What is the Scope and Definition of Evil?

Over in the "In a world without God...why does evil exist?" article, Brad Haggard said Lee, make that post into an article so we can discuss it without having to scroll down 80 comments", so I did. Enjoy.

What is evil?
What can be evil?
Is something produced as evil?
Does it become evil?
When does something become evil?
What qualifies as evil?
Can time and/or evironment change a thing to or from something other than evil?
Is needless or pointless suffering evil?

What is the Scope and Definition of Evil?

Is that scope and definition objective?

Does the scope and definition depend on a context?

Who decides?
If God, then how does that knowledge get to us if he's going to remain silent?

If a thing has scope and definition then it can probably be measured, quantified and or evaluated, assessed and compared.

Can we do that with evil?

is it evil to stick a needle in a baby?

Is it evil to kill someone?
To kill a spider?
Is it evil to kill for sport?
Why or why not?

Why does something qualify as evil?

Can evil be useful? If its useful and leads to greater good, is it really evil?
Can good come from an evil proposition?

Can any of the components of something good be evil?

Is an act evil if the intent is not evil?

If a bear kills a human, is it evil?
Or is it just Chance?

It seems to me, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

now I'm standing by for the shower of mischaracterizations, strawmen and equivocation.

96 comments:

Anonymous said...

Lee, you wanted comments, correct?

David B. Ellis said...

If you're going to say evil is in the eye of the beholder you should probably state what meaning you having in mind for the word.

Anonymous said...

oops yea, did I forget to enable them?
if so sorry.

Anonymous said...

Hi David,
I mean what you mean.
hows that?

seriously though, its complicated.

how that?

couldn't resist,

While my cultural heuristic causes me to blurt out
"pedophiles are evil"
on more careful reflection I have to remember that in some places, even in the United States, it was permissible to marry a girl before she was of the age of consent in Britain(for example). See Jerry Lee Lewis news article.So now we are looking for scope and definition of pedophile.
However, it changed over time didn't it? Do I have a right to Judge Jerry Lee Lewis as Evil when marrying a 13 or 14 yr old girl may have been legal and acceptable by his culture?
Today, in other parts of the world, this type of thing goes on, and while I think its deplorable, that doesn't qualify my conclusion.

This response doesn't cover natural disasters,
deranged killers,
God forcing the people in the twin towers to choose between burning to death or jumping to death etc.
I just wanted to give you some perspective on my answer.

Oh yea,
i do think its evil to kill for sport.
I decided that when I tried it as a kid when my uncle took me out. I can shoot and have been an expert marksman, so I love to shoot, but I don't like to kill things. I like to shoot targets.

David B. Ellis said...

Hi David,
I mean what you mean.
hows that?
Not good enough. There are quite a few distinct usages of the term (and I don't even always mean the same thing by it every time; depending on the context I may have one usage in mind one time and another on a different occasion.

Some that I use:

evil means unnecessary suffering (in the context of the POE).

evil means malevolent.

evil means morally wrong (and that doesn't necessarily involve malevolence).

Those three cover most of the ways I use the term (and it matters which one is using---a moral nihilist, for example, would have no problem acknowledging that evil in the sense of malevolence exists but not that evil in the sense of moral wrongness exists).

Most of your response are examples. The definition you have in mind would be better. Though from the context it seems that you're almost certainly using evil to mean morally wrong.

David B. Ellis said...

So now we are looking for scope and definition of pedophile.
However, it changed over time didn't it? Do I have a right to Judge Jerry Lee Lewis as Evil when marrying a 13 or 14 yr old girl may have been legal and acceptable by his culture?
A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescents.

Jerry Lee Lewis was (by the modern definition) a child molester.

Where the cut off point when its acceptable to marry is debatable. To some degree its culturally dependent. In a hunter gatherer society there is no need for an extended educational period and no pressing reason to put off marriage later than the point where one can safely bear children. Circumstances in modern America are, of course different.

Which is not to say that its simply a matter of "whatever one's culture says is right". Whole cultures can be dead wrong---they need a good rationale for their mores based on their circumstances. For example, as implied in what I said earlier, while what's right can depend on circumstance in regard to when marriage or sexual activity should be permissible it isn't arbitrary. And there are minimum boundaries---like marrying and having to bear children before one is physically mature enough to do so without significantly higher risk of harm.

edson said...

Lee did you care to check on my last post in the previous thread?

Well Lee Evil is one of spiritual essences. It is there in our natural systems although we cannot touch, quantify or sense it using any scientific instrument out there and in the future. Evil has all attributes of life. Evil can move, adapt, disguise, mutate and inherit. It is a complex subject.

Both Evil and Good are created by God. God is outside all of these and it is wrong even to say that God is all good! So how do we perceive Evil and Good? When our receptors/consciousness towards evil and good are active. All humans have live consciouness of the good and evil as long as we are a product of Adam and Eve, but we have different levels of consciousness about these plus many other things of the likes, including God. It is where subjectivity rise but make no mistake Evil is an absolute essence.

Why did God create Evil? So that the essence of Goodness may be appreciable to humans. Why something may be evil in one culture but good on the other culture? Because Evil tend to disguise itself as good somehow, and this is a single most lethal attribute of Evil.

What should we do? We need to learmn more about this subject. Its origin and how can we defeat this. Evil can be defeated but not by science as most of you think, but by Hope. Hope is a very good weapon of fighting Evil.

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, I'm going to do something I haven't done in a while and actually put an argument out there. (throwing rocks is so much fun, though)

Ok, for the purposes of the argument, you're going to have to concede God as the creator of everything, for now.

God then, is the ground of life, and I'm taking existence as the ground of "good". So that is how we get to "God is good," by understanding His nature, both moral and ontological. You can't separate this concept because you go back to Euthyphro. (BTW, using Plato's argument against the moral argument, IMHO, misses the mark since Plato's gods were not creators or necessary beings)

So if you reflect God in any way, then that is "good", and if you don't reflect Him, then that is "bad" (or evil, whatever). It is the very nature of existence to be "good" or "moral" because God is both creator and moral.

I think this is the only true way to ground "good" and "evil". John is right to say that, on atheism, evil is effete and we are left with a more utilitarian concept of "suffering."

I'll brace myself for the rocks now.

edson said...

Is it Evil to kill a spider?

Our consciousness receptors tell us that to kill a spider is not Evil. Our receptors are very sharp and specific to know what is Evil and what is not.

To kill a man during sport is Evil and such kind of sport is Evil too! Apparently, some people see Evil to be good and good to be evil and when you get to see that you know that the Evil spirit is in action and has blocked the consciousness receptors of a person. Such kind of a person is severely attacked and need an urgent spiritual help.

Some cultures say, Islamic, are examples of this. Some of the practices they do are apparently evil, eg. Shia ritual practices, suicide bombings, etc, but their consciousness are severely damaged and cannot detect properly what is right and what is wrong.

David B. Ellis said...

Edson, what reason is there to think any of your metaphysical claims about evil are true?

Why did God create Evil? So that the essence of Goodness may be appreciable to humans.
Guess what? No child has to be born with congenital defects for me to appreciate the good.

Anonymous said...

Hi David,
My point with evil is that evil is whatever it is said to be.

sure we can agree on some parameters, but those are not objective parameters, those parameters are just something we agreed on.

if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?
yes,
if one person kills another in the forest is it evil?
well it depends on the context doesn't it?

If you and I agree that to kill a sleeping man for sport is evil, then, by Crom, its evil.

Not to insult your intelligence but just carry this thought out to its logical conclusion,
killing a sleeping in the forest for sport does not make any disturbance in matter, no "evil waves" to be perceived. Its not like the tree falling in the forest.

Which is not to say that its simply a matter of "whatever one's culture says is right". Whole cultures can be dead wrong---they need a good rationale for their mores based on their circumstances.
You've decided this, or someone else? The point is that it is ascribed as being evil by SOMEBODY ELSE.

now I expect a shower of mischaracterisations, strawmen, equivocation and slippery slopes.

