligation to ensure that everyone who claims to be a member is believing in exactly the same truth and describing it with the same language. Hence Dogma. In the religious tradition I was originally trained in (Lutheranism), they placed a great emphasis on original church documents that clearly defined every exact intricacy of their beliefs. This is very materialistic of them, yet Christianity is said to be spiritual?

So why is man said to be evil? It is because this is the way the agents of the ideology have reconciled Biblical texts with the needs of the ideology. When a person believes himself to be evil, he knows he cannot save himself. But desiring to be saved, he looks for someone or something that can save him...and in this situation, the obvious solution is the church. The pastor says, "You are evil, so come, and let me save you!" The pastor who taught my confirmation class was emphatic that it is impossible to "save" someone without them first acknowledging that they are sinful, deserving of Hell, and that they cannot save themselves...once they are helpless and desperate, you throw then the ideological flotation ring.

How is this justified within Christian beliefs? The Lutherans have a doctrine of "original sin". The doctrine says that man was created to be perfect, but then man sinned (garden of eden), and the consequence is that they and their offspring became irrevocably evil. This is the foundation for all Christian teachings.

(But is this what the Bible means to say? I don't think so, but that is a completely different subject...)

[Lucius]

Vijaydevani:


We might then ask the question why was Paul’s Christianity was accepted? The answer, I think, has to do the promise of salvation. Belief in the coming of the Messiah preceded Jesus and Paul. Paul took this belief, packed it with his own baggage, and assimilated it to pagan beliefs in order to appeal to his target audience. It was the promise that was accepted by most of his followers, but it was the perversion that appealed to a few who came to exercise power over the Christian community who emphasized what was for Paul only preliminary. For Paul the message was about transcending sin, but others became mired in sin and made it a prominent feature of their religion. It should be pointed out that Paul had no intention of perpetuating a new religion. He believed the world was about to end and used whatever means were available to him to save those he could before it was too late. As to why they should feel they needed to be saved, it seems to have less to do with the problem of sin as it did with the promise of a new, transcendent life as was described in Romans.

Am I allowed to post yet? I don't know...

But I am pleasantly surprised that someone is voicing the same conclusion (atleast in part) that I have come to, which is that according to the Bible, man was created in a neutral state, being neither good nor evil. I can explain a comprehensive mythology (i.e. story of a culture) to support this view, but I'll save that for another time. I can also argue it from a free will/ predestination point of view as well...

What happened in the garden of Eden? Mankind chose to believe the lie/idea they were presented with, which is that THEY could figure out and know what is good and evil by themselves, when their other choice was to believe that God has a unique claim to knowledge of good and evil. The two trees represented the choice humans were to make, and eating the fruit confirmed their choice in the same way that signing a piece of paper obligates us to fulfill the terms of a contract.

The garden of Eden is meant as the story of the human beginning of "evil"...and evil is shown to be acceptance of an idea. And to use the Apostle Paul's words to explain (book of Romans), he concludes that agreeing with God is the thing that matters. He explains that if we agree with "the law", that the law is good, then we are no longer judged by the law.

(I almost made the mistake of substituting "sin" for "evil". Sin and evil are often used interchangeably...but saying "evil" is what the OP started with, and it is much easier to give a single definition of evil. It is an easy mistake, and other posts are doing the same thing. But this is about "Evil", not "sin".)


So I contend that the core truth of Christianity is about this choice, choosing that God has a unique knowledge of good and evil (i.e. his claim to the throne of heaven is legitimate), or deciding that we have the ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, good and evil (i.e. God's claim to the throne is not legitimate).

And I think most people will agree that deciding for one's self what is good for them has become the ultimate human right in the Western world. So I'm arguing that the story of the Garden of Eden is perfectly consistent with modern day society!

And I believe the reason this interpretation is not known in churches is because of the way the Bible has been interpreted to suit the needs religious institutions over roughly 2000 years. An institution like the Catholic church needs laws to enforce a homogeneous belief, and it is religious institutions that are responsible for teaching the idea that man is inherently evil. They say man is evil so that people need the church, to keep them coming back for salvation....because obviously the church has the secret ingredient needed for salvation?

So to the OP, and what I tried posting a few days ago, the reason why mankind is supposed to be evil is because religious institutions need to say this kind of thing to hold power over people. (Of course they believe it sincerely....but they also need to interpret things this way.)

