The Problem of evil, on Newstalk

fisgon

Discussion on the Problem of evil on Newstalk now. Fairly interesting so far...

Mena

Would you like to know more...?

:-/

fisgon

Mena wrote: »

Would you like to know more...?

:-/

What?!

fisgon

This started off interesting enough, but actually descended into a "love is all we need" stream of platitudes. The believers on the panel squirmed out of the problem of evil by claiming that they no longer believed in the omniscient, omnipotent, beneficent god, but failed to say what they actually did believe in, and utterly failed to offer any solutions for the problem of evil.

It just went to show that religious belief survives by not being examined, or else if it is examined, people simply make stuff up to rationalize the inconsistencies, and go on believing, regardless of the massive holes in their belief system.

Hotblack Desiato

Who was on it? Got a link?

fisgon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who was on it? Got a link?

http://www.newstalk.com/Panel-discussion:-The-problem-of-evil-

Tony Flannery, Gina Menzies, Oliver Sears.

The problem was that none of them were really committed religious believers, more "questioning". They really needed someone on who actually a true believer to flush out the contradictions of their position. Some interesting stuff, some waffle.

Hotblack Desiato

Who the hell are they? Ah yes Tony Flannery is one of the silenced* priests. Hardly a 'questioning believer' though really as he hasn't left the priesthood, even though the Vatican would probably rather he did...

Gina Menzies is a 'frequent guest on RTE' according to Wikipedia :rolleyes: and is a theologian :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oliver Sears runs an art gallery

Why weren't there any non-believers on the programme - what's the point of discussion on religion that gives religion a free pass?

Annoying that this sort of discussion always seems to go down the route of wishy-washyness to the point where it's almost impossible to argue against something so vague. But if they did have 'true believers' they'd just go 'Because God/Jesus/Bible says so' and end of discussion.


* he's so 'silenced' he's been all over the media since he was 'silenced' :pac:

fisgon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who the hell are they? Ah yes Tony Flannery is one of the silenced* priests. Hardly a 'questioning believer' though really as he hasn't left the priesthood, even though the Vatican would probably rather he did...

Gina Menzies is a 'frequent guest on RTE' according to Wikipedia :rolleyes: and is a theologian :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Oliver Sears runs an art gallery

Why weren't there any non-believers on the programme - what's the point of discussion on religion that gives religion a free pass?

Annoying that this sort of discussion always seems to go down the route of wishy-washyness to the point where it's almost impossible to argue against something so vague. But if they did have 'true believers' they'd just go 'Because God/Jesus/Bible says so' and end of discussion.


* he's so 'silenced' he's been all over the media since he was 'silenced' :pac:

Oliver Sears is an atheist Jew, and talked about his family and the holocaust, and how many Jews stopped believing after 1945, so they did have a non-believer there.

I think if there had been true believers there it would have shown up the massive inconsistencies in their position. Gina Menzies, on the other hand, tried to make out that no-one really believed any more in the literal truth of the bible, or in this simple omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving god, which is simply not true.

You need the extreme religious point of view on so as to expose how empty it is.

Hotblack Desiato

Yes when we point out crazier bible stuff the response of most christians is 'nobody believes in that part any more' it's delicious especially as they don't realise they've just torpedoed their entire belief system below the waterline.

El_Duderino 09

I thought it was an interesting discussion. The catholic priest wasn't a Catholic but he was a decent guy and I wouldn't worry about his ability to make moral decisions. I think that's what it comes down to. If people want to take part in Catholicism from a cultural perspective in the same sense as cultural Jews, then fair enough. They can say ridiculous things for an hour on Sunday as long as they behave morally for the rest of the week. In general I think that's how most catholics in Ireland do it and that's definitely the way they are trending.

I wish Sarah pulled them up a bit harder on some points but it was a respectful discussion with more actual content than most of the inane chatter you're likely to hear on the radio.

ScumLord

It was very wishy washy. It's a bit alarming that people these days logically have problems with their faith and decide they can't accept the religious norm and instead fall back into a believe of whatever makes them feel good. It's like religious nonsense has been washed away but we're left with this stubborn stain of belief.


They kept going on about evil and asking "why are humans so violent"? But science explains violence quite easily, it's survival of the fittest. Nature is cruel, it has a million different ways to kill any living thing you can think of. It's not at all surprising humans are violent, we are a product of nature we're no more violent than any other living creature on the planet. What is more surprising is our compassion and empathy, with not only our own kind but the animals we eat and even the environment we live in. But again science can explain that, empathy is one of humans greatest evolved traits, it's very helpful to us individually and as a group.


These people seem to have lost their faith in the religious doctrine and replaced it with fanciful thinking, completely internalising the discussion rather than looking into the alternatives.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

They kept going on about evil and asking "why are humans so violent"? But science explains violence quite easily, it's survival of the fittest.

Not sure what you are referring to. How does 'survival of the fittest' explain evil.
If I walk in to a school and shoot 50 kids, you'd just nod and think 'Survival of the fittest'?

Nature is cruel, it has a million different ways to kill any living thing you can think of.

Nature is cruel, in its hunt for balance. I think 'Survival of the fittest' in nature makes sense - but you then come to the question of whether we are 'in nature'. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that.

It's not at all surprising humans are violent, we are a product of nature we're no more violent than any other living creature on the planet.

No, but the question is about evil. We do not label sharks as evil because they are just eating - doing what come natural. It's not that complicated.
Someone burning their child's arm with cigarette butts - much less straightforward. Are they 'evil', or is that survival of the fittest - the act of a natural being following their designated path through the jungles of the inner city?

What is more surprising is our compassion and empathy, with not only our own kind but the animals we eat and even the environment we live in. But again science can explain that, empathy is one of humans greatest evolved traits, it's very helpful to us individually and as a group.