Now if we want to get into the Yuck factor and investigate why movies with gratuitous violence disgust me, we can, but I want to differentiate biological bases of behavior from cultural bases of behavior.

So when I say, jokingly, that I mean what you mean, ironically, thats as good as it gets because If I say that natural disasters are evil, you're going to tell me I'm wrong simply based on your definition of evil.

So my WORKING definition of Evil is whats in the dictionary, tempered by my values, simply defined by the type of words without supernatural connotations.

nomad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Hi Edson,
It is there in our natural systems although we cannot touch, quantify or sense it using any scientific instrument out there and in the future.
Then how do you know its there? You're making this up as you go aren't you?

Both Evil and Good are created by God.
Then God was neutral before he created and assumed Goodness?

All humans have live consciouness of the good and evil as long as we are a product of Adam and Eve,
Dude, you lost me at Adam and Eve. Not only are Adam and Eve not supported by established knowledge they are DISCONFIRMED by established knowledge.

So as long as you find the existence of Adam and Eve to be a reasonable proposition, I don't have anything more to discuss with you, until I forget that you believe in adam and eve in some other future article, so when that happens, please remind me and save us both some time.

Anonymous said...

so for the record, I think morality has more to do with the logical underpinnings of economics than gods.

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,
Ok, for the purposes of the argument, you're going to have to concede God as the creator of everything, for now.
No, I'm not going to concede god is the creator of everything.

But thats a nice opinion. Thanks for sharing.
;-)

I just cut your argument at the knees by not conceding your premise, so it never had a leg to stand on.

edson said...

Lee, so I disgust you so much with the mention of Adam and Eve, forgive me about that, let's call them "first people".

David, no child has to be born with congenital defects for you to appreciate the good, so you say? A child,no matter how much severely disordered s(he) is still a human. And these receptors are there, and guess what, not in the brain but in our souls. So a child's soul is definitely not defected.

What reason is there to think any of metaphysical claims I say about evil are true?

My views are just my views. Lee says evil are a product of someone sensitivities and I disagree with that but they are just his views. I dont expect any atheist to agree with my views. For an atheist to acknowledge that Evil is a spirit, is tantamount to acknowledge supernatural exist, of which they'll never do, for these are beyond the realm of science.

Lee, care to read may next post when I adress your objections.

David B. Ellis said...

So when I say, jokingly, that I mean what you mean, ironically, thats as good as it gets because If I say that natural disasters are evil, you're going to tell me I'm wrong simply based on your definition of evil.
No, what I'm going to do is exactly what I did. Recognize that the term "evil" has different usages and ask you which you're employing. Only then can one usefully say "I agree" or "I disagree" and why.

So my WORKING definition of Evil is whats in the dictionary, tempered by my values, simply defined by the type of words without supernatural connotations.
More than one usage is in the dictionary. For clarities sake you need to be clear.

I'm assuming for the time being you mean by evil "morally wrong" since that seems to make the most contextual sense based on your statements.

If you and I agree that to kill a sleeping man for sport is evil, then, by Crom, its evil.

Not to insult your intelligence but just carry this thought out to its logical conclusion,
killing a sleeping in the forest for sport does not make any disturbance in matter, no "evil waves" to be perceived. Its not like the tree falling in the forest.
I take it that you don't believe that there are moral truths. That saying something is evil is simply an expression of disapproval and nothing more.

In which case you are defining evil as meaning simply a word people use to express disapproval (you really need to define the term instead of forcing us to guess).

I disagree. Not in any sense of thinking moral truths are external objects of some kind (I don't believe in the external existence of abstract objects). I simply think that some states of affairs are intrinsically better than others and that a rational agent can recognize this (in other words, my views about moral truth is based on the concept of intrinsic goods).

edson said...

Lee you asked,

"Then how do you know its there? You're making this up as you go aren't you?"

It is there because it affects our lives. If it wasn't who would have cared about them. People have built carriers just to study Evil and you ask such kind of question!

Then you added,

"Then God was neutral before he created and assumed Goodness?"

As I said God is outside the realm of good and evil that are part of our world. Many christians tend to make God an all good. But if he is an all good why evil is still there and as we know everything is a product of God? So God before creating had both essences, I'd say, but not neutral as you put it.

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, I should have said definition instead of argument. What follows in that post is my definition of evil. With that definition of evil established, I could go on to theodicy and try to argue for God's existence.

We'd have to do the arguing on another thread.

Anonymous said...

Hi David,
simply think that some states of affairs are intrinsically better than others and that a rational agent can recognize this (in other words, my views about moral truth is based on the concept of intrinsic goods).
That sounds good,
but who decides what those intrinsic goods are?

As I said before, that my view of morality is that it follows the logic of economics.

here, let me clarify what MY DEFINITION of evil is since it seems to mean so much to YOU, for some reason that escapes me.

1. highly subjective.
2. human centric
3. desire to derive enjoyment from suffering to the degree that it only benefits the actor, presuming the actor is rational and presuming that a rational actor will commit an evil act.

Evil is always in the intent, but if the intent is insane, then its not evil.

Now if you ask me tomorrow, I might revise it.

in economic terms, it is when self-interest becomes self-centered.

How's that?

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,
With that definition of evil established, I could go on to theodicy and try to argue for God's existence.
Don't bother. As long as my dog is willing to put his arms around me, give me kisses and let me rub his ears when I get down on my knees in front of him and god is not, then I just don't think he's there. I'll stick with my dog. Dog backwards is God anyway.

See when I simply ask a stranger for directions, they answer, and I don't have to "open myself to them" whatever that means. When I ask god for directions, I don't get squat.

Anonymous said...

God has already given you directions.

Anonymous said...

DenCol,
Oh really,
were you there? How do you know?

Nice thought-terminating Cliche you have there.

nomad said...

Why do I even bother

David B. Ellis said...

That sounds good,
but who decides what those intrinsic goods are?
We all make our judgements regarding that as our ability allows. And we're all capable of error.

As to who judges well and who doesn't I think that question is best addressed by ideal observer theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_observer_theory

ere, let me clarify what MY DEFINITION of evil is since it seems to mean so much to YOU, for some reason that escapes me.
Because a discussion about evil is useless if we don't each know how the other is employing the word. Might as well be talking about otsilfarks if we are going to leave the word undefined.

in economic terms, it is when self-interest becomes self-centered.
Evil= self-centeredness (or self-centered self-interest, if we take the definition literally).

Good. Now at least I know what you mean by the word.

Do you consider evil to be morally wrong (and in what sense; that is, what does it mean for something to be morally wrong, in your view)?

David B. Ellis said...

If you check out that wikipedia article on ideal observer theory I suggest also reading the article on moral cognitivism.

People often make the error of thinking only moral objectivists can be moral cognitivists.

Anonymous said...

God gave you a conscience that gives you the direction to know right from wrong. He is constantly directing you. He directed your birth, your height, your hair color, your personality, etc etc. He is constantly directing you. You just are not aware of His presence.

David B. Ellis said...

What makes you think so, Den?

Anonymous said...

I know how God has directed my life, even when I was an atheist. Also, God has told me 2 future events that I had no way of knowing. They both happened, just as He told me. This was no coincidence - it was God - plain and simple.

Please do not ask me for the winning lottery numbers to prove that God speaks to me. I am keeping those for myself! :-)

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee,

As with everything atheist...you're hopeless...there can only be a subjective standard for atheists in describing what appears to be evil.

Further an atheist can't even call anything evil because the word evil is an immaterial desctiprion of a material occurance, event, person. So you're cross categorically confused to begin with.

To an atheist all actions good or evil are on the same plane as all actions are only directed by your genome which is neither good or bad of itself...the fact is that fact is that your materialistic development and evolotion doesn't distinguish between good and evil...That's not even a consideration of your evolved state.

What you're doing is trying to rationalize your atheism with cultural acceptance and produce subjective standards for actions...and it doesn't work...your standards are irrational.

Let's see these responses...

Anonymous said...

