Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

It's not my word. It's the general-use one, of course. But there isn't general agreement on what it means -- not that general agreement would keep that agreement from being a delusion. When we use the term, we could, of course, all be just imagining properties that simply are not real. So even if we all believed that, say abortion is evil, that would not tell us whether or not abortion IS evil.

Is there an "objective" definition of evil that we can refer to? The answer seems to be no, there is not.

Interesting. I don't find that "obvious" at all. But perhaps you have reasons for finding it obvious, so I'm ready to hear them, if you have such.

It's certainly not the case that if people have different definitions of something then there can be no true definition. All that implies is that large numbers of people can be wrong, and that sometimes smaller numbers of people can be right...but we know that, of course. I would hesitate to attribute any error so transparent to your argument, so I will forbear to think it.

Instead, I'll await your better argument, if I may.

It will simplify things for us if we accept that the word evil is uniquely bound up with Christian concepts. So, properly speaking, it is a Christian notion.

I don't see why we'd accept that. Why not argue, instead, that "evil" (when accurately and objectively understood) is a universal reality? For if we fail to identify anything universal as "evil," then we fall prey to social relativism -- which implies again that there is objectively no such thing as "evil," and again we're back to having no leg for any theodicy problem to stand on.

I don't think you want to "give away the game" so quickly, and simply to surrender to the suggestion that "evil" is a specifically Christian concept ONLY, do you? That would imply that, say, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. are simply out of luck for any hope of an objective conception of "evil," and hence that the theodicy problem would be one that only Christians could even entertain. But I don't think that's at all obvious: Muslims do talk about "evil," as do many other people groups; and there is both difference and overlaps between them. So it makes sense to focus on finding whatever common ground can be justified as "evil," doesn't it? And if "evil" has any objective reality as a concept, then it would be the only possible strategy -- relegating it, as an objective concept, to Christians alone would position Christians the only genuinely morally aware people.

More importantly than that, nobody seems to know exactly what the word "evil" refers to as a property, or what justifies our feeling that we *ought*, or are owed, to have less of it around.

Here, you are operating within your evangelists project.

Not at all, actually. We're already at a deeper level than the merely sociological and particular. We're asking a question about universal intelligibility of a fundamental concept necessary for a skeptical allegation.

The question is rather: what justification has the skeptic for contending that "god" or "the universe" is somehow culpable of allowing "evil," if we think no such concept as "evil" has reference to objective reality?

[Alexis Jacobi]

It is obvious that, for us, the definition of evil is infused with Christian notions. That is obvious and yes I am certain. If you think differently that is your row to hoe.

Instead, I'll await your better argument, if I may.

None will be forthcoming. Deal thoroughly with what I have said. You will not, I know, because it doesn’t and can’t fit with your evangelizing project. You know this, I know this.

Selah

I don't see why we'd accept that. Why not argue, instead, that "evil" (when accurately and objectively understood) is a universal reality?

That is your view, and the Christian one. But to have and hold to that idea one must, in my view, impose a specific ideological picture.

If there is ‘evil’ (what is very bad and also intentionally bad) it is found in man. It is defined by man.

What I say is that bad and evil are perceptual positions about “the world”. In that sense the world is infused with both good and bad. Except there is no bad and no evil in nature. No intentionality involving evil conniving. There is simply process.

I don't think you want to "give away the game" so quickly, and simply to surrender to the suggestion that "evil" is a specifically Christian concept ONLY, do you?

Were you to think that I think that, you’d have severely misunderstood much that I’ve written for months and years.

And to state that I have given up the game is a rhetorical trick. In fact I have clearly and coherently explained my orientation. You cannot accept it for your specific ideological commitments. Thus I doubt that you can even hear it.

[Gary Childress]

It's not my word. It's the general-use one, of course. But there isn't general agreement on what it means -- not that general agreement would keep that agreement from being a delusion. When we use the term, we could, of course, all be just imagining properties that simply are not real. So even if we all believed that, say abortion is evil, that would not tell us whether or not abortion IS evil.