Sure.

These people seem to have lost their faith in the religious doctrine and replaced it with fanciful thinking, completely internalising the discussion rather than looking into the alternatives.

Not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

I don't see that there is a problem of evil , if your question is why would someone torture a child for no good reason , you would look for a psychological reason either something with their upbringing or an underdeveloped brain where the person can't process empathy yet causing pain gives the person a reward.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote:

I don't see that there is a problem of evil , if your question is why would someone torture a child for no good reason , you would look for a psychological reason either something with their upbringing or an underdeveloped brain where the person can't process empathy yet causing pain gives the person a reward.

Right?
So a faulty brain you reckon?

There's a lot of them knocking about.

And they seem to be disproportionatley gathered in war zones. Which is odd.

Or maybe that's why there's wars? Faulty brains. Or bad childhood experiences.

Get Dr. Spock to the Middle East ASAP

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

I don't see that there is a problem of evil , if your question is why would someone torture a child for no good reason , you would look for a psychological reason either something with their upbringing or an underdeveloped brain where the person can't process empathy yet causing pain gives the person a reward.

The most dangerous conceit in humanity has to be that evil resides in the 'other' person.

fisgon

MaxWig wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

Not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

I think you have missed the point. Science doesn't have a problem of evil, nor does atheism or humanism. The problem of evil is a religious problem, an inability to explain both the existence of a loving, omnipotent god and the existence of great evil and suffering in the world.

The inconsistency is a religious one. The earthquake in Haiti, for example, is explained by geologists and seismologists from a scientific perspective as something caused by seismic forces beneath the earth's crust. Terrible things happen, science doesn't need to explain why, morally.

Yet the religious are in trouble explaining how a loving god can allow what was already the poorest country in the western hemisphere with huge disadvantage and suffering, to be further destroyed by a massive earthquake. This is inconsistent with the religious story about god and makes no sense.

MaxWig

fisgon wrote: »

MaxWig wrote: »

I think you have missed the point. Science doesn't have a problem of evil, nor does atheism or humanism. The problem of evil is a religious problem, an inability to explain both the existence of a loving, omnipotent god and the existence of great evil and suffering in the world.

No I got the point. Of course science doesn't have a 'problem of evil'. Scientists do though. If something dreadful is visited upon them . You can beat around the bush all day with this, but humans have a problem comprehending the inhumanity man visits upon man. It's a 'problem'. And one that has had the intelligentsia chattering for centuries.

The inconsistency is a religious one. The earthquake in Haiti, for example, is explained by geologists and seismologists from a scientific perspective as something caused by seismic forces beneath the earth's crust. Terrible things happen, science doesn't need to explain why, morally.

It's not a religious one. It's a societal one. Your earthquake analogy is weak I think. Much more relevant to a society from the past. And certainly more relevant to a discussion abut the origin of religion. The concept however is the same. Earthquake burns village. In the past, the villagers ask God - Why? Now, a baby get's its head chopped off and thrown in a bin, and society asks itself - Why? Really not a lot has changed. And clapping ourselves on the back about how sophisticated we are not to believe in an omnipotent god doesn't change that fact

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Right?
So a faulty brain you reckon?

There's a lot of them knocking about.

And they seem to be disproportionatley gathered in war zones. Which is odd.

Or maybe that's why there's wars? Faulty brains. Or bad childhood experiences.

Get Dr. Spock to the Middle East ASAP

That's a different cause , idiology can create structures that encourage evil acts, throw in politics religion and you have a receipe for violence. Isn't that why peaceful civil structures are valued very highly and why dictatorships for example are rightly viewed with deep suspicision ?

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

That's a different cause , idiology can create structures that encourage evil acts, throw in politics religion and you have a receipe for violence. Isn't that why peaceful civil structures are valued very highly and why dictatorships for example are rightly viewed with deep suspicision ?

Right, so there are as many types of evil as there are human concepts/constructs?

Is that correct?

Or can only certain concepts turn on the evil switch in our brain holes. Want to get the science right!

Peaceful civil structures? Like the UK? The U.S.? Israel? Ireland/Northern Ireland?

Or are we talking about different evil-free zones?

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

The most dangerous conceit in humanity has to be that evil resides in the 'other' person.

God no, we accept that we need one hand tied behind our backs, that is how society works. For example we wouldn't trust an unaccountable police force. We know deep down that people are liable to take short cuts be corruptable or enjoy exercising power regardless of the law.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

God no, we accept that we need one hand tied behind our backs, that is how society works. For example we wouldn't trust an unaccountable police force. We know deep down that people are liable to take short cuts be corruptable or enjoy exercising power regardless of the law.

So might you change your opinion then on evil?

Still consider it faulty brain parts?

Dodgy childhood experience?

Strange isn't it that we literally legislate for the fact that people just ain't no good!

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Right, so there are as many types of evil as there are human concepts/constructs?

Is that correct?

Or can only certain concepts turn on the evil switch in our brain holes. Want to get the science right!

Peaceful civil structures? Like the UK? The U.S.? Israel? Ireland/Northern Ireland?

Or are we talking about different evil-free zones?

I doubt its possible to wrap everything up in a neat sentence. A serial killer is not the same as a soldier in the SS. They can both be judged to be evil but there are different reasons.
Ok peaceful is a debatable term but in average a democracy will be more peaceful than a dictatorship. Ireland versus north Korea for instance

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

Not sure what you are referring to. How does 'survival of the fittest' explain evil.

There's no such thing as evil in science, at least not in the way religion see's evil as a real driving force. Evil is a descriptive word, it means really bad. Outside of the human experience there is no evil, there is just stuff that happens.