Thank you for including this- I really enjoyed reading those proposed questions. I also am a student of Professor Lambert (I hope you aren't getting tired of us yet!). I'm enjoying your book; I find many of the chapters to be well-conceived and I have found reading it to be a stretching and enriching experience.
I wanted to ask you if you believe that evil cannot be completely and accurately defined, as it seems to be so relative?
Thank you for engaging in the dialogue with our class!

Anonymous said...

missmaddiek86 thanks for visiting but I didn't write this post. Always check, okay? And I don't have time to defend it. Lee is can do that himself.

David B. Ellis said...

Also, God has told me 2 future events that I had no way of knowing. They both happened, just as He told me.
Of course, none of us can know if you're lying so it can't serve as much in the way of evidence for anyone but how.

Still, what sort of events are we talking about here? No need go into personal specifics.

And, for that matter, even if you had some sort of precognition, what makes you assume it came from God? Is it not equally plausible that you had a psychic episode (not that I think either is likely).

David B. Ellis said...

Further an atheist can't even call anything evil because the word evil is an immaterial desctiprion of a material occurance, event, person.
A. atheists don't have to be materialists (I, for one, am not).

B. you need to look up the difference between moral cognitivism and moral objectivism---like so many theists you seem to be mistakenly equating the two.

The crux of the distinction being that one does not have to think that moral truths exist in some external form for moral propositions to be true and not simply an expression of personal approval.

Anonymous said...

Hi David,

The Lord told me who I was going to marry years before it happened. At the time He told me, This girl had no interest in me whatsoever and was way out of my league. And I mean WAY OUT of my league! When I heard Him tell me that I would marry her, I laughed and said to myself, "Oh yea, sure"! I did not believe it was God at that time. I thought it was just some weird thought that came into me head. But I had never had that happen before. Approx 3 years later, we got married. Self fulfilled prophecy? I wish I had that ability!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

What I'm saying is much more emiple than that...Look, you can say somethingis "good" or "bad" or that you don't like something. Those things are clearly subjective within the natural realm of things and are clear cut based on preference etc...But to say something is "evil" crosses a categorical line into a spiritual realm...

You don't look at a palm tree and call it evil...In fact let's look at that chimp that took that lady's face off not long ago...did anyone here say that the chimp was "evil"???

Evil is ascribed to a being that can establish the difference between right and wrong based upon spiritual applications or terms...Think about it. Is a car "evil"? can a house be "evil"? heck naw!

For the atheist, who ascribes to nothing immaterial to describe someone as "evil" is to BORROW the standard and pattern from religion and spiritually evolved values.

Forget the cognition jive etc...look at it like it is...once who has no belief other than in naturalism or material cannot perceive "evil" in that because nothing natural is intrinsically evil of itself....

Chew on it philosophers.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

I meant SIMPLE not emiple (whatever the heck that is-LOL)

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

I'll even go further,

for anyone, atheist included, to judge something, whether actions or deeds as being "evil" is to juxtsuppose that action next to objective standards of good and evil found in and only evolved from religion.

The atheist has every reason and right to call something good or bad. ie: murder, thievery etc. is bad, we all agree. However, to call it "evil" takes the atheist past the genome, past community and social standards and straight to religion as the only objective source by which that judgement can be made.

In essence what I am saying is that the ONLY way you (Mr./Mrs. Atheist) can judge or perceive something as "evil" is because of and through religion...the same religion (no matter which) that you feel is unessential to the world.

That's the deception of atheism. It (atheism) cannot stand on it's own.

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, no one wants to play with my argument :(

I'll start with yours, then.

1. How do you determine between ingrained survival instincts and selfishness?

2. Is it evil to play a practical joke on someone, even if just a little? Where do you draw the line?

3. I can't remember if you or John said this, but one of you was amazed that your cat would toy with mice. Is that not evil since it isn't human?

4. What if the actor and victim have different views on what constitutes true suffering?

5. What about non-action, like rich Americans not doing anything to stop rebels from pressing children into their armies in Uganda?

6. What do you do with evil? Do you punish the perpetrator?

7. How would you determine someone actually committed an evil act?

8. Why should anyone care about evil anyways, especially if it isn't happening to them?

Maybe now someone will play with me :)

Anonymous said...

Hi David,
after reading up on ideal observer theory, I don't see how you can get out of your own self-centerend frame of reference to determine what another observer would think about something. I still say that someone's judgement about what is evil is to the ideal observer is self-referential and based in the real observers values.

Because a discussion about evil is useless if we don't each know how the other is employing the word. Might as well be talking about otsilfarks if we are going to leave the word undefined.
I guess it wasn't clear from the text. I don't give a hoot about what I think about evil, I'm trying to get christians that posit that evil exists objectively to define it.

Do you consider evil to be morally wrong (and in what sense; that is, what does it mean for something to be morally wrong, in your view)?
yea, for what its worth. In a utilitarian minimize harm kind of way, with the understanding that its based on the value of the observer and its evaluated in degrees.

for example I'm sure that generally good decent people hunt for sport. But when a person compounds "evil" (my perspective) acts, such as hunting for sport, mocking other people, defrauding elderly people, molesting children then they are "more" evil than someone that just hunts for sport. And in my estimation, even an act thats evil from my perspective can be more evil than another. That would have to be evaluated subjectively using weighted ranking method. In another case, an act that is evil from my perspective may not be evil at all from someone elses perspective, such as hunting for sport.

Anonymous said...

dear harvey,
I have to say you are almost incoherent.
- Further an atheist can't even call anything evil
- because the word evil is an immaterial desctiprion of a material occurance, event, person.

So I can't even say that mushrooms taste bad because taste is an immaterial description of a material occurance, event or person too.

To an atheist all actions good or evil are on the same plane as all actions are only directed by your genome which is neither good or bad of itself.
So I am not capable of evaluating anything? I am not capable of having preference all because of my Genome?

What you're doing is trying to rationalize your atheism with cultural acceptance and produce subjective standards for actions...and it doesn't work...your standards are irrational.
mischaracterization, straw man,
not everything you don't understand is irrational Harvey. You are not the center of the universe.

Anonymous said...

Harvey,
For the atheist, who ascribes to nothing immaterial to describe someone as "evil" is to BORROW the standard and pattern from religion and spiritually evolved values.
So your estimation of Evil is more valid or accurate than mine when we agree that an act is evil?
In a sense, when I recognize something as evil from your perspective, its just luck?

hogwash.

Anonymous said...

hi missmaddiek86,
Its nice to have you on board. I hope you'll stay and engage us. I promise that in my articles, i like to keep it clean, respectful and light. I may say something flippant occasionally but not very often.

Anonymous said...

harvey,
for anyone, atheist included, to judge something, whether actions or deeds as being "evil" is to juxtsuppose that action next to objective standards of good and evil found in and only evolved from religion.
whose religion?

your arguments are circular harvey. They all presume your kind of God, your kind of attitude and your kind of religion. There is no evidence available to differentiate or vaildate your claims from the claims of any other religion or denomination.

and besides that, there were billions, and billions of people before Christ and after christ who had never heard of him and they had evolved rules that facilitated living harmoniously in groups while worshipping whatever they happened to settle on.

I'm convinced that morality, at its core is economics
and evil is just a label applied by the observer.

Anonymous said...

Hi brad,
i"ll answer you later.
but my initial thought is that you are mixing a subjective evil with an objective evil. I don't think objective evil exists, that might help you with some perspective on my views.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee,
"So your estimation of Evil is more valid or accurate than mine when we agree that an act is evil?"Until you give me your standard for judging "evil" and that standard is more than based on subjectivism or relativism, I would have to say yes. I have a clear standard for calling "evil" evil, you don't.

Lee: "whose religion? your arguments are circular harvey. They all presume your kind of God, your kind of attitude and your kind of religion."That's the point Lee, I'm talking religion in general and since you direct your comments toward Christianity we can say Christianity, but religion in general. Your whole idea is that the world is better without religion and God, specifically the Christian God. I say you can't know "evil" unless HE tells you what it is through religion ie: Christianity and HIS word.