Is there an "objective" definition of evil that we can refer to? The answer seems to be no, there is not.

Interesting. I don't find that "obvious" at all. But perhaps you have reasons for finding it obvious, so I'm ready to hear them, if you have such.

It's certainly not the case that if people have different definitions of something then there can be no true definition. All that implies is that large numbers of people can be wrong, and that sometimes smaller numbers of people can be right...but we know that, of course. I would hesitate to attribute any error so transparent to your argument, so I will forbear to think it.

Instead, I'll await your better argument, if I may.

It will simplify things for us if we accept that the word evil is uniquely bound up with Christian concepts. So, properly speaking, it is a Christian notion.

I don't see why we'd accept that. Why not argue, instead, that "evil" (when accurately and objectively understood) is a universal reality? For if we fail to identify anything universal as "evil," then we fall prey to social relativism -- which implies again that there is objectively no such thing as "evil," and again we're back to having no leg for any theodicy problem to stand on.

I don't think you want to "give away the game" so quickly, and simply to surrender to the suggestion that "evil" is a specifically Christian concept ONLY, do you? That would imply that, say, Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. are simply out of luck for any hope of an objective conception of "evil," and hence that the theodicy problem would be one that only Christians could even entertain. But I don't think that's at all obvious: Muslims do talk about "evil," as do many other people groups; and there is both difference and overlaps between them. So it makes sense to focus on finding whatever common ground can be justified as "evil," doesn't it? And if "evil" has any objective reality as a concept, then it would be the only possible strategy -- relegating it, as an objective concept, to Christians alone would position Christians the only genuinely morally aware people.

More importantly than that, nobody seems to know exactly what the word "evil" refers to as a property, or what justifies our feeling that we *ought*, or are owed, to have less of it around.

Here, you are operating within your evangelists project.

Not at all, actually. We're already at a deeper level than the merely sociological and particular. We're asking a question about universal intelligibility of a fundamental concept necessary for a skeptical allegation.

The question is rather: what justification has the skeptic for contending that "god" or "the universe" is somehow culpable of allowing "evil," if we think no such concept as "evil" has reference to objective reality?

I don't look forward to death, IC. It's one of the most terrifying prospects I can think of when I truly think about it--as if it is imminent. That's why I don't walk along the edge of rocky cliffs or stand on 10-story window ledges (for just a few relatively more extreme examples).

I've tried to embrace it (whatever that means) by asking God to just kill me in my sleep while I'm unaware but whenever I do think I have embraced death, then I seem to start getting horrific visions of demons and all manner of horrible stuff--as though I'm going to die at the hands of cannibalism or executioners/hospital staff or something. They're incredibly disturbing visions and there are times I am almost paralyzed by them. Why can't I just die in peace of old age without even knowing it was coming? Why do I have to have such visions? What did I do to "deserve" them? Is it only because I don't worship "God"? Who is this "God"? Why am I supposed to worship this "God"? Is this "God" punishing me because I don't worship him (or her or whatever)?

In the end, I'm here and there seems to be one certainty and that certainty also seems to be the only way out of having to think about that certainty. It's like some kind of morbid riddle or something. I just don't understand why a being would do that to its creations? If I created a sentient being that could experience fear and pain and all that kind of stuff and then judged that being horrible because it refused to "worship" me, then my conscience would intervene and tell me I was a monster for doing something like that. I would have pangs of guilt. Of course, the next question for me would be, now what do I do, that I've created such beings. What would be the best way of alleviating them from that kind of torture. Would making them feel guilt and shame because they didn't worship me be an "ethical" approach? Am I actually more thoughtful and considerate than God is? Or did God create us and then realize he didn't have the power to care adequately for his creations? None of that makes sense to me, at least not in a way that I would accredit to a being that was capable of creating the entire universe that we see.

There's something wrong in the picture above, IC. If you are content with it and want to worship the "God" who created this world and the way it works, then I would say feel free to be the first volunteer to experience the worst that this world has to offer. However, as soon as I say that I wish to retract it, because I can't wish something like that on another sentient being and consider myself moral or ethical. My first instinct is to put myself in that being's shoes and think of how I would feel if it happened to me.

[Gary Childress]

In short, IC. There's something just wrong about the Christian vision. It doesn't add up and maybe instead of shoehorning in "God works in mysterious ways" or whatever, maybe we ought to just come to the realization that this "God is good" thing (as envisioned in the desert religions) is not an accurate hypothesis of how the world truly works behind the scenes or whatever. Just my two cents.

[Harbal]

It's not my word. It's the general-use one, of course. But there isn't general agreement on what it means -- not that general agreement would keep that agreement from being a delusion. When we use the term, we could, of course, all be just imagining properties that simply are not real. So even if we all believed that, say abortion is evil, that would not tell us whether or not abortion IS evil.

Is there an "objective" definition of evil that we can refer to? The answer seems to be no, there is not.

Interesting. I don't find that "obvious" at all. But perhaps you have reasons for finding it obvious, so I'm ready to hear them, if you have such.

It's certainly not the case that if people have different definitions of something then there can be no true definition. All that implies is that large numbers of people can be wrong, and that sometimes smaller numbers of people can be right...but we know that, of course. I would hesitate to attribute any error so transparent to your argument, so I will forbear to think it.

Evil is just a concept, so its definition depends entirely on who is doing the conceiving, and the nature of their concept. Perhaps the first person to ever use the word had a very specific definition in mind, but language changes over time.

[Immanuel Can]

In short, IC. There's something just wrong about the Christian vision. It doesn't add up and maybe instead of shoehorning in "God works in mysterious ways" or whatever, maybe we ought to just come to the realization that this "God is good" thing (as envisioned in the desert religions) is not an accurate hypothesis of how the world truly works behind the scenes or whatever. Just my two cents.

Sorry, Gary...this is just not at all the topic in hand, and not one I wish to engage at the moment at the expense of the present one. If you want to speak about that, I'm fine...but it's not what this conversation is doing right now, so perhaps you would start a second one?

The problem in hand is much simpler, much more universal: what is the concept of "evil" that makes rational and sponsors the claim 'the god/the universe is guilty for including "evil"?

[Immanuel Can]

Evil is just a concept, so its definition depends entirely on who is doing the conceiving, and the nature of their concept.

If that's right, then certain logical corollaries automatically follow from it.

1. There is no such thing, objectively, as "evil."

2. There is no rational sense in the claim that an injustice is perpetrated when god/the universe includes "evil" in it. The word has no objective meaning at all. So it's an nonsense accusation.

3. People's claim that the universe contains "evil" reduces to a petulant demand that the universe owes them to please their "conceived" and relative feelings, which is something to which they are actually not at all entitled.

4. Nobody has a right to expect a life without "evil" in it, because the very term doesn't mean anything...and the whole theodicy problem is a fake.

Can we accept 1-4? If we cannot, then "Houston, we have a problem."

[Gary Childress]

The problem in hand is much simpler, much more universal: what is the concept of "evil" that makes rational and sponsors the claim 'the god/the universe is guilty for including "evil"?

Why is there a need to create "evil"? Why not just NOT create it? Problem solved. Everyone lives happily ever after and dreams only of rainbows and tulips when they go to bed at night or whatever.

[henry quirk]

Am I to answer or respond, or are you just riffin' offa my post (and back & forth with Harry)?

If the first: there's a lot in your post I won't defend against. For example: "If we are "whole but under attack," we can ask what sort of logic there is in this universe for the universe attacking us, and then for us calling it "evil.". I never said the universe was the attacker: I won't argue the point.

If the second: okay...have at it.

[Gary Childress]

@IC:

1. There is such a thing as "evil."

2. an injustice is perpetrated when god/the universe includes "evil" in it.

3. People demand that the universe owes them to please their feelings.

4. People have a right to expect a life without "evil" in it.


Can you accept those things? If not, why not?