Nature is cruel, in its hunt for balance. I think 'Survival of the fittest' in nature makes sense - but you then come to the question of whether we are 'in nature'. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that.

humans are a part of nature, we are an animal, we have the same needs and wants as any other living thing. That's very easy to answer. I shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" though, it's just a phrase it doesn't really describe the natural process. The fittest don't always survive, natural selection is probably a better way of putting it.

No, but the question is about evil. We do not label sharks as evil because they are just eating - doing what come natural. It's not that complicated.
Someone burning their child's arm with cigarette butts - much less straightforward. Are they 'evil', or is that survival of the fittest - the act of a natural being following their designated path through the jungles of the inner city?

People used to consider animals like sharks and wolves as evil. When a new male lion takes over a pride he kills all the cubs that the last lion sired. We would see that as cruel but the lion is compelled to ensure it's own genes get passed on.

not sure you haven't done the same with science. Science may explain a lot - but there are serious gaps in terms of the 'problem of evil'.

What serious gaps? Science is an ever evolving process, we haven't been at it for that long. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers just answers to questions it's asked. Unlike religion science doesn't claim to have all the answers from the beginning, it's a tool for getting the truth.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

I doubt its possible to wrap everything up in a neat sentence. A serial killer is not the same as a soldier in the SS. They can both be judged to be evil but there are different reasons.

This soldier is the example I assume of the ordinary man following orders?
I agree that it is different in that specific example. What about the SS Soldier who takes pleasure from the screams of agony he hears?
Is he similar to a serial killer?
All we can agree on in that case is that there are as many types of evil as there are humans.

Ok peaceful is a debatable term but in average a democracy will be more peaceful than a dictatorship. Ireland versus north Korea for instance

Why not the U.S. and N.Korea?
And assume that we are allies of the U.S.?
What would your answer be then?

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

There's no such thing as evil in science, at least not in the way religion see's evil as a real driving force. Evil is a descriptive word, it means really bad. Outside of the human experience there is no evil, there is just stuff that happens.

Sure. So we can say there is no such thing as evil outside the human experience. Granted.

humans are a part of nature, we are an animal, we have the same needs and wants as any other living thing. That's very easy to answer. I shouldn't have used "survival of the fittest" though, it's just a phrase it doesn't really describe the natural process. The fittest don't always survive, natural selection is probably a better way of putting it.

And natural selection somehow explains the sadistic glee that humans take in the suffering of other living beings?

People used to consider animals like sharks and wolves as evil. When a new male lion takes over a pride he kills all the cubs that the last lion sired. We would see that as cruel but the lion is compelled to ensure it's own genes get passed on.

No one who watched even an hour of David Attenborough would see it as cruel. If the argument is that evil only exists in our perception of the world, I agree totally. But nothing exists for us outside our perception of the world.

What serious gaps? Science is an ever evolving process, we haven't been at it for that long. Science doesn't claim to have all the answers just answers to questions it's asked. Unlike religion science doesn't claim to have all the answers from the beginning, it's a tool for getting the truth.

Again, I agree. Nothing complicated in that.
'Serious gaps' was a poor choice of phrase.
So you are basically saying that evil only exists in our subjective human experience, and as such science has nothing at all to say on the subject?

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

So might you change your opinion then on evil?

Still consider it faulty brain parts?

Dodgy childhood experience?

Strange isn't it that we literally legislate for the fact that people just ain't no good!

its a matter of degree , I doubt most people would enjoy or want to be serial killers even if it wasnt a crime. On the flip side I would absolutely expect a lot of people to participate in "legalised killing" given a dictatorship structure , say Cambodia in the 70's.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

its a matter of degree , I doubt most people would enjoy or want to be serial killers even if it wasnt a crime.

On the flip side I would absolutely expect a lot of people to participate in "legalised killing" given a dictatorship structure , say Cambodia in the 70's.

Those two sentences completely contradict one another - except for the dictatorship part. If it wasn't illegal most people wouldn't anyway? But if it was legalised, people would.

So you are saying that the evil resides in the particular style of government?
Not in the person committing the act?

Bit convenient, no?

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

Sure. So we can say there is no such thing as evil outside the human experience. Granted.

And natural selection somehow explains the sadistic glee that humans take in the suffering of other living beings?

No one who watched even an hour of David Attenborough would see it as cruel. If the argument is that evil only exists in our perception of the world, I agree totally. But nothing exists for us outside our perception of the world.

See the problem with most natural documentaries is they want to promote nature and be able to show a story about an animal so that people and young children can relate. They avoid showing most of the killing, the suffering and death that animals go through.

They avoid the fact that killer whales are extremely cruel to their prey, in much the same way a cat will keep a prey animal alive to play with it many predators will do the same thing.

All animals are cruel to other animals, that's what humans have come from, we are part of that natural selection process, cruelty and even things like war are not exclusive to humans. So it's not at all surprising that we behave like every other living creature on the planet.

What is unusual is humans paying respects to their prey animals, providing medical care, changing their habits to protect their environment. Religion has labelled nature as something that humans should subjugate and abuse nature for our own needs, it's only recently that the human race has come out from under that misconception thanks to science giving us an appreciation for life in general.

So you are basically saying that evil only exists in our subjective human experience, and as such science has nothing at all to say on the subject?

No, I'm saying evil isn't anything more than a word that describes a very bad act. It's not a real force, there's no such thing as good / evil, light vs the dark side. there is no such thing as evil as described by religion.

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

This soldier is the example I assume of the ordinary man following orders?
I agree that it is different in that specific example. What about the SS Soldier who takes pleasure from the screams of agony he hears?
Is he similar to a serial killer?
All we can agree on in that case is that there are as many types of evil as there are humans.

its complicated , if you are saying if you tested all SS men an women would there be a statistical association with psychopathic personalities , I have no idea. I'd assume most of them would not have been serial killers in civilian life or otherwise on their own account would have sought out ways to kill or torture people. What they were doing was "legal" for them.