Lee:"I'm convinced that morality, at its core is economics
and evil is just a label applied by the observer."
In other words "evil" to you is relative to how you feel about it. there is no set or uniform standard. It's all relative???

I believe that settles what I'm trying to say, "evil" is evil consistently just as good is...if "evil" changes from place to place then it isn't absolutely "evil". the goal post moves to fit the society. The Christian is much better off than the atheist as he/she has a standard that is immoveable.

Now I know that'll rile the ire!

Scott said...

Harvey,

You're simply stating the obvious.

You define evil based on your belief that God has a particular nature. Therefore, your definition of God and your definition of evil are essentially a tautology.

If you believe God thinks x is good, then x is good. But if you believe God thinks x is evil, then x is evil. These things will never go out of sync.

However, this relationship in no way means evil actually exists in some objective way. It's just hand waving.

Furthermore, you say that you're better off than I am because you definition of God and your definition of evil will never diverge. Again, it's not clear why this would be the case. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Anonymous said...

Hi Harvey,
The Christian is much better off than the atheist as he/she has a standard that is immoveable.

Now I know that'll rile the ire!

To show you that I'm a good sport, well intentioned, and forgiving, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. Since it seems to me that you are insincere and using this as a platform to entertain yourself at the expense of the rest of us by attempting to solicit unreasoned emotional responses from people in order to derail the dialog, (basically meeting my criteria for a low grade evil act) I'm going to do something that'll make it up between us and give you a clean slate.

I'm going to take my son out front and nail him to that old oak tree till he's dead in your place. That'll make it good between us and then you can start fresh with a clean slate.

Now thats what I call evil.

I hope the irony is not lost on you.
;-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,
1. How do you determine between ingrained survival instincts and selfishness?
Probably the same way you do. Tell me how you do it and we'll see if it matches the way I do it.

2. Is it evil to play a practical joke on someone, even if just a little?
Are you serious? What a question. Okay, I'll play, it depends on the context. If it meets some criteria, that I'm sure you can imagine, having to do with harm, and selfishness, and intent then it can be called Evil by some people, and probably not by others.

Where do you draw the line?
Why does it matter where I draw the line? My perception of Evil is based on my values, just like yours, whether you want to admit it or not.

3. I can't remember if you or John said this, but one of you was amazed that your cat would toy with mice. Is that not evil since it isn't human?
Again, are you serious? what a question. It depends on my values. My cat has some biological algorithms going on that cause it to do that, likely the same as some people that will go and watch gory movies and enjoy them.

4. What if the actor and victim have different views on what constitutes true suffering?
What if? Does it make a difference? It depends on the values of the actors.

5. What about non-action, like rich Americans not doing anything to stop rebels from pressing children into their armies in Uganda?
It depends on context and values.

6. What do you do with evil? Do you punish the perpetrator?
Try to figure out if its some biological base for behavior or some psychological pathology first. Then if its untreatable, mitigate their potential to do harm.

7. How would you determine someone actually committed an evil act?
I'll know it when I see it. It depends on context and values.

8. Why should anyone care about evil anyways, especially if it isn't happening to them?
Because without boundaries and limits society would degrade into chaos. But it won't do that naturally anyway if hasn't yet. Its the underlying logic of economics and self-interest. Its in everyones self interest to belong to a group. Therefore, we have to self-regulate our behavior to make that happen.

Check out the prisoners dilemma and what happens to the prisoner that meets the other prisoner that he cheated. Tit-for-tat reciprocation evens things out.

Anonymous said...

Look, it seems like I am the one that is being pressured to define and determine the scope of Evil, but I'm not the one that thinks its objective. If its objective then it must have scope and definition, if not, then its subjective.

I'm happy to leave it undefined and subjective. I think that's its nature anyway. I think its like pornography. Everyone knows it when they see it but they don't agree on its scope and definition.

So if Evil is objective, define its scope and definition or at least show me why treating it as subject doesn't work.

In any case, I'll continue playing the game and fielding the questions, but it really is pointless unless you're trying to get me to say something that can be used to discredit me or "my people".

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, I'm glad you're playing along.

It seems like the answer to most of my questions (did you like the practical joke one?) is "it depends on context and values." Now I know what you're saying, and I think you've been consistent with your subjectivist views.

But the question that then came to my mind was, how does your definition of evil translate into law or policy? It seems like we're going to have to start a "context unit" for our police force. I'm not sure you could successfully accuse someone of doing something "evil".

I don't think it's as clear cut as pornography. Pornography would be any media produced which intends to arouse the consumer. That is a little subjective, but not as much as your definition of evil right now. I just don't think it's very useful for society to think of it that way.

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,
Now I know what you're saying, and I think you've been consistent with your subjectivist views.
I'm an engineer not a subjectivist. If you all want to label me as something to get a grip on my perspective, use my proper label. Engineer.

But the question that then came to my mind was, how does your definition of evil translate into law or policy? It seems like we're going to have to start a "context unit" for our police force. I'm not sure you could successfully accuse someone of doing something "evil".
Are you serious?
Why don't you go ask a judge where all those laws came from. They do have laws where you are don't they?

It seems to me civilized countries get along fine without using the label"evil" for law breakers. And I know some people have been prosecuted and even executed for doing things that I consider evil, however, its not clear to me that they were "evil people".

But some of those things include abduction and murder of children. Why does god let that happen? Why doesn't he just not let the car start, or let the bad guy oversleep, or forget.

God is an accessory to all kinds of Evil deeds.
If I knew who, what, where, when and why an evil deed was done, don't you think it would be incumbent on me to divulge that information?

I do.

But no-one expects god to. If god is real, and is a person (or three, blessed trinity) then we should hold him accountable.

He's an accessory to Evil. He could at least tell the detectives where the bad guys are, or tell them where to go before hand.

Once the evil is in the heart and the intent is there, the bad guy is as good as toast, is he not? And the conviction of the holy spirit should stand up in court should it not? Especially if gods finger is in the face of the bad guy pointing him out to the judge.

But alas, god didn't even comfort me as I was losing my religion and he just let me slip away.....
sigh....
:-(

Thats what happens when we talk to ourselves. Nobody answers but us.

David B. Ellis said...

The Christian is much better off than the atheist as he/she has a standard that is immoveable.
Actually, I think that's what makes the atheist's position better. Our moral opinions are, as human judgements, subject to error---and since we generally recognize that our minds can be changed when its needed.

However, when one thinks one's moral opinions come directly from God, one is far less likely to change one's mind no matter how good the arguments for doing so may be.

Which is why religion has so often served as an obstacle to moral progress.

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, is this theodicy or your definition of evil we're talking about? That second half of the post sounded like theodicy, but then you'll have to let me bring out my definition again. Otherwise, why would you accuse a non-existent being of complicity to evil acts?

So your engineerist views are that law and order are not necessarily based on what is "evil." That's fine, because many laws obviously are utilitarian. But I think the thing you miss in all this is the concept of justice.

Do you want to see justice? I would imagine that you do, but on this view justice must be such a convoluted concept that it is untenable. Of course, I don't know engineerism well enough to comment on their views of justice.

David B. Ellis said...

For those claiming morality is objective, you really need to explain what that is supposed to mean. Its far from a clear concept.

David B. Ellis said...

When it comes to morality, it seems to me that the believer ought to ask himself "why does God command X".

Surely, if God actually commands something, he does so for a valid reason (otherwise his commands would be arbitrary---and I don't think most theists want do defend that position).

And if that's the case then those reasons should, one would think, be valid whether God exists or not.

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,
theodicy, shmodicy, I hate that junk. I consider it all slippery slope arguments because none of it is derived from quality information.

Otherwise, why would you accuse a non-existent being of complicity to evil acts?
I'm just saying....
seriously,
I was arguing from the viewpoint that if there was a god then he's an accomplice. If there's a God, then there's no reason for him not to be considered an accomplice.