-- Updated September 10th, 2016, 6:36 pm to add the following --

You seem to have overlooked this point which is critical,

"To facilitate survival ALL humans are endowed with a neural circuit to kill and maim [including other physical and mental harm to others] within the basement of their brain. "

When the above impulse is not suppressed and get perverted, then there is where one of the worst evil can arise.

I must contradict the idea that humans are all "wired" to kill.

There is a very interesting phenomenon where soldiers find themselves unable to "shoot to kill". In WWII, only 25% of soldiers fired their weapons in the direction of the enemy, and I think it was only 2% who were shooting to kill. It seems the two types of people that shoot to kill are sociopaths and individuals who feel a strong attachment and responsibility toward their fellow soldiers.

Modern armies work very hard to make shooting at the enemy a conditioned, automatic response, because otherwise people just won't do it. Generals obviously want every soldier to be vigorously engaged in killing the enemy, but the reality is that people in general find it very difficult to kill when their safety is not immediately in danger.

And there is a case to be made, saying that humans and animals alike will settle conflicts with their own species by intimidation, rather than by fighting to the death. Typical fights end with damaged pride, but with little if any actual bodily harm inflicted. In a fight to the death, maybe one is killed, but the other may be badly injured...and he might later die of his injuries? Less critical injuries can impact his ability to survive. It seems obvious to me that not getting injured and not injuring your own species is far more advantageous for the survival of a species.

I found this video on the subject to be very interesting:

[Spectrum]

You seem to have overlooked this point which is critical,

"To facilitate survival ALL humans are endowed with a neural circuit to kill and maim [including other physical and mental harm to others] within the basement of their brain. "

When the above impulse is not suppressed and get perverted, then there is where one of the worst evil can arise.

I must contradict the idea that humans are all "wired" to kill.

There is a very interesting phenomenon where soldiers find themselves unable to "shoot to kill". In WWII, only 25% of soldiers fired their weapons in the direction of the enemy, and I think it was only 2% who were shooting to kill. It seems the two types of people that shoot to kill are sociopaths and individuals who feel a strong attachment and responsibility toward their fellow soldiers.

Modern armies work very hard to make shooting at the enemy a conditioned, automatic response, because otherwise people just won't do it. Generals obviously want every soldier to be vigorously engaged in killing the enemy, but the reality is that people in general find it very difficult to kill when their safety is not immediately in danger.

And there is a case to be made, saying that humans and animals alike will settle conflicts with their own species by intimidation, rather than by fighting to the death. Typical fights end with damaged pride, but with little if any actual bodily harm inflicted. In a fight to the death, maybe one is killed, but the other may be badly injured...and he might later die of his injuries? Less critical injuries can impact his ability to survive. It seems obvious to me that not getting injured and not injuring your own species is far more advantageous for the survival of a species.

You missed my point.

What I stated/implied as a fact is "ALL humans has the POTENTIAL to kill" but note my following points;

Because the potential to be evil is embedded deep in the brain as an instinct, there is no way of getting rid of it physically. However through 6 millions of progress this potential to be evil is suppressed in humans at the present by inhibitors and triggered when necessary.

But

Since a percentile of 'very weak' inhibitors will naturally exist, there will be human who has weak to very weak inhibitors that are unable to suppress the evil potential within them. These are the percentile of humans who are born with an active evil tendency to commit evil of various degrees [from low, average to high].

Thus despite the ALL human having the potential to kill, in realty on a small percentile [a guess 5-20%] of humans are born with an active tendency of a willingness to kill if necessary.
That is why you found out there are some soldiers who do not fire at enemies.

So note you have misread my posts.

[Lucius]

Thus despite the ALL human having the potential to kill, in realty on a small percentile [a guess 5-20%] of humans are born with an active tendency of a willingness to kill if necessary.
That is why you found out there are some soldiers who do not fire at enemies.

So note you have misread my posts.

I'm trying to respond according to the OP, who asked "Why is man supposed to be evil?" Christians talk about "original sin", which is the idea that all humans are automatically guilty of sin because of Adam and Eve. They believe all humans are automatically evil in God's eyes before they do anything at all, and they also believe that their inability to live a perfect life further condemns themselves.

Certainly someone has already explained this, but this is the direct answer to the question?

I am convinced that this "natural state of being evil" does not actually exist in the Bible. And I am convinced that it doesn't exist in reality.

I think we start neutral, rather than defaulting to evil.