MaxWig wrote: »

Why not the U.S. and N.Korea?
And assume that we are allies of the U.S.?
What would your answer be then?

Im a fairly strict non interventionist so I have issues with state violence Democracy is flawed because it concentrates power and allows individual rights to be trampled. When does the US taxpayer get to untick the war spend box on their tax return? How could Americans be conscripted into the Vietnam war when the US wasnt even attacked? so yes imo there are in some countries not enough protection for the individual from the state.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

See the problem with most natural documentaries is they want to promote nature and be able to show a story about an animal so that people and young children can relate. They avoid showing most of the killing, the suffering and death that animals go through.

Well, some are pretty graphic, but fair enough. People don't like death - I hear ya!

They avoid the fact that killer whales are extremely cruel to their prey, in much the same way a cat will keep a prey animal alive to play with it many predators will do the same thing.

A cat will do it as a means of practice/entertainment. It's 'hard wired' for want of a better word. As is the case with the whale.

We are hard-wired to enjoy the sadistic torture of others?

All animals are cruel to other animals, that's what humans have come from, we are part of that natural selection process, cruelty and even things like war are not exclusive to humans. So it's not at all surprising that we behave like every other living creature on the planet.

All animals are different from humans. We are conscious. We no longer rely on instincts for survival in terms of attaining food and the killing of prey. Which is what you have been describing. It's a pretty fundamental difference.
And no one is saying anything about this being surprising.

What is unusual is humans paying respects to their prey animals, providing medical care, changing their habits to protect their environment. Religion has labelled nature as something that humans should subjugate and abuse nature for our own needs, it's only recently that the human race has come out from under that misconception thanks to science giving us an appreciation for life in general.

Why is that unusual? The only way 'paying respect' to the prey animal is unusual is that it harks back to ancient ritual. When we really did struggle to separate ourselves from nature.
If religion has labelled nature as something to subjugate, it is for the very reasons we are discussing. Our animal nature is never far from the surface - and the idea that that is 'not a problem' is bizarre.
It's very easy to say proudly that we are animals on the one hand, while on the other you feel disgusted and ashamed of the animal nature you possess on the other.
Animals kill. Animals maim. Only one animal struggles with the fact that it does a number 2!

No, I'm saying evil isn't anything more than a word that describes a very bad act. It's not a real force, there's no such thing as good / evil, light vs the dark side. there is no such thing as evil as described by religion.

No, but we order the world as though there is. And there is no escaping that fact.
We put bad people in prison. We see good ones in the mirror.

MaxWig

silverharp wrote: »

its complicated , if you are saying if you tested all SS men an women would there be a statistical association with psychopathic personalities , I have no idea. I'd assume most of them would not have been serial killers in civilian life or otherwise on their own account would have sought out ways to kill or torture people. What they were doing was "legal" for them.

Right - so given the correct environmental conditions, we will let the beast out. Nothing to separate you from the rest. My only point is that it's a dangerous idea to think that you are special. BUT, that is what we do! All of us. SS Soldiers believed they were the good guys. That's the point. But there are no goodies or baddies.

Im a fairly strict non interventionist so I have issues with state violence Democracy is flawed because it concentrates power and allows individual rights to be trampled. When does the US taxpayer get to untick the war spend box on their tax return? How could Americans be conscripted into the Vietnam war when the US wasnt even attacked? so yes imo there are in some countries not enough protection for the individual from the state.

But as long as they keep eating burgers and don't annoy anyone, evil keeps it's head down.
Maybe if they got a BK in N. Korea we'd see less evil there too!

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

Right - so given the correct environmental conditions, we will let the beast out. Nothing to separate you from the rest. My only point is that it's a dangerous idea to think that you are special. BUT, that is what we do! All of us. SS Soldiers believed they were the good guys. That's the point. But there are no goodies or baddies.




But as long as they keep eating burgers and don't annoy anyone, evil keeps it's head down.
Maybe if they got a BK in N. Korea we'd see less evil there too!

Well I am suggesting that we shouldn't think we are special. I have just like yourself locks on the front door. And to use the murican saying an armed society is a polite society .
One shouldn't be all negative though , society wouldn't be here if we hadn't evolved the ability to cooperate with each other and to pass on values as well as genes to the next generation.

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

We are hard-wired to enjoy the sadistic torture of others?

No, but then sadistic torture between humans is relatively rare in a stable society. However if you look at humans throughout history we've changed what we see as sadistic, more ancient or smaller groups also promoted the group above the individual more so than today. Privacy and individualism are fairly modern concepts. Or at least concepts that have been nothing more than a pipe dream up until recently. Even today they're a concept more than a reality.

All animals are different from humans.

All animals are different from eachother.

We are conscious.

All animals are conscious, conscious simply means awake. The only thing somewhat unique to humans is our ability to image the future, the human brain has been described as a prediction machine. That's not to say other animals can't do the same thing in their own way.

We no longer rely on instincts for survival in terms of attaining food and the killing of prey.

Yes we do, the human animal is just as prone to acting on instinct, we like to think we're logical beings, but we're not. Supermarkets even take advantage of our instinctive reactions in the layout of their shops. We do have two thought processes, a fast instinctive one that we use 99% of the time and a much slower one that we can use logically. We literally have to stop what we're doing to use it though, try doing complex maths while running, you'll find it very difficult.

It's very easy to say proudly that we are animals on the one hand, while on the other you feel disgusted and ashamed of the animal nature you possess on the other.