Do you want to see justice? I would imagine that you do, but on this view justice must be such a convoluted concept that it is untenable.
So you don't think there is any justice in the world right now? Do you live in chaos? Judging from your picture, it looks like you have it relatively good. Have you served in the peace corp or as a missionary, or maybe served in Afghanistan or Iraq? That'll give you perspective.

So you must have another definition of justice in mind.

and you've skipped right over my refutations where I've pointed out
- there are laws,
- and no "context unit"
- and people in Jails for breaking laws which could be considered Evil if one wanted to
- the tit-for-tat reciprocation process from which a natural justice and rudimentary morality emerges
- the mechanism of self-interest to self-regulate our behavior
- and forgave harvey by sacrificing my son on his behalf which is an egregiously evil act.

and I'll raise you the fact that justice and morality span religions, cultures and countries, across millennia and most of them differ in their claims to know where it comes from.

and why won't god give me a hug? I bet you would if I asked nicely.

Anonymous said...

Bravo David,
lets hear some Scope and Definition of Objective Morals since we aren't getting anywhere with Scope and Definition of Evil.

It seems that everybody talks about objective evil but nobody can produce the data.

talk, talk, its all elephant talk.....

Anonymous said...

Hi Lee,

Have you ever asked God to give you a hug? Are you looking for affection from God? Do you need to know that He loves and deeply cares for you?

Why don't you just tell God, if He is really a loving God, to put up or shut up. God likes "in your face" honesty. He is not a pansy. He can handle your confrontations.

Anonymous said...

DenCol,
Has it escaped your notice that quite a few times a month I mention that Gods not around but he never says
"yes i am"
Like I suppose you would if i said that in front of you?

God,
please give me a hug and make sure DenCol and everyone can see it when I get all embarassed and flustered because I was so wrong.

Anonymous said...

nothing yet....

Anonymous said...

Lee,

Make sure you tell God to hug you GENTLY so that He does not break every bone in your body.

Anonymous said...

And Lee,

God does not need to defend Himself to us, nor prove Himself. He is not insecure like we are. Nor does He need to act the way we tell Him to, or the way we choose to define how a loving God should act. But if you are disappointed with the way God is running His show, then tell Him so.

Anonymous said...

nothing yet....

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, I'll give you a hug, you don't even have to ask nicely.

I'm seriously a little confused at what you're arguing. You don't want to talk about theodicy, but you want to accuse God of evil. I don't know where to go from there if you don't want to listen to arguments if they are "slippery", but that makes me think your "accusations" against a non-existent God don't have much substance. In fact, you're tacitly affirming His existence, which I know you would never, ever, ever do.

Anyways...

I do live a peaceful life. But I don't live it because America was formed without any concept of absolute morality. The reverse is true, even if you can successfully argue that there were deists and atheists among the founding fathers (which I think you can). "Inalienable rights" are absolute moral values. We've worked out the specifics, but there are some base values that were taken as objective and absolute.

I do take it that justice is a concrete thing to work for. I'm not sure that on your engineerist views "justice" has semantic substance. I think supporting organizations like WorldVision or International Justice Mission are ways that I can affect justice in this world.

And since you bring it up, I have done some extensive mission work. I plan to go back to Mexico, eventually. And the perspective I got was that respect for absolute laws is necessary for a healthy society. Self-interest never "regresses to the mean" without outside authority, and I see the drug war in Mexico as a prime example. The self-interest of a few is routinely imposed on the masses, mainly by force. Tit-for tat doesn't work, rule of law is the key. That's my perspective from my time on the mission field, at least.

I think touting subjective morality seems easy because our societal organization is steeped in assumptions of absolute morals.

Anonymous said...

HI Brad,
and you seem to be using scripted comments. The reason I say that is that they don't make sense except as scripted comments or poor reading comprehension.

heres why

I don't know where to go from there if you don't want to listen to arguments if they are "slippery", but that makes me think your "accusations" against a non-existent God don't have much substance.
If I accuse you of trampling my tomato plants, and use the testimony of a single neighbor, and then you refute it by saying that the neighbor was not in a postion to know, then you are providing a very good refutation to my charge. Now it needs to be determined if the Neighbor was in a position to know or not. Did he see you? When, what were you wearing, were you anywhere else at that time etc. We need to cross-check it before the accusation has substance. Your charge has substance right away because the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation.

so now when I say that they are all slippery slopes because they are not derived from quality information, I am assuming the role of you denying trampling my tomato plants. I want to know if the witness (authors of scripture) were in a postion to know, I want them cross-checked. We already know that there is no data lineage on that information, meaning that its origin and authors are unknown, therefore we can't know if its accurate or not.

so any conclusions derived from information that can't be confirmed is poor quality knowledge until it can be cross-checked to see if it is consistent with established knowledge and verified.


In fact, you're tacitly affirming His existence, which I know you would never, ever, ever do.
this is the most suspicious of being a "canned" comment because it is so fallacious.

If I say that to you
"brad, if starbucks had a granola coffee, the Granola in the coffee would have to be too crunchy or too mushy to enjoy"
I have not tacitly affirmed the existence of a granola coffee at starbucks. I have used is a premise in a hypothetical argument. All I've done is come up with a hypothesis about a granola coffee.

I do take it that justice is a concrete thing to work for. I'm not sure that on your engineerist views "justice" has semantic substance.
apparently it does because systems of justice exist. That falls loosely into two thought reform categories.
Had you had your granola coffee yet?

And the perspective I got was that respect for absolute laws is necessary for a healthy society.
name an absolute law, and where it came from.

Self-interest never "regresses to the mean" without outside authority, and I see the drug war in Mexico as a prime example. The self-interest of a few is routinely imposed on the masses, mainly by force. Tit-for tat doesn't work, rule of law is the key.
then you don't have a wide or varied enough sample, because the tit-for-tat strategy is a theory that produces repeatable and predictable outcomes as an average. You should read up on, and one of particular interest is called the "christmas truce of 1914"You have dismissed a valid natural mechanism for emerged "morality" out of hand, too hastily my friend. That is a symptom of Thought reforme of the "sacred science" type.

DenCols displayed some evidence of thought reform recently with the thought-terminating Cliche. Thats thought reform of the "loading the language" type.

I don't have time to check this for errors but I'm going to post it anyway.

ttfn

Anonymous said...

nothing yet.....

Rich said...

Hi Lee,
This is actually a tough set of questions. I don't know that I'll be able to defend my positions satisfactorily and I may need to change some positions. All I can do is give a go.
When I think of evil it stems from religious beliefs, stating the obvious. So to me evil contains the element of willfull rebelion against God's will. I don't really like "will" but it's to early in my day to come up with a better fit. Lots of things can be evil, and I suppose the are things that can be produced as evil as well as things that are produced as good and used for evil. The internet comes to mind. I see a bunch of "that depends" questions over there Lee so that is what makes the majority of defending any position tough.

I'm not sure I have a good concrete grasp of the subjective objective thing but for now I'll go with objective until it's overturned. I believe God has his scope and definition of evil and it probably is different then we think. God decided what is evil to him and the only way we know is if he tells us, so there is no way for that knowledge to get to us if god is silent. Although we can learn of things that are evil and define it for ourselves without God. We can evaluate, asses, and compare things that are evil but that comes with comparing it to its opposite, which would be good, so we would have to have a scope and definition of that, once again stating the obvious.

is it evil to stick a needle in a baby?This is an intent question to me, so if it is a vaccination no, if it is to intentionally cause harm or death, yes.

i do think its evil to kill for sport.
I decided that when I tried it as a kid when my uncle took me out. I can shoot and have been an expert marksman, so I love to shoot, but I don't like to kill things. I like to shoot targets.
Agreed, I grew up hunting. I never kill for sport. I do love to shoot targets, it's just that some of my targets are edible. ;)

Do I have a right to Judge Jerry Lee Lewis as Evil when marrying a 13 or 14 yr old girl may have been legal and acceptable by his culture? I Have to say no you don't in this case. There are alot of opinions about what God thinks or wants from us. I think it is proper, and expected by God, that we be skeptical of anyone claiming they know what God wants us to do or be.
Or in your own words, there's alot of hogwash out there.