I gave the example of 98% of soldiers from WWII admitting to not shooting to kill their enemies, because I want to point out that what we assume is true about people is not always true. Soldiers, who's job it is to shoot their enemy, find themselves unable and/or unwilling to do so. Only 2% actually tried to kill their enemy.

In the same way, I am positive that all the post-apocalypse movies are getting it completely wrong. I believe that these movies are really just a metaphor for Capitalism. If an apocalypse actually occurred, I think we would find that people would band together. We would find that people are actually quite compassionate and generous. There will be some exceptions, but the kind of widespread cannibalism, exploitation, and abuses portrayed in movies just don't fit with the way humans actually are. We FEAR people are like this, but I think this fear we feel comes from the fundamental insecurity that results from Capitalism. (These movies imply that Capitalism is what holds us together and keeps us civilized, but I think we lose our humanity and we disregard the well being of others by engaging in Capitalism.)

[Spectrum]

Thus despite the ALL human having the potential to kill, in realty on a small percentile [a guess 5-20%] of humans are born with an active tendency of a willingness to kill if necessary.
That is why you found out there are some soldiers who do not fire at enemies.

So note you have misread my posts.

I'm trying to respond according to the OP, who asked "Why is man supposed to be evil?" Christians talk about "original sin", which is the idea that all humans are automatically guilty of sin because of Adam and Eve. They believe all humans are automatically evil in God's eyes before they do anything at all, and they also believe that their inability to live a perfect life further condemns themselves.

Certainly someone has already explained this, but this is the direct answer to the question?

I am convinced that this "natural state of being evil" does not actually exist in the Bible. And I am convinced that it doesn't exist in reality.

I agree with the Bible as far as it imply that all humans has the POTENTIAL to commit evil acts.
I do not agree with the Bible's way of preventing evil by merely believing in God.

I think we start neutral, rather than defaulting to evil.

It cannot be neutral.
All humans are born with a brain that has a potential to drive humans to commit evil acts.
As I had stated above, however that evil potential is not activated in all humans but only a minority % of humans [unfortunately] had their evil potential activated during fetal development [Nature]. Nurture factors do contribute but they are secondary to the issue.

There are many research findings which support SOME % of humans are born with the propensity for evil due to the Nature factors, rather than the Nurture factors, e.g. [from a quickie search]

Don't blame Hannibal Lecter - he can't help being a callous, murdering monster.
New research suggests psychopaths lack basic hard-wiring in the brain that enables most people to be compassionate and caring, scientists say.
They say MRI scans revealed distinct differences in the way highly-psychopathic individuals' and ordinary people's brains reacted when they were shown footage of people being intentionally hurt.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z4KOM09ypV

I gave the example of 98% of soldiers from WWII admitting to not shooting to kill their enemies, because I want to point out that what we assume is true about people is not always true. Soldiers, who's job it is to shoot their enemy, find themselves unable and/or unwilling to do so. Only 2% actually tried to kill their enemy.

I doubt it is 98%.
The normally mentioned % is 15-20%.

2% is mentioned somewhere but the denominator may be misleading and not based on only the front liner soldiers. In WW II, many soldiers were pulled and enlisted from everywhere and many joined the army based on peer pressure and the trend of the day.

With our modern armies who are well tuned psychologically [if you could say brainwashing] I think it would be 2% who will chicken out.

[Vijaydevani]

I'm trying to respond according to the OP, who asked "Why is man supposed to be evil?" Christians talk about "original sin", which is the idea that all humans are automatically guilty of sin because of Adam and Eve. They believe all humans are automatically evil in God's eyes before they do anything at all, and they also believe that their inability to live a perfect life further condemns themselves.

The question actually was that if God is perfect and intrinsically good and God created man in his own image, how could man be intrinsically evil in God's eyes, considering God is intrinsically good? If evil is considered to be a flaw, and man is intrinsically evil, God created a flawed entity. How is that possible? How can a perfect God create an imperfect being which He Himself has a problem with? If God deliberately created an imperfect being, He would have known what to expect and would not have a problem with man being evil because that is the direction the imperfect creation would inevitably take and He would be okay with it. Obviously, He is not. So how did that happen? How did God create something that He Himself does not like anymore and wants to change?

[Felix]

Vijaydevani said: He (God) would not have a problem with man being evil because that is the direction the imperfect creation would inevitably take and He would be okay with it. Obviously, He is not.

Why do you say "Obviously, He is not"?