I am not disgusted or ashamed of animal nature. I'm very happy to be a human, I see nature as incredible but I don't live in a fantasy land that nature is like a disney movie and humans are inherently bad, destructive creatures. I don't see evil anywhere in the natural world and humans being part of the natural world aren't evil. They are simply another animal, an incredible animal that's become aware.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

No, but then sadistic torture between humans is relatively rare in a stable society. However if you look at humans throughout history we've changed what we see as sadistic, more ancient or smaller groups also promoted the group above the individual more so than today. Privacy and individualism are fairly modern concepts. Or at least concepts that have been nothing more than a pipe dream up until recently. Even today they're a concept more than a reality.

Relatively rare? What about in war zones? Are you saying sadistic torture is rare among in-groups? Sure

All animals are different from eachother.

And humans are unique in the animal kingdom. Pedantry being one trait that sets them apart.

All animals are conscious, conscious simply means awake. The only thing somewhat unique to humans is our ability to image the future, the human brain has been described as a prediction machine. That's not to say other animals can't do the same thing in their own way.

OK - but you would grant that advanced mathematics, philosophy etc. set us apart. We also know, for the vast vast majority of our life that we will die.

Yes we do, the human animal is just as prone to acting on instinct, we like to think we're logical beings, but we're not. Supermarkets even take advantage of our instinctive reactions in the layout of their shops.

I think you are mixing up instinct and psychology. Everything is instinct in that case.
But if I am wrong, I would like to correct what I said in order to take into consideration your pedantry.
We no longer rely on our instinct as hunters or killers to attain our food.

We do have two thought processes, a fast instinctive one that we use 99% of the time and a much slower one that we can use logically.

Daniel Kahneman - Yes. OK.

We literally have to stop what we're doing to use it though, try doing complex maths while running, you'll find it very difficult.

Daniel Kahneman - Yes. OK.

I am not disgusted or ashamed of animal nature.

No?

I'll be really condescending and disagree with you and leave it there. We have been in the process of disavowing our animal side, or creatureliness for a long time.

I'd bet you have the same reactions as anyone else to sickness, to deathliness, to excrement, to mutilation, to deformation etc. as anyone else. Namely disgust, fear and terror!

I'm very happy to be a human

I'm sure you are.

I see nature as incredible but I don't live in a fantasy land that nature is like a disney movie and humans are inherently bad destructive creatures.

Nobody is saying humans are bad. Or at least I'm certainly not.

I don't see evil anywhere in the natural world and humans being part of the natural world aren't evil.

And the great examples of 'evil'? How do you feel about them?
I refuse to stoop to writing the vile examples I could give.
If your response is that you don't view them as evil in the way a priest would, well then I'd leave it there tbh

They are simply another animal, an incredible animal that's become aware.

Right. So in much the same way as I don't think a Great White should be punished for eating a human, you feel a human that has eaten another human should be left alone?

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes we do, the human animal is just as prone to acting on instinct, we like to think we're logical beings, but we're not.

My point was that we don't 'rely' on instinct. Not that we don't act on it

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

Relatively rare? What about in war zones? Are you saying sadistic torture is rare among in-groups? Sure

War zones are relatively rare too. The other thing to take into account is the vast majority of people in war zones aren't fighting anyone. It's a small minority that get control of weapons. To highlight how much people try to avoid fighting African warlords have had to kidnap children and brainwash them into killers. Humans being adaptable animals means those kids will turn into horrendous adults capable of things that haven't really been acceptable since the middle ages.

And humans are unique in the animal kingdom. Pedantry being one trait that sets them apart.

Humans have unique adaptations, but birds have equally unique and successful adaptations that are arguably more successful. Our adaptations were no guarantee of success, we've come close to extinction a few times, all the other human animals that evolved went extinct.

OK - but you would grant that advanced mathematics, philosophy etc. set us apart.

They do now, we've developed these things over millenia. But when the human first entered the scene we were exactly the same animal as we were today but we didn't have any of those things. Whatever sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom must be something that cave men had. Other animals display culture by the way. They can adapt to their surrounding like we do. Dolphins of the same species can have completely different ways of hunting that they've developed independently of their biology. Crows also have culture, and given enough time, passing that culture down to their young over generations it will evolve into something that has nothing to do with biology or instinct.

I think you are mixing up instinct and psychology. Everything is instinct in that case.

I don't think I am mixing them up. I think you're under the assumption that humans are logical, when they're not. At least not the majority of the time. If you research it you will find just about everything you do is controlled by instinct or learned behaviour. Learned behaviour practically works like instinct, you react without really thinking.

I'll be really condescending and disagree with you and leave it there. We have been in the process of disavowing our animal side, or creatureliness for a long time.

We have, but we failed, because it's not possible. We've been living under the assumption were something closer to angels put here by god and earth is our playground to use and abuse as we see fit. Science has given us a big appreciation for just how incredible the natural world is, how we have so much to learn from it and that we're complete at the mercy of natural processes. We can't wish, or pray, or assume we are what we want to be.

I'd bet you have the same reactions as anyone else to sickness, to deathliness, to excrement, to mutilation, to deformation etc. as anyone else. Namely disgust, fear and terror!

Yes, I'm afraid of death, I find poo disgusting (and somewhat fascinating) I've become accustomed to deformations they don't terrorise or disgust me.

Nobody is saying humans are bad. Or at least I'm certainly not.

They pretty much were in the Newstalk show which is what we're talking about. I was simply defending people against this biased assumption that humans are inherently evil creatures. We are all incredible creatures, we're quite possibly the nicest animal on the planet, the vast majority of humans live in peace and get along with each other.

And the great examples of 'evil'? How do you feel about them?

Like what? War? Genocide? These are things that happen in the animal kingdom. There are all sorts of complicated reasons for horrible acts.

If you read about your average person that lived through the the times of constant war in ancient times right up to modern wars, they didn't have the slightest interest in war. One war lord would come through and say you have to pay taxes/tributes to me, then another one would come through a year later, defeats the old one and demands everyone pay taxes to him. Nothing actually changes for the average person raising a family, by some accounts they couldn't care less who was in charge as long as they could tend their farms and raise their children in peace.