That's my time for now, but in closing I would like to say I understand a little bit more of our relationship, Lee. You are an engineer who fixes peoples problems all day. I am the tech who spends his day making the engineers ideas work for those people. ;)

I just cut your argument at the knees by not conceding your premise, so it never had a leg to stand on.Actually it was just a flesh wound, the black knight said so. (Monty Python)

Anonymous said...

Hi Richd,
welcome back.
God decided what is evil to him and the only way we know is if he tells us, so there is no way for that knowledge to get to us if god is silent. Although we can learn of things that are evil and define it for ourselves without God.
If you "figure out" evil on our own, you may be wrong. You said it yourself that unless god tells you what evil is, you won't know. You can only suspect. You won't have any way to cross check because whatever you call good is assessed by YOUR HUMAN VALUES derived from living in a sinful world.

How can you decide whats evil from a HUMAN perspective if only God knows?

At that point, you are no better than the atheist (or hindu) and we have come back to evil being subjective and undefined.

for my purposes, I consider subjective undefined and objective defined. For example, we all know if something looks like a sphere but we don't all know if something looks evil.

from wikipedia
"While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity. "
note: wikipedia is not authoritative, just a good place to start.

on a side note,
I have an IDQ article 90% finished, but I got sidetracked by evil.
anyway...
what I say might support the mormon church......to a degree.
I'm interested to see if you have anything to contribute once I get it posted.

Rich said...

Hi Lee,

I was trying to say tht we wouldn't know what God says is evil without him telling us. Then on the flip side, we can determine things to be evil on our own, but that doesn't mean the two are always in sync. (not the boy band)

So I will most certainly have things I define as evil that you won't, more obvious stuff. If you believe in God and want to align yourself with him, learn his definition of evil and sin and good, ect... then it has to come through some sort of communication. If we have to depend on the bible being that communication, being everything God has to tell us, then we are all in a hell of alot of trouble.

I can't know what God thinks is evil anymore than I can know what you think is evil without communication. We can decide what evil is for ourselves we just won't know what God defines as evil. For you and I to determine that killing for sport is evil, we would have to determine why it is evil. Is it because it has no purpose other than to destroy? Is it for the pleasure of killing something?

Now lets say that from the bible, which is supose to be from God, we learn that he says that homosexual acts are evil. (I am not saying they are I am just using an obvious hot topic as an example.) So then there must be a reason why. If one of our puroses here is to reproduce children, and God has made us male and female for that purpose, and has commanded us(his will) that we only have sexual relations with those of the opposite sex. Then if we willfully go against his will that would be a sin and evil as defined by God. Does that make sense?

on a side note,
I have an IDQ article 90% finished, but I got sidetracked by evil.
anyway...
what I say might support the mormon church......to a degree.
I'm interested to see if you have anything to contribute once I get it posted
I get sidetracked by evil alot myself. I look forward to reading and contributing.

Thanks for the definitions of subjective/objective. That helps me gain insight to your posts. That's probably something I can adopt for my purposes also. I don't know what it is about wiki, but at work it locks up IE and I have to close it down and restart the internet everytime I try to open wiki. Actually its something that is done at work and not wiki, but I still don't know what it is, well mostly, because I know it's extremely annoying.

Anonymous said...

Hi Richd,
How do you know God communicates with you? Is it the "burning bosom" or something else?

and if we stipulate for a moment and we say that "god hates fags" because he made us man an woman to reproduce, then shouldn't we say that man and woman should only reproduce and never use birth control?

If its ok for women and men to have recreational sex, why shouldn't it be ok for same sex to have recreational sex with each other?

and what about the 1/1000 annually born intersex (traditionally called hermaphrodites) which would be 300,000 annually in america alone? If you think about it, that means if you talked to over 1000 different people, you've probably talked to one.

What does God think about them, but more importantly how does a christian know what god thinks about them?

Anonymous said...

Hi Lee,

You said: "and what about the 1/1000 annually born intersex (traditionally called hermaphrodites) which would be 300,000 annually in america alone?"

Could you please state you source for this statistic. I could not find it on the web.

Rich said...

Hi Lee,
How do you know God communicates with you? Is it the "burning bosom" or something else?Me specifically, the burning bosom thing, which is what we belive to be the confirmation of truth via the HG. If you mean something on a more global scale, then he would communicate that to a prophet.

and if we stipulate for a moment and we say that "god hates fags" because he made us man an woman to reproduceFirst I wouldn't stipulate that but I would that God hates homosexual sex, along with promiscuity, extra marital sex.

then shouldn't we say that man and woman should only reproduce and never use birth control?It doesn't have to follow because reproduction is one purpose for sex. There is an obvious pleasure also. (I'm putting alot of obvious things out there today)

If its ok for women and men to have recreational sexAs long as it is within marriage. And as long as that marriage is between a man and a women then I don't see a problem.

and what about the 1/1000 annually born intersex (traditionally called hermaphrodites)And there is the one I don't have an answer for.

What does God think about them, but more importantly how does a christian know what god thinks about them?I don't know what God thinks of them. Only a living prophet could answer for God and I don't know of anything treating this subject. However I will look into it and get back with you if I find anything. I meant in religious circles, I know there is plenty of opinions and info outside of religion, there actually may be plenty within religion too, I just haven't seen anything that I recall, just thought I should clarify.

Anonymous said...

hi dencol,
I got it from a medical website sometime in the past two years for another article, but I looked it up on wikipedia to make sure I remembered it right. .1% is 1/1000 = 300,000/300,000,000
look up intersex, or hermaphrodite on wikipedia. or google.
a more accurate stat. is 150,000 - 300,000 in the U.S.

Anonymous said...

I looked at the wiki article already. It states "According to the ISNA definition above, 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, approximately one in every hundred births. [60] Between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity."

This is just more unsubstantiated statistics. Neither do they give any source to back up their claims. This is not acceptable. If you could find your medical source, I would appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

Here is another quote: "One out of every two thousand children in America is born intersexual (125,000 living in the United States today--enough to fill a good sized city)."

http://www.hknet.org.nz/HermaphroditesPlaceVedik.htm

Once again, no verifiable sources named, and a lower percentage stated in this article. Right now, all we have is rumor and hearsay.

Rich said...

Hi Dencol,
While the number of intesex born children born in the US might be in question, the fact that there are any number, even if it were only 1 ever, presents a problem in the discussion I was having with Lee. So you could argue numbers all day long, or word definitions, but at the end of the day wether there are thousands, millions, or even 1 the question is still a valid and good one. That is why I didn't care if the statisic he quoted was accurate or not.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rich,

You are correct. Point taken. I was just shocked at the number presented.

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, I'm opening up the can again...

This isn't a thread on God's existence so I'll let that rest.

But I really think your tit for tat strategy is fatally flawed. I'm not even sure how that incident in WWI has anything to do with this. There has been no truce in the drug wars in Mexico, no truce in sex-trafficking in SE Asia, Israel and Palestine aren't any closer than they were 60 years ago, FARC rebels continue to terrorize parts of Colombia, various rebel groups in all parts of Africa routinely commit atrocities that we couldn't imagine, and all the while multi-national corporations pull the strings of the world economy. This will not eventually "even out." If you're going to convince me of the efficacy of the tit for tat strategy, you're going to have to cite something much stronger than a Christmas sing-along in 1914.

And as for absolute morals, let me cite again the first lines of the Declaration of Independence. The statements following the "inalienable rights" which are "endowed by our Creator" are a good short list of absolute morals.

And did you read in that wiki article that "thought reform" isn't accepted by either the American Sociological Association or the American Psychological association?

How high quality is the information from wikipedia, then?

Anonymous said...

HI Brad,
wikipedia is not authoritative, just a good place to start.

