What Is Evil?

strobe

I'm not sure if this thread would be more suited to another forum, but the question was touched on in another thread here, so I guess this is as good a place as any.

I gave my opinion of evil as follows:

In the broadest definiton of evil, "that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" of course I believe things exist that cause harm, I'd have to be insane not to. It's the "that" part of the definition I have a problem with. "That" being "Evil". Some indescribable force that makes people do cruel things. For many Christians I have spoken to (I don't know if you are one of them?) they describe evil as the hand of Satan in man's affairs. It's the belief that a lot of people seem to hold, that evil itself is a cause of people doing cruel things or the explanation for those actions, that I object to.

-"Did you hear about that woman that murdered her kids?"
---"Yeah, why do you think she did that?"
-"Some people are just evil."

Basically I don't believe "evil" exists. I'm not looking for the Christian party line, per say, more your individual thoughts, from Christians and non-Christian lurkers alike.

P.S. Fanny has informed me of a lecture taking place on Friday on this topic, so if it's something that interests you. this

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Basically I don't believe "evil" exists. I'm not looking for the Christian party line, per say, more your individual thoughts, from Christians and non-Christian lurkers alike.

The way I see it? "Evil" is simply a term used to describe that which is opposed to God's will / is contra God's nature. And so if we look at the destruction and harming of others we see that God instructing that the Midanites be slaughtered isn't (per definition) evil, whilst Cain's slaughtering of Abel (per definition) is.

There has to be some word attaching to "that which opposes God's will - whether by thought or action". Evil happens to be it.

Evil also happens to be something used by God in his presenting us with choice regarding himself. It was God afterall, who permitted the serpent to enter the garden and tempt - opening the way to a potential (ultimately realised) infecting of man with this 'disease'. And it is God who applies leverage to our evil doing in the attempt to have us admit (to ourselves in the first instance) that we are rotten at core. That conviction, that belief appears to be the criterion man much satisfy in order that God save man. Making evil, in a one-step-removed-from God, a good thing.

the_dark_side

fear of the dark is stronger in children than in adults, particularly if the child has a lively immagination. If you remember back to your childhood, this fear of the dark is really a fear of the unknown, we cant see very well, and are afraid that some harm might come to us out of the darkness. This fear dissappears as soon as it starts to get light.

Similarly, each of us have a certain unpredictabilty within us, a dark side, as my username suggests. This dark side may be a counter balance to our lighter side, an alter ego if you like. This alter ego can be more negative in some people, depending on lifes experience, plus the inherited characteristics of the indiviual

Many of us have to supress 'bad thoughts' from time to time, this is where the darker alter ego seeps into our positive brighter persona. Some people have no control over this darker, alter ego and many do step over the line where they act out their thoughts, and the more often that this happens, the easier it becomes to let go of self control.

How often do we hear of lawyers arguing in defence of their client that they were 'not in their right mind' when the bad deed was carried out, and the judge will convict for manslaughter as a result (for example).... or a 'crime of passion', as its sometimes referred to, is an act carried out in the grasp of uncontrolable anger, usually over a relationship issue.

Maybe it is because mankind's temperament has evoloved with the day - night cycle, and the night cycle of our personality is what we refer to as 'evil'

Fanny Cradock

strobe wrote: »

That's quite a limb you have gone out on alright. If it's your presumption that I haven't seen or experienced horrible things first hand as a child or since, you're very wrong.

It at all wasn't my intention to imply that you haven't experience pain and suffering. My apologies if it came across that way. I was actually thinking about a deed that is so grotesque that the only word evil - and by evil I mean fundamentally objectionable on every level - can adequately describe it.

strobe wrote: »

In the broadest definiton of evil, "that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune" of course I believe things exist that cause harm, I'd have to be insane not to.