Right. So in much the same way as I don't think a Great White should be punished for eating a human, you feel a human that has eaten another human should be left alone?

You're comparing chalk with cheese there. The vast majority of animals won't cannibalize their own, it's bad for you. Comparing a predatory animal eating it's prey to a predatory animal eating one of it's own just isn't a fair comparison.

MaxWig wrote: »

My point was that we don't 'rely' on instinct. Not that we don't act on it

We do rely on instinct, we just like to think we don't. For the most part we're completely hoodwinked by our own brain into thinking we're making conscious decisions from moment to moment.

Akrasia

Excellent post Scumlord.

I can't see where the confusion about so called 'evil' lies.

There are different behavioural strategies that can evolve through natural selection. With humans we generally favour reciprocal altruism because of the advantages it brings, but this strategy has weaknesses.

If everyone in a society was too trusting then the group would be vulnerable to exploitation, so successful groups would have had a mix of altruistic and individualistic people, as well as a mix of pacifists and warriors to allow the tribe to prosper in times of plenty and survive in times of war


An evil cruel bastard is bad to have around during peaceful times, but his ruthless nature could be decisive during war.

If it wasn't for the vicious defence of christianity during the Crusades, We might all be 'cultural Muslims' now

jank

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes when we point out crazier bible stuff the response of most christians is 'nobody believes in that part any more' it's delicious especially as they don't realise they've just torpedoed their entire belief system below the waterline.

Never knew that a belief system be it political or religious is entirely static. Even Atheism is not static, just look at atheism+ and groups like that.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

War zones are relatively rare too.
Relative to what. The other thing to take into account is the vast majority of people in war zones aren't fighting anyone. It's a small minority that get control of weapons.

I'm not sure what point you are making - Is it that those with weapons are different to those without weapons. That is - people without weapons are good and don't like fighting (let's call them non-evil) and the people with weapons are bad (let's call them evil).

To highlight how much people try to avoid fighting African warlords have had to kidnap children and brainwash them into killers. Humans being adaptable animals means those kids will turn into horrendous adults capable of things that haven't really been acceptable since the middle ages.

I'm sorry. This is gibberish. Those children are recruited and used for a cause by callous people with no interest in their well-being. You believe this is different from pimping teenagers for sex? Because people really hate sex, right?

And I'm giddy with excitement to hear about what hasn't been acceptable since the middle ages. Literally giggling with anticipation. Tell me!
What horrendous thing did we almost get rid of until a bad African man brainwashed a person to bring it back? Stabbing? Raping? Beheading? Burning alive? Child rape? Chemical burning? Castration? Mass destruction? Oh no, sorry - they are all ubiquitous in human history. What bad thing did you mean? I probably haven't heard of it because it was unacceptable.

Humans have unique adaptations, but birds have equally unique and successful adaptations that are arguably more successful. Our adaptations were no guarantee of success, we've come close to extinction a few times, all the other human animals that evolved went extinct.

Literally have no idea what your point is. I assume you are aware of the point I was making. If it is simply pedantry on your part, it's really unimpressive. If on the other hand you do not consider humanity, including your lived experience of it, to be at a remove from the rest of the animal kingdom, I'm not sure I have what is required to explain it to you.
If you are saying that we are all animals and that we evolved in the same way - then Yes. Well done.
Humans - from a biological viewpoint follow the same rules as every other organism. Inane. Inane. Inane etc.

They do now, we've developed these things over millenia. But when the human first entered the scene we were exactly the same animal as we were today but we didn't have any of those things.

Yes, we are an animal and we are not space gods with magic in our heads.

Whatever sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom must be something that cave men had

.

Yes it wasn't a god from the delta system that zapped it into existence. Again, your point escapes me. I think you forget that not everyone you speak to is a theist.

Other animals display culture by the way. They can adapt to their surrounding like we do. Dolphins of the same species can have completely different ways of hunting that they've developed independently of their biology. Crows also have culture, and given enough time, passing that culture down to their young over generations it will evolve into something that has nothing to do with biology or instinct.

A very different type of culture to human culture but given your penchant for pedantry, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the arts are any different from the crow using a twig to get a grub from a hole. And we experience it in the much the same way too. Probably.
Again - your point escapes me. Though I see a pattern. It seems to be an attempt to prove that we are animals and share many characteristics with other animals. The only thing about trying to do that, is that you are too late.
Just like trying to prove there is no god. Everyone understands what you preach. Which begs the question - who are you telling?

I don't think I am mixing them up. I think you're under the assumption that humans are logical, when they're not.

Why do you think that? I've been talking about the unbelievably cruel acts we visit upon one another. Do you even read my posts?

At least not the majority of the time. If you research it you will find just about everything you do is controlled by instinct or learned behaviour. Learned behaviour practically works like instinct, you react without really thinking.

There is no research required to observe that. You listed our two modes of behaviour and said that everything we do is governed by one of them. Yes. I agree. Our feet are almost mirror images of each other also. One foot is on the left and the other on the right. We are bipeds. You can research it!

We have, but we failed, because it's not possible.

It is never impossible to deny something. Especially to ourselves. I'm not fat. I'm not stupid. I'm not an animal. I'm not an alcoholic. Very possible.
I'm not saying we consciously deny it to ourselves, but it's there.

We've been living under the assumption were something closer to angels put here by god and earth is our playground to use and abuse as we see fit.
Science has given us a big appreciation for just how incredible the natural world is, how we have so much to learn from it and that we're complete at the mercy of natural processes.

Yes. But your mistake is to think that this temptation to regard ourselves as gods is a religious problem. Humanity mastered the natural world, and as it did so it gradually and quite naturally (No pun intended) lost touch and discarded any sense of animal nature.
Our tendency to disguise our creatureliness is nothing to do with the church, and much more about our fears regarding death and decay and all the natural processes that being an animal entails.

We can't wish, or pray, or assume we are what we want to be.

Just like you can't wish or pray or assume that you don't engage in the same vain attempt to transcend your animal nature as the rest humanity.

Yes, I'm afraid of death, I find poo disgusting (and somewhat fascinating)

I know.

They pretty much were in the Newstalk show which is what we're talking about. I was simply defending people against this biased assumption that humans are inherently evil creatures. We are all incredible creatures, we're quite possibly the nicest animal on the planet, the vast majority of humans live in peace and get along with each other.

This is the kind of intellectual weakness that makes me want to not respond. There is no such thing as evil, but 'niceness' - now that's something we can all agree exists - right - am I right? Are you being intentionally ridiculous? The same a few posts back. 'No such thing as evil people but you know what's amazing - how much we look out for people and animals'. haha
What is your point? Do I need to explain the glaring holes in what I actually think might be your entire world view?

Like what? War? Genocide? These are things that happen in the animal kingdom. There are all sorts of complicated reasons for horrible acts.

Yes animals are mean too. This is descending into inane drivel. Your view on man's 'inhumanity' to man is that it happens in the animal kingdom too?

If you read about your average person that lived through the the times of constant war in ancient times right up to modern wars, they didn't have the slightest interest in war.

Oh I'd say they were interested alright. The threat of death and torture has a way of piquing the interest. If you mean they had nothing to gain - that might be more accurate. But only because they weren't the ones with the power. This is really basic stuff.

One war lord would come through and say you have to pay taxes/tributes to me, then another one would come through a year later, defeats the old one and demands everyone pay taxes to him. Nothing actually changes for the average person raising a family, by some accounts they couldn't care less who was in charge as long as they could tend their farms and raise their children in peace.

Peaceful farmers? Simple folk. We don't like the warrin and the fightin and the cursin mister - we just wanna grow some carrots and have a simple life.

You really don't see how you are separating the 'average person' from the 'warlord'? Bad and good. Normal and abnormal?
Then you say you don't believe in evil. It's intellectual dishonesty. At least I hope it is. The alternative is limited understanding.

You're comparing chalk with cheese there. The vast majority of animals won't cannibalize their own, it's bad for you. Comparing a predatory animal eating it's prey to a predatory animal eating one of it's own just isn't a fair comparison.

You're right. I got caught up in the silliness.

We do rely on instinct, we just like to think we don't. For the most part we're completely hoodwinked by our own brain into thinking we're making conscious decisions from moment to moment.

Misrepresenting my point again. You rely on an instinct to hunt and kill for food?

MaxWig

Akrasia wrote: »

Excellent post Scumlord.

An evil cruel bastard is bad to have around during peaceful times, but his ruthless nature could be decisive during war.

This sums up the self-deception for me.

The bad people out there are horrible but in war they are good.

The good, peaceful people (like us, well, like me anyway) are the best to have around if you just want a nice time and some good living. Cup of tea?

Bad out there.
Good in here.
Bad out there.
Good in here.

silverharp

MaxWig wrote: »

This sums up the self-deception for me.

The bad people out there are horrible but in war they are good.

The good, peaceful people (like us, well, like me anyway) are the best to have around if you just want a nice time and some good living. Cup of tea?

Bad out there.
Good in here.
Bad out there.
Good in here.

Bad out there it could be bad in here so let's do our best to make sure it doesn't get bad in here would be more to the mark no?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Even Atheism is not static, just look at atheism+ and groups like that.

Atheism is the absence of a belief in a deity. By definition, it's about as static as it can get.

A+, which is atheism plus (well) something, is also very static, but that's only on account of it being mercifully dead.

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

I'm not sure what point you are making - Is it that those with weapons are different to those without weapons. That is - people without weapons are good and don't like fighting (let's call them non-evil) and the people with weapons are bad (let's call them evil).

No, that's an utterly bizarre way to take up what I said. What I'm saying in the African warlord example is that one tribe or group, which may not be that large and is certainly a tiny minority by any standard, decide they hate the next tribe or that they want control of everything so they start attacking everyone around them. The peaceful people that are easy targets. Then they grow their numbers hiring mercenaries, brainwash children into fighting for them. They do not represent the majority and what they're doing isn't normal acceptable behaviour by any cultures standards.

I'm sorry. This is gibberish. Those children are recruited and used for a cause by callous people with no interest in their well-being. You believe this is different from pimping teenagers for sex? Because people really hate sex, right?

Again, I don't know how your landing at these conclusions, who said anything pimping teenagers, I never brought up sex. I specifically said they brainwash children to fight for them (because it costs them less than hiring mercs) and those children grow up into horrendous adults, as any human being would if they had to go through an upbringing like that.

And I'm giddy with excitement to hear about what hasn't been acceptable since the middle ages. Literally giggling with anticipation. Tell me!
What horrendous thing did we almost get rid of until a bad African man brainwashed a person to bring it back? Stabbing? Raping? Beheading? Burning alive? Child rape? Chemical burning? Castration? Mass destruction? Oh no, sorry - they are all ubiquitous in human history. What bad thing did you mean? I probably haven't heard of it because it was unacceptable.

Crucifiction, beheading, disemboweling, disfigurement, quartering and an endless list of punishments for even simple crimes and even for sinning, these were often punishments handed out by your local priest or bishop. I don't know that Africa was as violent as the rest of the world at that time. They would have had fairly small stable societies (a guess), it wasn't until they got introduced to western culture that they had their whole way of life pulled out from under them.

Literally have no idea what your point is.

I'm not too surprised at this stage, I don't think you're even registering what I'm saying but just taking the points and twisting them into a opposing rebuttal, I think the opposition is more important to you than the discussion.