Before you start bashing tit-for-tat and by extension game theory, you should at least read a book on it.
You can't wish yourself to be an expert on it by picking a few examples that may not even be applicable and call it discredited. I suggest the book "game theory, a non-technical introduction" by morton davis for starters. It has a few pages devoted to tit-for-tat strategies in nature, one example includes wasps.

and you should clean up your logic, because if you are going to try to discredit wikipedia, you shouldn't use it as a premise in your argument about thought reform.

And once again, you are letting the exception make the rule. If its not accepted by the american psychiatry association they probably have a good reason, like for example, they recognize how damaging it would be to religion so since some of them are religious, they neglect to adopt it.

I have a family member that went to a psychologist and he recommended some books from some christian writers. When I found out about it, I chastised him and requested he provide some secular books on the same subject because we weren't all christian.
He apologized and complied.

Homosexuality wasn't included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM] (and may still not be) because a similar thing happened. You should go look things up before you take the position that its not true if you don't believe it.

You've done this before with me in another discussion where you've dismissed something out of hand because you didn't agree with it and I think I commented that you shouldn't do that if you want to call yourself an educator. I'm sure it had something to do with IDQ and verifying sources.

Anonymous said...

DenCol and Brad,
And on the topic of verifying sources, what criteria are you using to determine if the information is good quality regarding intersex people, tit-for-tat strategies, and thought reform?

You should apply that criteria to the bible.

Maybe my IDQ articles are seeping into your intuition. Please keep reading and commenting.....heh, heh, heh....
;-)

Anonymous said...

Hi Richd,
thanks for handling Dencol for me.

and about your comments,
you know the drill,
yada, yada,
only mormons get the burning bosom?
yada,
why should I trust it,
yada,
How do you cross-check a prophet
yada,
Whose prophets are vaild
yada,

and why isn't it an evil act for god to enable the possibility of sexually ambiguous people in the recipe for humans and then condemn them for it?

If we can see that there are degrees of biological signs of sexual ambiguity, then we should accept that there are degrees of sexual ambiguity that include non-visible signs, but do include mental processes.

sexual desire for another of the same sex instead desire for the opposite sex. Just because you and I have a desire for women, and it is traditionally accepted as being culturally acceptable, doesn't mean than Homosexuality is evil or is a accurately described in the bible as something that god doesn't like.

We're back to the accuracy of the bible again.

Anonymous said...

Hi Dencol,
I was just shocked at the number presented.
no problem.
I suspect your preacher never brought that up as he was preaching against homosexuality did he?

Thats a lot of sexually frustrated people. You are blessed that you aren't I suppose.

But who asks to be born like that? And then what does one do with their life if they are? What you would you do if it suddenly became a sin to have sexual desire for the opposite sex? How would you feel if your family condemned you for something you couldn't help?

there's a lot your preacher doesn't mention that you should know about to help you make better decisions.

the intersection of biological bases of behavior and "sin" is another area you should look into and think about.

Anonymous said...

The teaching company has a new course on Game Theory. You can get it on four dvds for $70.00 I highly recommend it, especially for christians looking for that objective moral law.

Brad Haggard said...

Lee, lol you linked me to the Wiki article. And you think there is some sort of Christian conspiracy in the ASA and the APA :D.

But I do have to claim ignorance in Game Theory. So I'll let that drop, too, only to say that many of your arguments about my dismissal of GT could just as easily be turned around to attack your dismissal of theodicy. I'll have to read up more on GT, though.

Wasn't this a good idea, though? We're already to about 90 comments. I think I'll let this whole thing rest now because I'm looking forward to your next IDQ article.

Anonymous said...

I got homosexuality and the dsm backwards.
this link has some info on it, though not much.

"In 1973 homosexuality per se was removed from the DSM-II classification of mental disorders and replaced by the category Sexual Orientation Disturbance."
The author of the linked article "argues that what is at issue is a value judgment about heterosexuality, rather than a factual dispute about homosexuality. "

Anonymous said...

Hi Brad,
it was a good idea, thanks.

lol you linked me to the Wiki article. And you think there is some sort of Christian conspiracy in the ASA and the APA
because while wikipedia is not authoritative it is a good place to start.

Do you deny that christianity is part of the culture of every american professional? Do you deny that culture shapes attitudes and decisions? Do you deny that peer pressure exists especially in professional organizations? And do you deny that america is at least 80% christian?

think about it before you go accusing people of ascribing to a baseless conspiracy theory. If you think about it, and are honest with yourself, you will see that your freewill is constrained by cultural boundaries.

Anonymous said...

since you guys are waiting for that next IDQ article to tear into, I'll stop talking and start writing.

outahere!
ttfn
or
fntt
whichever you prefer!

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Lee,

This is pitiful my friend:
"Just because you and I have a desire for women, and it is traditionally accepted as being culturally acceptable, doesn't mean than Homosexuality is evil or is a accurately described in the bible as something that god doesn't like.And

"How would you feel if your family condemned you for something you couldn't help?Let's use the same rationalle fo rlet's say pedophilia which isn't criminal in the netherlands down to 12 years old...or let's go further and say murder...Let's say for a moment that people just can't help themselves from these actions...Are we to simply acquiest and say thei behavior is somehow normal and acceptable?

chu-mon Lee...the more I read of you guy's understanding of evil I am more convinced that the unrighteous/unsaved/atheist whatever you want to call someone who has no belief expecially in the Christian God, CANNOT rationalize or even KNOW what evil is. That's the despairity of SIN and what it has produced in your lives.


All of your exapmples of your abilities to know evil on this blog have been either relative in nature or amoral like the view the you have said that you expouse.

You deal with the argument of sin in this blog and there have been a few attempts to rationalize how you know evil but it all basically boils down to culture, relativism, amoralism or genes and you further suggest here.

Obviously there is no universal standard of evil in your view.

Now, that leads to another insight that I have while reading this commentary. IF you can't judge evil outise of the standards that I have set forth here THEN you cannot adequately assess the morality of God as found within scripture.

I pose that no ATHEIST can judge or rationalize accurately the morality of god in any manner because he/she is blind in their sins and those sins shield your ability to know evil or even fully comprehend good. As part evidence even the philosophical models of evil are nonstatic and full of change and conflict over the years. There are philosophers plato, aristotle, and Socrates who in succession had opposing views of evil and all of these thoughts have been developed for one or more trains or variations of thought.


I know them's are fightin' words but I mean no slight of ANYONE'S intelligence. You guys are VERY intelligence and my statements have NOTHING to do with personal ability to understand. I pose that this is a spiritual issue at heart and although we have an ability to perceive, our existence is not limited to our natural or physical perceptions...


I'm writing an article on this but I think my premise would be worth DC undertaking.


Later fellas.

Anonymous said...

Hi Harvey,
(I had to break this up into two comments. Part 1)

I shouldn't talk to you either since you think Adam and Eve were real, but here goes anyway because you provide so much material to analyze. You are the slippery slope, strawman, equivocation, thought reform king of the hill in my book.

- Let's use the same rationalle for let's say pedophilia which isn't criminal in the netherlands down to 12 years old...
while I think that is deplorable, its deplorable for reasons of psychological development since people are biologically crazy till the end of their teens when their frontal lobe finish developing. Its deplorable on utilitarian premises, not because of anything supernatural. Its also deplorable for reasons related to infringing on anothers self-interest for purely selfish reasons.

and I'd like to see a citation for that claim because it is hard to believe. Though wikipedia is not authoritative, it is a good place to start, so wikipedia is fine if thats all you have.

- or let's go further and say murder...
here's that slippery slope I was talking about

- Let's say for a moment that people just can't help themselves from these actions...
okay I'm with ya....

- Are we to simply acquiest and say thei behavior is somehow normal and acceptable?
WHOOP! THERE IT IS!
there is the strawman. You are so predictable, you do this to me every stinking time. Thats not my position, I've said it lots of times to you before yet you continue to misrepresent me and atheists in general.
Thats dishonest but I understand because you can't help yourself Harvey. You are under what i call "self-thought reform", which I intend to start pointing out more often.