I'm not sure I would be happy with this definition. Many things that cause harm or destruction can actually be beneficial in other ways. So to take an example from the natural world, some eco-systems thrive on forest fires. In short, I think your definition misses the mark. That is to say it doesn't provide a description of how deep we can plum the depths of immorality or how intoxicating and cyclical it can all be. At this point I actually had a shock image from Auschwitz that I was going to post to drive home the point. It was the image of two men pulling the emaciated remains of a dead Jew across a factory floor. They pulled his skin and bones body along with giant tongs that grasped his skull. If that isn't evil on a corporate scale then nothing is.

strobe wrote: »

It's the "that" part of the definition I have a problem with. "That" being "Evil". Some indescribable force that makes people do cruel things. For many Christians I have spoken to (I don't know if you are one of them?) they describe evil as the hand of Satan in man's affairs. It's the belief that a lot of people seem to hold that evil itself is a cause of people doing cruel things or the explanation for those actions that I object to.

I find this interesting because I know of atheists who do subscribe to moral absolutes such as good and evil. The only obvious difference is that they don't see the guiding hand of Satan involved. Further, I don't think that the word "cruel" begins to describe some of the things we do to one another and to other species. I don't see why an explanation for the root cause of a terrible crime actually explains away the crime. So, for example, while one might point to Joseph Fritzel's tortured childhood or whatever as a reason for his indescribable brutality of his crimes, I don't believe it tackles the heart of the crime itself or necessarily explains why we think his crimes where quite so monstrous.

strobe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It at all wasn't my intention to imply that you haven't experience pain and suffering. My apologies if it came across that way. I was actually thinking about a deed that is so grotesque that the only word evil - and by evil I mean fundamentally objectionable on every level - can adequately describe it.

I was aware of how you meant it, no apology neccessary.

The bolded line above, that is a definition I have no problem agreeing with, I just think evil is the wrong word to use, based mainly on how I hear most people use the word, as per the response to a woman murdering her kids in the OP. My own defintion was just lifted from google define, and was used to try and give the broadest possible definition, to create a common ground, I don't particuarly find it a satisfactory one either.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

At this point I actually had a shock image from Auschwitz that I was going to post to drive home the point. It was the image of two men pulling the emaciated remains of a dead Jew across a factory floor. They pulled his skin and bones body along with giant tongs that grasped his skull. If that isn't evil on a corporate scale then nothing is.

Again if we are using the rough definition you give above, fundamentally objectionable on every level, then I would agree that things that went on in nazi concentration camps and indeed things that happen every day around the world in the present are evil. But I don't think most people, and perhaps you yourself think that definition describes this concept of "evil" accurately, where as I think it comes pretty close.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I find this interesting because I know of atheists who do subscribe to moral absolutes such as good and evil. The only obvious difference is that they don't see the guiding hand of Satan involved. Further, I don't think that the word "cruel" begins to describe some of the things we do to one another and to other species..

Before someone from "the other forum" feels the need to say this. The only thing that atheists have in common is the lack of a belief in God(s) so I, like you, also know atheists that believe in moral absolutes.

I'm not sure why you object to the word cruel, I think it's quite fitting when describing actions that the word evil gets applied to. Infact I can't really think of anything that someone would call evil and not also use cruel to describe it when pressed. Although I can see where for some people it might not convey enough gravity to the situation.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't see why an explanation for the root cause of a terrible crime actually explains away the crime. So, for example, while one might point to Joseph Fritzel's tortured childhood or whatever as a reason for his indescribable brutality of his crimes, I don't believe it tackles the heart of the crime itself or necessarily explains why we think his crimes where quite so monstrous.

This is the most interesting part for me and where my opinion seems to branch off from that of some others.

First of all I thinks it's a strange turn of phrase to say "explains away the crime". As if an explanation or explanations for the crime somehow dismisses or lessens the magnitude or the horrifying nature of it.

To take the Joseph Fritzel example, I don't think for a second that a tortured childhood alone would be a reason for the brutality of his actions. Lots of people have tortured childhoods and don't inflict that torture onto others when they are adults. I believe there would be an array of reasons that led him to do what he did. A combination of his psychological/neurological state as well as environmental factor. Nature and nurture basically. I would say the same of a nazi soldier that murdered and tortured innocents thoughout the second world war.

I just believe that saying the reason they did it is because they were evil, is completely meaningless. I think the concept is a cop-out for people that either don't or won't think of the possibility that given the right conditions, nature and nurture, humans are just capable of doing terrible things. I think it's easier for some people to just apply the word evil to explain away that fact, because they don't like to think of people, people who in different circumstances could be very similar to themselves, being capable of such things.

red herring

An example of evil for me would be an adult in a position of trust and held in high regard by society, abusing that power and trust for his/her own personal gratification. If said person happened to prey on societys weakest and most vunerable -for example children- now, that in my opinion is an example of something truly evil.........

strobe

red herring wrote: »

An example of evil for me would be an adult in a position of trust and held in high regard by society, abusing that power and trust for his/her own personal gratification. If said person happened to prey on societys weakest and most vunerable -for example children- now, that in my opinion is an example of something truly evil.........

Apt username.

Klingon Hamlet

I don't think evil is a seperate thing that can overcome a person. I believe evil is a descriptive term for a person who is fully able to understand the horrible pain and suffering they inflict upon someone,and therefore have the capacity to stop or to have never done it in the first place---but refuse to, so as to extend the pleasure they take in causing their victim(s)'s pain.

It is the cognitive side that clearly defines evil for me. There are incredibly violent people who are insane---take that guy who killed a lad with shears in an apartment complex a while back, believing the innocent victim to have horns and be the walking embodiment of the devil. The poor guy suffered an agonising death but the perpetrator was clearly losing his mind, did not have the ability to stop himself, and was in fact as much a victim as the guy he killed---(he had gone to the police earlier claiming he needed to be locked up, knowing he was losing it, but the whole thing was botched and he left)

Ironically that guy would have in times past been seen as evil or even "possessed"---cue the religious ceremonies/exorcisms/claims the devil had made him do it. In fact he was clinically insane and he should've been taken care of. But I digress.

Evil doesn't take someone over. Events can screw a person up. Some survive, persevere through the most horrific childhoods or abusive adulthoods and live out normal, healthy lives. Others commit terrifying acts of evil after having cushy, care-free childhoods. It's not spirits or demons. It's people, messed-up, who don't want to feel better---evil people like what they do, they enjoy it, and that's what's scary about them.

the_dark_side

red herring wrote: »

An example of evil for me would be an adult in a position of trust and held in high regard by society, abusing that power and trust for his/her own personal gratification. If said person happened to prey on societys weakest and most vunerable -for example children- now, that in my opinion is an example of something truly evil.........

which is my point. What is regarded as 'evil', is within the person... not a force external

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

Before someone from "the other forum" feels the need to say this. The only thing that atheists have in common is the lack of a belief in God(s) so I, like you, also know atheists that believe in moral absolutes.

I know of atheists who score themselves a 7 on Dawkins scale - something which Dawkins himself ridicules.

How does one arrive at an absolute through subjective means pray tell.

I just believe that saying the reason they did it is because they were evil, is completely meaningless.

The idea isn't that a person suddenly has the evil notion "I think I'll build a bunker and kidnap children to keep there". The idea is that a descent into such depravity occurs in step-like fashion as the result of many smaller scale choices that gradually result at arrival at the relatively small step between fantisising about it / coming up with plans/ building it - and actually kidnapping the kids. Just as there was a small step between fantisising about it idly and fantisising about it seriously.

People aren't born Joseph Fritzels (in the main). They create themselves out of the evil they are exposed to harmonising with the evil tendency within (us all). After that, it's a matter of expression of the will. What will the will give itself..

Some people descend to the very ends of the stairs. Most of us halt our descent at various stages along the way (although I'd warrant a whole lot more depravity in the heart of man out there than appears in the papers every day. The law and it's consequences restrains us from doing precisely as we'd love to do)

I think the concept is a cop-out for people that either don't or won't think of the possibility that given the right conditions, nature and nurture, humans are just capable of doing terrible things.

I think I'd accept that humans have that potential - but not that all humans would if exposed to the same influences. Otherwise I'd have to accept that we're mere robots. Determined by something outside our own control.

I'd see your view as a cop-out to be honest: more a product of your atheism (you can hardly find we are other than determined creatures, us being but chemical machines) than something you could arrive at this untestable (which too makes the idea a cop out) idea independently.

all the stars

antiskeptic wrote: »

The way I see it? "Evil" is simply a term used to describe that which is opposed to God's will / is contra God's nature.

I see, so evil solely applies to the religious/ Christians.

Evil is an 'across the board' thing. And yes, some people are just actually evil. Regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack of).

Also, Evil is something you can 'do' as well as something one can 'be'

ScissorPaperRock

I don't really believe in Good and Evil as such, because they are very subjective concepts.

I do think the closest objective definition of Evil is someone who carries out actions that they believe to be Evil, where the main motivation for carrying out the action is to be evil.

antiskeptic

all the stars wrote: »

I see, so evil solely applies to the religious/ Christians.

"the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one". Thus no.

Evil is an 'across the board' thing. And yes, some people are just actually evil. Regardless of their religious beliefs (or lack of).

Agreed. Just a God would be the God of all people (assuming for the sake of argument he exists) regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Also, Evil is something you can 'do' as well as something one can 'be'

Again, agreed. The definition of evil given was in it's most concentrated form - it related evil to something objective (assuming God exists for the sake of discussion) - rendering evil objective. Clearly doing is involved in evil whether doing by thinking about it or doing by acting upon those thoughts.

The evil within can be considered a powerhouse, a motivator, for the doing that occurs in fact.

StealthRolex

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

I don't really believe in Good and Evil as such, because they are very subjective concepts.

I do think the closest objective definition of Evil is someone who carries out actions that they believe to be Evil, where the main motivation for carrying out the action is to be evil.

Can I ask why you don't believe in Good?

While I can understand why some people can say they do not believe in evil I can't understand why people would say they do not believe in good.

ScissorPaperRock

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can I ask why you don't believe in Good?

While I can understand why some people can say they do not believe in evil I can't understand why people would say they do not believe in good.

What I mean is that I don't believe there is an objective definition of Good or Evil. In other words, what one person sees as Good might not be the same as someone else.

Don't get me wrong, I have my own idea of what Good is, I'm just aware that other people will have different concepts of Good.

This is why I don't think a person/action is evil unless they believe themselves/the action to be evil and carry it out regardless. In other words, if one person thinks that something they did was right, but I think it was wrong, I don't believe they're a bad person for carrying out the action.

StealthRolex

For me evil is the rejection of good and while it acts to oppose it, it is not strictly its opposite in the scientific sense. There is no balance between them as there would be with equal and opposite forces in physics.

My Christian belief would see Satan as the personification of evil and that while evil always had the potential to exist it did not exist until Satan (as Lucifer) carried out an evil act - just so you know where I'm coming from and other Christians can address it if I'm misinformed.

I would not subscribe to evil being the hand of Satan in human affairs as that seeks to absolve the human of any direct blame - "the devil made me do it" argument. People do evil things in the full knowledge that what they do is evil.
Maybe they were just open to communications with Satan just as good Christians remain open to communications via the Holy Spirit.

As for "evil" not existing - there are many examples including todays news reports from DR Congo. Paedophilia regardless of where it occurs or who perpetrates it is also a good example, as is the fomentation of hatred of a particular section of society and the inherent consequences .

StealthRolex

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

This is why I don't think a person/action is evil unless they believe themselves/the action to be evil and carry it out regardless. In other words, if one person thinks that something they did was right, but I think it was wrong, I don't believe they're a bad person for carrying out the action.

What if a paedophile thought that what they were doing was not evil. What if for example a precocious 15yr old dressed provocatively and set about playing a game with an older man that resulted in them having sex. Is that man a bad person?

I am not suggesting that he might have thought she was older, he knew she was underage.

If you don't think there are precocious and provocatvely dressed teenagers around try a Friday or Saturday night in Dublin.

ScissorPaperRock

StealthRolex wrote: »

For me evil is the rejection of good and while it acts to oppose it, it is not strictly its opposite in the scientific sense. There is no balance between them as there would be with equal and opposite forces in physics.

My Christian belief would see Satan as the personification of evil and that while evil always had the potential to exist it did not exist until Satan (as Lucifer) carried out an evil act - just so you know where I'm coming from and other Christians can address it if I'm misinformed.

I would not subscribe to evil being the hand of Satan in human affairs as that seeks to absolve the human of any direct blame - "the devil made me do it" argument. People do evil things in the full knowledge that what they do is evil.
Maybe they were just open to communications with Satan just as good Christians remain open to communications via the Holy Spirit.

As for "evil" not existing - there are many examples including todays news reports from DR Congo. Paedophilia regardless of where it occurs or who perpetrates it is also a good example, as is the fomentation of hatred of a particular section of society and the inherent consequences .

When I think about it further, a more accurate description of what I believe in is behaviour society shouldn't tolerate, and behaviour society should encourage.

On one hand, those news reports about the raping in Congo are horrifying, and my immediate reaction is to brand the rapists as Evil people, who deserve to be punished severely.

On the other, I believe that people are very much a product of their environment. If those rapists were raised and lived in different circumstances, would they still be "Evil"? I don't think so.

I was having this debate before regarding Pedophiles. I realise it's a very sensitive subject, but my point is this; While I agree that society should not tolerate this kind of behaviour, I don't think that in all cases these actions are carried out with bad intention. I believe it's the environment these people were raised in, and live in, that lead to development of these urges. And thus, these people are not necessarily Evil people, they need to be rehabilitated.

People carry out actions that society cannot tolerate, but society must deal with the root causes, and learn to rehabilitate people, rather than just addressing the symptoms.

I suppose ideas of Good and Evil are far too simple, and are therefore quite redundant.

StealthRolex

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

I suppose ideas of Good and Evil are far too simple, and are therefore quite redundant.

Why do ideas have to be complex to be necessary? Surely we want things to be simple so we can understand them better.

I think society is trying to make evil redundant so that evil acts can be carried out, but they would no longer be called evil but "subjectively wrong".

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know of atheists who score themselves a 7 on Dawkins scale - something which Dawkins himself ridicules.

How does one arrive at an absolute through subjective means pray tell.

I know of atheists that don't have a clue what the Dawkins scale is. I'm one of them. Hence why I said the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). What you said above confirms that statement it doesn't refute it. I'm not sure what your point is.

The idea isn't that a person suddenly has the evil notion "I think I'll build a bunker and kidnap children to keep there". The idea is that a descent into such depravity occurs in step-like fashion as the result of many smaller scale choices that gradually result at arrival at the relatively small step between fantisising about it / coming up with plans/ building it - and actually kidnapping the kids. Just as there was a small step between fantisising about it idly and fantisising about it seriously.

People aren't born Joseph Fritzels (in the main). They create themselves out of the evil they are exposed to harmonising with the evil tendency within (us all). After that, it's a matter of expression of the will. What will the will give itself..

Some people descend to the very ends of the stairs. Most of us halt our descent at various stages along the way (although I'd warrant a whole lot more depravity in the heart of man out there than appears in the papers every day. The law and it's consequences restrains us from doing precisely as we'd love to do)

And the devil is the factor that takes people to the end of the stairs? Or are you agreeing with my nature and nurture argument? Just to clarify.

I think I'd accept that humans have that potential - but not that all humans would if exposed to the same influences. Otherwise I'd have to accept that we're mere robots. Determined by something outside our own control.

That's exactly what I suggested. Again I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. The "same influences" are the nurture part (we are all in part products of our environment). You wouldn't have to view us as robots, just that we become the people we are and act in the way we do because of a combination of our genetic make-up, the experiences we are subject to throughout our lives, and the alternate factors in our brain i.e damage to some parts of the brain can completely change how someone behaves so the condition of our brain at any one time effects the actions we take in a given situation.

I'd see your view as a cop-out to be honest: more a product of your atheism (you can hardly find we are other than determined creatures, us being but chemical machines) than something you could arrive at this untestable (which too makes the idea a cop out) idea independently.

That would be a rough description of the nature part of the formula but it would be completely discounting the far more significant nurture part of it so that point is completely mute. I also don't believe my atheism is what produces my view on this, it just doesn't preclude me from holding this view, whereas a belief in the existance of Satan, and/or a moral absolute layed down by God, probably would. To say it is a product of my atheism is inacurate.

For the record, while I would describe myself as an atheist, I think Ignostic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism would be more precise.

antiskeptic

strobe wrote: »

I know of atheists that don't have a clue what the Dawkins scale is. I'm one of them. Hence why I said the only thing atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). What you said above confirms that statement it doesn't refute it. I'm not sure what your point is.

It was a tongue in cheek. A Dawkins 7 is an irrational position - and some atheists hold that position. Holding to the idea of moral absolutes without belief in God is equally irrational - for want of an absolute to attached morality to.

And the devil is the factor that takes people to the end of the stairs? Or are you agreeing with my nature and nurture argument? Just to clarify.

I think satans role is to entice into taking that next step - just as it is consciences role to restrain a person from taking that next step. The choice to take the next step lies with the person however. It is an act of their will.

That's exactly what I suggested. Again I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. The "same influences" are the nurture part (we are all in part products of our environment). You wouldn't have to view us as robots, just that we become the people we are and act in the way we do because of a combination of our genetic make-up, the experiences we are subject to throughout our lives, and the alternate factors in our brain i.e damage to some parts of the brain can completely change how someone behaves so the condition of our brain at any one time effects the actions we take in a given situation.

I don't see any mention of the will in there - just componants that go to make up a robot. Genetic componants, chemical componants, damage to componants, shaping of componants by environment. There is no potential here - just the output one would expect of a robot programmed by whatever the make up of it's componants happens to be.

And as I say, there is no way to check your theory: that if all people had the same componants and were exposed to the same shaping of componants that they'd all act the same way.

That would be a rough description of the nature part of the formula but it would be completely discounting the far more significant nurture part of it so that point is completely mute.

The nuture part doesn't alter us being robots. Nature shapes this way, nurture shapes that way. And the person outputs accordingly (is your position)

That's a robot - for there is no room for the persons own will. Just componants producing inevitable output according to whatever their configeration happens to be.

I also don't believe my atheism is what produces my view on this,

There is no testing for it so I can't see any other basis for you holding it.

For the record, while I would describe myself as an atheist, I think Ignostic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism would be more precise.

You mean this?

Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored.

Are you ignostic regarding the question of thoughts? They are not verifiable nor can you test for them.

Can it be verified (and tested) that in order for something to have meaning it must be verifiable and testable (presumably empirically). Because if not, ignosticism is meaningless.

StealthRolex

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

On one hand, those news reports about the raping in Congo are horrifying, and my immediate reaction is to brand the rapists as Evil people, who deserve to be punished severely.

On the other, I believe that people are very much a product of their environment. If those rapists were raised and lived in different circumstances, would they still be "Evil"? I don't think so.

Speaking of different circumstances I was in Oświęcim last year and took the concentration camp tour. Later while doing some more research I discovered that the camp had a brothel. Further research revealed that one of the things that went on was the selection of the prettiest and best looking inmates and arrivals to be sent to the officers houses. The rest were retained in a brothel for the use, officially of kapos and other privileged inmates, and unofficially for troops and guards.

These people, both the inmates and their captors were raised in a modern European society - by modern I mean early 20th Century.

I leave it up to your imagination as to what occurred in the officers houses and the camp.

One could argue that by the regimes standards these were not humans therefore no evil could be attributed. Would you agree?

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

And as I say, there is no way to check your theory: that if all people had the same componants and were exposed to the same shaping of componants that they'd all act the same way.

The nuture part doesn't alter us being robots. Nature shapes this way, nurture shapes that way. And the person outputs accordingly (is your position)

That's a robot - for there is no room for the persons own will. Just componants producing inevitable output according to whatever their configeration happens to be.

There is no testing for it so I can't see any other basis for you holding it.

I never suggested for a second my position could be confirmed by testing. Niether can "will" be tested emperically. Therefore I don't see any basis for you holding any position on it. The same logic could be applied to other beliefs aswell *nudge nudge, wink wink*. (Aren't you the one that started the "Empiricism Uber Alles" thread? Did we actually convince you to change your position then??:eek:) Robot is the wrong word to use, you know what the defintion of a robot is. But yes I do believe it's a reasonable simile. As far as I'm concerned living things are just incredibly complex "machines". That presumption is in a large part the basis for all the advances made in modern medicine since the dark ages.

You mean this?
Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because it has no verifiable (or testable) consequences and should therefore be ignored.

Not quite. I mean that I am atheistic to every concept of God(s) that I have heard put forward, Yahweh, Brahma ect. But that if anyone put's forward a new concept of god to me or a different presentation of a previous concept, I would only entertain it if it didn't conflict with this defintion of ignosticism: "Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts."

Are you ignostic regarding the question of thoughts? They are not verifiable nor can you test for them.

It is strictly a theological position and can not be applied to anything apart from other theological positions by definition. That Empiricism thread really did have a wonderful effect on you though. Kudos. There is hope for you yet, Skep.

ScissorPaperRock

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why do ideas have to be complex to be necessary? Surely we want things to be simple so we can understand them better.

It's just that the two concepts are too simple to capture the complexities of why people carry out actions which society cannot tolerate. They don't address the causes of the action, or help society in understanding how to deal with them.

In the case of "Good" a more complex understanding may not really be as important, but rather than brand actions/people as Evil, we should be looking to understand how to deal the root causes of intolerable actions within society.

StealthRolex wrote: »

I think society is trying to make evil redundant so that evil acts can be carried out, but they would no longer be called evil but "subjectively wrong".

I don't understand this. Could you explain further? Are you implying society is "evil"? And if society wanted to carry out "evil" acts, why would it care if it was called "evil" or "subjectively wrong"? Where can you see evidence of this?

StealthRolex

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

It's just that the two concepts are too simple to capture the complexities of why people carry out actions which society cannot tolerate. They don't address the causes of the action, or help society in understanding how to deal with them.

In the case of "Good" a more complex understanding may not really be as important, but rather than brand actions/people as Evil, we should be looking to understand how to deal the root causes of intolerable actions within society.

Fair enough

ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »

I don't understand this. Could you explain further? Are you implying society is "evil"? And if society wanted to carry out "evil" acts, why would it care if it was called "evil" or "subjectively wrong"? Where can you see evidence of this?

Not society per se. Elements within society may be a better description.

Some time ago the concept of genetically modifying humans would have been considered 'evil' because it was 'playing God' even if the goal was do good.

Now the arguments are over whether or not it is right or wrong.

http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/scientists-to-create-babies-with-three-parents-2138507.html

ScissorPaperRock

StealthRolex wrote: »

Not society per se. Elements within society may be a better description.

Some time ago the concept of genetically modifying humans would have been considered 'evil' because it was 'playing God' even if the goal was do good.

Now the arguments are over whether or not it is right or wrong.

http://www.independent.ie/health/latest-news/scientists-to-create-babies-with-three-parents-2138507.html

It's the same argument really. The word "evil" sounds more extreme, but the principals of the arguments are the same. You also have to question who was using the word "evil".

Also, that isn't evidence of an agenda to remove the concept of "evil" from society so that "evil" acts can be carried out as "subjectively wrong" acts (which I don't agree exists as an agenda anyway).

The change in phrases used in the argument could be because people are more used to the idea, and are less shocked by it. Maybe the media is taking a less sensationalist approach while covering the subject. Maybe different people are involved in the argument now, although I'd still imagine that certain factions of society see it as "evil". Nonetheless, it's not evidence of that agenda you suggested.