[Belinda]

Is there an "objective" definition of evil that we can refer to? The answer seems to be no, there is not.

Interesting. I don't find that "obvious" at all. But perhaps you have reasons for finding it obvious, so I'm ready to hear them, if you have such.

It's certainly not the case that if people have different definitions of something then there can be no true definition. All that implies is that large numbers of people can be wrong, and that sometimes smaller numbers of people can be right...but we know that, of course. I would hesitate to attribute any error so transparent to your argument, so I will forbear to think it.

Evil is just a concept, so its definition depends entirely on who is doing the conceiving, and the nature of their concept. Perhaps the first person to ever use the word had a very specific definition in mind, but language changes over time.

I know from experience and hearsay what is evil(adjective), and so do you. If animals could talk they too could tell what is evil(adjective).

The concept of evil(noun) is nonsense as are most nouns. As you say "language changes over time " and what is established as a thing is not everlasting.
Plato, according to his theory of eternal Forms, reckoned there is a Form of The Good. St. Augustine reckoned that evil is absence of good.

Evangelising Christians tend to believe in Platonic certainties, possibly because these add a tone of authority to their doctrines.

[henry quirk]

Am I to answer or respond, or are you just riffin' offa my post (and back & forth with Harry)?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Though I do recognize the existence of metaphysical ideas, impetus, principles, and all the rest, what I now believe is that we receive these as if, one might say, plucked out of the air. These things are real, they are a part of reality, but only intelligent beings can conceive of higher metaphysical ideas. In this sense, they discover them through conceiving of them, and then seek to install them in our world. But our world is, precisely, the world of violent, unruly forces that don’t — can’t — think. We are subsumed in that world, we arise out of it, and our applications of metaphysical truths is always problematic, because tied up with authority and power.

The rule of law is always an imposition. True, enlightened citizens accede and assent to those rules, but the lower orders (corresponding to our lower, unruly selves) resists the law.

Catholicism interests me because it is a total, and totalizing, system. There is an activity for every hour of the day. It offers an extremely replete ethical set (social doctrine) worked out over centuries. It is an amalgamation of Greek and Hebrew concepts and a melding together of these. The religious principles derive from Story, and Story is never completely true, but neither is it completely false. In any event the liturgy, taken as broadly as possible, allows for the metaphysics, invisible and incomprehensible to most, to be applied.

[Harbal]

Evil is just a concept, so its definition depends entirely on who is doing the conceiving, and the nature of their concept.

If that's right, then certain logical corollaries automatically follow from it.

1. There is no such thing, objectively, as "evil."

If your definition of "evil" is malicious intent, then I suppose you could say that evil has an objective existence within the character of some people. But, again, that depends on one's definition of the word "objective".

2. There is no rational sense in the claim that an injustice is perpetrated when god/the universe includes "evil" in it. The word has no objective meaning at all. So it's an nonsense accusation.

Well justice is also just a concept, existing only in the minds of men -and women, of course. The universe isn't interested in justice; there is no such thing to be found in the laws of physics, or nature. So, in my opinion; yes, it is a nonsense accusation.

3. People's claim that the universe contains "evil" reduces to a petulant demand that the universe owes them to please their "conceived" and relative feelings, which is something to which they are actually not at all entitled.

People are only entitled to whatever is agreed upon between themselves and other human beings. Entitlements are granted to people by people, but, just as with justice, the universe does not dole out entitlements. If and when people do claim that the universe contains evil, I don't know what they mean exactly.

4. Nobody has a right to expect a life without "evil" in it, because the very term doesn't mean anything...and the whole theodicy problem is a fake.

I would have to know how a person defines "evil" before I could offer an opinion on whether he has a right to expect a life without it. I don't know anything about the "theodicy problem", and I suspect you are already well aware of that.

Can we accept 1-4? If we cannot, then "Houston, we have a problem."

I am not aware of having a problem, so I won't be troubling Houston.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Am I to answer or respond, or are you just riffin' offa my post (and back & forth with Harry)?

Respond if it is your desire. What holds you back?