That's the despairity of SIN and what it has produced in your lives.
IF you can't judge evil outise of the standards that I have set forth here THEN you cannot adequately assess the morality of God as found within scripture.

So leviticus and deuteronomy are perfectly moral and can be considered universal, absolute or objective?
And human sacrifice can be considered moral, useful, and reasonable? (reference Crucifixion).
Harvey, har, har.

If there is a moving moral goal post, it is the bible. Hands down. That is why the bible is not used as the standard for civilized Justice systems. For the most part, only that parts that overlap with a more utilitarian viewpoint are incorporated. For the rest of the Justice system, it is largely utilitarian.

So you are in the minority with no evidence to point to.

Anonymous said...

part 2
I pose that no ATHEIST can judge or rationalize accurately the morality of god in any manner because he/she is blind in their sins and those sins shield your ability to know evil or even fully comprehend good.
"The term loading the language' refers to literalism and a tendency to deify words or images. A simplified, cliche-ridden language can exert enormous psychological force reducing every issue in a complicated life to a single set of slogans that are said to embody the truth as a totality."[1]

you are blinded by you r bias to see how useless the atonement and evil as displayed by last comment to you
"Repetitious confession, especially in required meetings, often expresses an arrogance in the name of humility. As Camus wrote: "I practice the profession of penitence to be able to end up as a judge," and, "The more I accuse myself, the more I have a right to judge you."[1]

You exhibit other "softer" aspects of what lifton defined as thought reform, (such as your assertion that Atheists are not in the right Milieu to understand evil) but I'll save it for an article and "harvest" comments from other articles you guys for support.

As part evidence even the philosophical models of evil are nonstatic and full of change and conflict over the years. There are philosophers plato, aristotle, and Socrates
can you name any moral philospopers tht are not over 2000 years old?
This is the twenty first century, you need to catch up.
I repeat what I said above
So leviticus and deuteronomy are perfectly moral and can be considered universal, absolute or objective? Did Jesus not come down to change the way he was worshipped? Did he not bring a "new covenant"? Do you not believe that the law was fulfilled in him? That the old laws are not applicable anymore?
Do you think him being a human sacrifice to himslef can be considered moral, useful, and reasonable? (reference Crucifixion).
Harvey, har, har.

Morals outside of dogma are self-correcting because people gather data in a controlled way, apply principles of sound reasoning, and come up with a Justice system. While in order to get into law school, you must overcome cognitive biase that leads to fallacious reasoning, thats why the make LSAT prep books that detail the fallacies they want you to recognize and overcome,
Religion depends on them.

perfection is a goal, not a reality.

1. Cult FormationRobert J. Lifton, M.D., John Jay College
The Harvard Mental Health Letter
Volume 7, Number 8 February 1981,
reprinted in AFF News Vol. 2 No. 5, 1996

Russ said...

Harvey,
Again, you offer nothing but your own self-centered assertions that your religion gives you the right to define the word "evil." Assert away, but recall that someone else might claim the same right because of insight inspired by an oak tree or a stone.

Again, you fail to recognize that your religion absorbed its content, including its take on evil, from dominant local myths, legends and fables at the time it was first recorded.

You say, Harvey,
The Christian is much better off than the atheist as he/she has a standard that is immoveable.
However, among Christians themselves, we see that the standard you call immovable ranges freely as one moves from congregation to congregation, and even individual believer to individual believer. There is no "standard" version of Christianity, and there is no "standard" definition of "evil" shared among them.

We can easily see this by looking at the varying interpretations different varieties of Christianities assign to particular Bible stories. For example, Christianities like yours, Harvey, see the many genocides in the Bible as acts of love by a benevolent father. Other Christianities see those same genocides as evil. Observably, Christianities provide no objective standard of what constitutes evil.

Clearly, you are wrong about an objective religious standard of evil, and you clearly have a poor understanding of what your fellow religionists think, believe and construe as evil.

You will tell us, Harvey, that your version of a Christian god is exempt from abiding by human standards. Then, you have contradicted your own claim that an objective standard exists.

Then, too, you would grant other exemptions to the standard for those humans claiming that your version of a god whispered a revelation in their ear. Murdering innocents is acceptable to you when your god tells one of your fellow clergyman that those innocents are witches or possessed of demons. There exists no objective standard in your religion, Harvey, if every schmuck with a Bible, clergy and layman alike, can claim a revelatory exemption whenever it suits his own purposes.

Sadly, you know all this. As such you know no such standard exists. You know that even among Christians no such standard exists. You're a Christian Fundamentalist, Harvey, precisely, because other Christians do not fit your personal standard of what an arbitrary Christianity should be. Those other Christianities have different notions of righteousness, morality, and, yes, evil.

You know these things, yet, you persist in publicly denying them. That's lying. Isn't that an intentional violatation one of your ten commandments? Isn't that evil, Harvey? Or, is this one of the infinite exemptions you can claim as a schmuck with a Bible since lying here suits your purpose?

Russ said...

Brad Haggard,
You said,
And as for absolute morals, let me cite again the first lines of the Declaration of Independence. The statements following the "inalienable rights" which are "endowed by our Creator" are a good short list of absolute morals.
The Declaration of Independence is not a founding document of the US and it's contents do not constitute US law. Understand also that the reference to "our Creator" was language tailored to its target audience, the King of England, who was thought to hold his position as the desire some "Creator." Further, the Declaration of Independence stated clearly that we colonials were dumping the idea of having a Creator-backed monarch.

Moreover, if you will observe you will see that we do not consider "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as absolute morals, but, rather, they are context and behavior dependent. If you commit treason or murder your life can be taken away. Life is not an absolute moral. For a wide variety of crimes, one can be stripped of their liberty. Liberty is not an absolute moral. And every self-interested government, religion, corporation, and individual can legally disrupt other's pursuit of happiness. Pursuit of happiness is not an absolute moral.

Every bit as conspicuous as the Declaration not being a founding or legal document and an institutor of absolute morals is the fact that the actual founding document of the US, The Constitution of the United States of America, leaves out any mention of a god or a creator.

This purposeful omission was a recognition that religions and gods were not good assessors of the good or the moral. Remember legalized slavery was part of the US landscape at the time the Constitution was written and slavery was almost universally endorsed by clergy in the South. They had no absolute moral guide; they were simply reflecting as moral the accepted social norms. It was not until the morality of slavery dominated the dialogue in a much broader social context that its abolition became a moral imperative.

This purposeful omission was also a recognition that though religions and gods do not define good, evil, or moral, the societies containing those religions and their gods, do set those standards. As such the Constitution defines the malleable system of laws whereby the changing sensibilities of the society can be reflected to insure the concomitant new understanding of justice.

The founders, many ostensibly religious, knew that morals were not absolute and they instituted a system that could allow society to change its mind concerning the morality of slavery and to set a vastly improved statutory moral standard outlawing it throughout the Constitution's jurisdiction.

There is no moral absolute, Brad, and when it comes to resolving moral issues, religions simply reflect the views espoused among their members.

Scott said...

Harvey wrote: Obviously there is no universal standard of evil in your view. Harvey,

We know you think God is your metric for morality. But this doesn't actually mean evil exists in some objective, external way. It's just hand waving. Sure, your definition of evil and your definition of God's nature will never diverge, but I don't see how this gives you any particular advantage.

If you believe God thinks x is good, then x is good. But if you believe God thinks x is evil, then x is evil. If you believe God thinks homosexuality is wrong, then you think homosexuality is evil. The fact that these things will never go out of sync doesn't really mean you're definition is really objective in some concrete way. It just means you think they are one in the same.

Anonymous said...

Introducing my new look.

Robert Ingle said...

According to Morris & Linda Tannehill in "The Market For Liberty", no man or group of men—including any group of men calling themselves "the government"—is morally entitled to initiate (that is, to start) the use of physical force, the threat of force, or any substitute for force (such as fraud) against any other man or group of men.

Evil may simply be defined as the initiation of force, as defined above.

For more details, read the book:

http://www.mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf