An Evil Index

[jaguar]

Evil is a word for people too lazy or ignorant to try and understand things, preferring instead to jump at quick emotional 'solutions' rather than looking at the deeper issues. It cheapens and kills discussion. It's intellectual soma; an active choice to block stuff out rather than confront it.

[mrnoodle]

Unless people hide behind intellect to avoid having to deal with more complex emotion-laden concepts like good and evil.

[jaguar]

To defeat them, First we must understand them.

- Elie Wiesel

He would know. The word has its uses but to simply brand something evil is a copout in the extreme. As a society we seem to be preoccupied with evil, anything that can be branded evil, like pedophiles suddenly becomes a national obsession. It's the appeal of the simple, the lure of straight path though the fog of moral relativity and complexity. It's the same simplicity that led to some of the worst atrocities in history and most of the banal ones.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Unless people hide behind intellect to avoid having to deal with more complex emotion-laden concepts like good and evil.

Good and evil aren't that complex and emotions aren't rational.

Until some form of spiritual memo comes down defining good and evil we're stuck making up arbitrary standards.

[mrnoodle]

Yeah, but how can you say that good and evil aren't that complex, then say "we're stuck making up arbitrary standards" for them?

And how many more spiritual memos do we need? I think the inbox is about overflowing by now.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by jaguar

He would know. The word has its uses but to simply brand something evil is a copout in the extreme. As a society we seem to be preoccupied with evil, anything that can be branded evil, like pedophiles suddenly becomes a national obsession. It's the appeal of the simple, the lure of straight path though the fog of moral relativity and complexity. It's the same simplicity that led to some of the worst atrocities in history and most of the banal ones.

To simply brand something as evil is a copout. Agreed. But you use the word "atrocity". You sense the evil inherent in the actions of those people and justifiably label it so. Are you guilty of oversimplifying? Nope.

But the old chestnut, "Christianity is for simpletons - just look at the Inquisition/Salem witch hunt/whatever!" is also a copout, as is refusing to admit that there may be such a thing as moral certainty.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

... refusing to admit that there may be such a thing as moral certainty [is a copout].

It depends on what you mean by certainty. It's possible that there is an absolute definition of good and evil, outside of all frames of reference, but that only really matters if you know what it is. And it's impossible to know whether you know what it is, so from a human perspective there is no moral certainty.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Yeah, but how can you say that good and evil aren't that complex, then say "we're stuck making up arbitrary standards" for them?

There's a difference between complex and confused or self-serving.

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

And how many more spiritual memos do we need? I think the inbox is about overflowing by now.

Where?

[mrnoodle]

Mine's the bible.

I know there's a difference between confused, self-serving and complex. I chose the word I intended to choose.

[tw]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Evil, then, is the outside force manifesting itself in people's desire to do what is wrong in God's eyes. What people DO with evil impulses can range from murder to "taking 5 extra minutes at lunch at the company's expense". Our sense of outrage at a particular misdeed reflects the whims of whatever society/time we are living in, but don't really measure the force called "evil".

Your definition of God is something akin to a superior being or creature. Man is made in the image of god, as my so many years of religious training ordered us to believe. IOW that God is really a pagan god little different from those that were worshipped on Mt Olympus.

A real god is best found in the studies of god's laws - mathematics, physics, psychology, chemistry, etc. So where are these eyes in that god? No 'eyes' means god is blind? Exactly. God does not see nor does he care what we do. Therefore there is no evil as you have defined. A real god is a ‘force’ so much larger and grandeur that, as even George Burns said in Oh God, he gave us all to do as we choose. He provided the rules that we - both your good and evil - use as we please. The real god does not make a distinction between good and evil. If he did, then he would distort the laws of physics at the expense of evil. A real god does not care as demonstrated by the lessons of history.

Just down at the slaughter house where I saw the "atrocity" everywhere. Cattle being slaughtered without even any consideration for that God and his rules. You tell me. Clearly this is evil - death without even remorse - from the perspective of cattle. And yet man called the same act not evil? How can this be? There is perspective to what is and is not evil? How can there be perspective if only God can define evil? Is God so biased as to give one biological creature righteousness and blessings at the expense of all others? Or instead, the pagan God does not really exist. If the pagan God does not exist, then either does that definition of evil.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Mine's the bible.

A real message from God would be recognized by everyone.

[mrnoodle]

Would it? I don't see it that way at all - I think it would spawn another 100 religions based on all the different ways people interpreted the message, which of course would be diluted through retelling. People would get mad over other people's interpretations and start fights and wars and such.

I suppose an omnipotent god could just zap the info into our brains at birth so that we would have no doubts, but that's not very progressive, is it? Who would be the first one to say, "Hey, no fair, where's my CHOICE?" Maybe me.

Originally Posted by tw

The real god does not make a distinction between good and evil. If he did, then he would distort the laws of physics at the expense of evil. A real god does not care as demonstrated by the lessons of history.

That's just another version of, "If there's a god, why do bad things happen?" Of course your explanation is entirely plausible, but I don't think it's any more supportable than mine. I say bad things happen because of a combination of bad choices, premeditated evil, and a small percentage of crummy luck.

sermon alert

God and science aren't mutually exclusive. You're supposed to be critical, questioning, doubting, and so on. That's the thing that separates us from the cattle (who don't like being killed, but don't experience nearly the level of profound emotional trauma you attribute to them. It's not an atrocity to them, it's just getting killed and eaten. That's what they're for, ask any meat eating species).

Here's a news flash: Ward Churchill was right, in a way. He's a nut job, but he had a point buried in all his hateful anti-American spew - actions have consequences. While someone at ground zero might be cursing God because he let a family member die (how could God be so cruel?), look at the chain of events that led to that moment. A town that got wiped out by a tsunami - was it cursed? Were its inhabitants being punished? No, the town was in the path of a tsunami. That kind of shitty luck happens sometimes.

We want God to stay out of our lives until we need him to prevent something bad from happening. Everyone who says God has turned his back should maybe consider which direction they themselves are facing.

[/sermon]

Originally Posted by tw

Is God so biased as to give one biological creature righteousness and blessings at the expense of all others?

Yes. Why is this concept so foreign? We assign value to people and things all the time. Does a rat living in the walls of your house envy your fancy lifestyle? If you think he does, why don't you feed him out of the same dish as your dog? For that matter, why does your dog have to eat from a dish? Your decision to make the rat stay out of your house and the dog to eat from a dish on the floor is a pretty sorry abuse of your (relative to the dog) God-like powers, if we use your model.

Bah. I don't know. I gotta get to work.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Would it? I don't see it that way at all - I think it would spawn another 100 religions based on all the different ways people interpreted the message, which of course would be diluted through retelling. People would get mad over other people's interpretations and start fights and wars and such.

Then He wouldn't have communicated effectively.

I suppose an omnipotent god could just zap the info into our brains at birth so that we would have no doubts, but that's not very progressive, is it? Who would be the first one to say, "Hey, no fair, where's my CHOICE?" Maybe me.

Choice about what? Seeing reality? We don't have a choice about seeing trees or rocks, etc. If God made Himself as apparent as the physical world, that wouldn't remove anyone's choices.

[lookout123]

if God was standing in front of you so that you couldn't deny who he was, then that would no longer be faith, but fact. There would then be no choice but to believe in the existence of God. Choice removed.

[Happy Monkey]

So what? That's not a real "choice", that's a guess. If I have a closed box with a marble in it, when I open the box you no longer can make a choice about what color the marble is, but that's because you now have more information. You haven't lost any free will. Having more and more experiences doesn't make you less and less sentient. The real choice would be how to react to a personal meeting with God.