A very different type of culture to human culture but given your penchant for pedantry, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the arts are any different from the crow using a twig to get a grub from a hole. And we experience it in the much the same way too. Probably.
Again - your point escapes me.

Yes we have completely different culture, probably different mechanisms (the bird brain must be quite efficient given it's size and features). But the point was, here's another thing (culture) that's supposedly unique to humans that we've found out is not. Culture is in animals that live right under our noses and nobody noticed until quite recently. We just have more advanced version of systems that exist throughout nature. We're not as unique as we like to think we are.

This is the kind of intellectual weakness that makes me want to not respond. There is no such thing as evil, but 'niceness' - now that's something we can all agree exists - right - am I right?

As per the topic of the thread, the newstalk piece had just about everyone labeling humans as inherently evil (and evil being a real actual force like gravity). I point out that violence in humans isn't at all surprising given that we're the product of the natural world, which is violent.


This has been my point that I've had to elaborate to you.

Peaceful farmers? Simple folk. We don't like the warrin and the fightin and the cursin mister - we just wanna grow some carrots and have a simple life.

You really don't see how you are separating the 'average person' from the 'warlord'? Bad and good. Normal and abnormal?

No, you're jumping to these conclusions. I'm saying the vast majority of people throughout history don't want war or fighting, they just want to live in peace.

Warlords and the people that want to fight are the abnormal ones, they are the minority. I can't make that any clearer.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

No, that's an utterly bizarre way to take up what I said. What I'm saying in the African warlord example is that one tribe or group, which may not be that large and is certainly a tiny minority by any standard, decide they hate the next tribe or that they want control of everything so they start attacking everyone around them. The peaceful people that are easy targets. Then they grow their numbers hiring mercenaries, brainwash children into fighting for them. They do not represent the majority and what they're doing isn't normal acceptable behaviour by any cultures standards.

OK - the African Warlord example you mention I take it is fundamentally different from U.S. and Allied bombing? IRA terrorism? ISIS? Gang murders? etc etc?
Were these normal good, peaceful people that were brainwashed?

Again, I don't know how your landing at these conclusions, who said anything pimping teenagers, I never brought up sex. I specifically said they brainwash children to fight for them (because it costs them less than hiring mercs) and those children grow up into horrendous adults, as any human being would if they had to go through an upbringing like that.

People from above - were they turned into murder squads by something similar?

Crucifiction, beheading, disemboweling, disfigurement, quartering and an endless list of punishments for even simple crimes and even for sinning, these were often punishments handed out by your local priest or bishop. I don't know that Africa was as violent as the rest of the world at that time. They would have had fairly small stable societies (a guess), it wasn't until they got introduced to western culture that they had their whole way of life pulled out from under them.

The individual is violent in all societies - Or potentially so. That a society is peaceful does not mean it is made up of peaceful individuals. That is naieve is the extreme.

I'm not too surprised at this stage, I don't think you're even registering what I'm saying but just taking the points and twisting them into a opposing rebuttal, I think the opposition is more important to you than the discussion.

I feel the same. My point is that 'evil' (granting you the definition) is not a aberration. It is a human trait. It raises it's head time and again. Saying it doesn't exist is ridiculous. And a cop out.
By saying that only a certain 'type' is 'evil', you fail to see the issue.

Yes we have completely different culture, probably different mechanisms (the bird brain must be quite efficient given it's size and features). But the point was, here's another thing (culture) that's supposedly unique to humans that we've found out is not. Culture is in animals that live right under our noses and nobody noticed until quite recently. We just have more advanced version of systems that exist throughout nature. We're not as unique as we like to think we are.

Uniqueness is irrelevant. And while I find your reference to bird culture ridiculous, I'm not going to bite.

As per the topic of the thread, the newstalk piece had just about everyone labeling humans as inherently evil (and evil being a real actual force like gravity). I point out that violence in humans isn't at all surprising given that we're the product of the natural world, which is violent.

You use 'evil' and 'violence' interchangeably. Do you realise that?

This has been my point that I've had to elaborate to you.

I repeat. You use 'evil' and 'violence' interchangeably.

"everyone (is) labeling humans as inherently evil (and evil being a real actual force like gravity). I point out that violence in humans isn't at all surprising" It's worth reading again.

No, you're jumping to these conclusions. I'm saying the vast majority of people throughout history don't want war or fighting, they just want to live in peace.

Right - and that eradicates the notion of evil as a problem?

Those same people, given the right circumstance, would have been equally capable of terrible acts.
The point is that humans are inherently capable of blood-curdling viciousness - sadism in the extreme.

Warlords and the people that want to fight are the abnormal ones, they are the minority. I can't make that any clearer.

Yes I know. And I'm disagreeing. Warlords? It would be funny if it wasn't so naive. Warlords only exist because they have servants of death to be lords over.

People that want to fight?

You mean you don't want to fight?

In this cosy country, with the wifi and the trainers and the stereos and the digital TV, and the electricity?



LOLZ ROFL etc etc. What's computer speak for 'Help me out'?

All I'm trying to communicate to you is that you have a double standard and a brutally naive view of humanity.

Nothing separates the vicious from the peaceful, except chance. Pure and simple. Same brains - Same physiology. Same back-grounds. Same food. Same dreams. But we switch sometimes, given the right circumstance - and the devil comes out (excuse the language).

The US in Vietnam who burned children alive.
The good Irish lads who blew families to pieces in the UK.
The UK lads who tortured Germans in the World War.
And yes, the example you gave. The brainwashed people who wanted to play fusbol but were hypnotised.

ScumLord

MaxWig wrote: »

OK - the African Warlord example you mention I take it is fundamentally different from U.S. and Allied bombing? IRA terrorism? ISIS? Gang murders? etc etc?
Were these normal good, peaceful people that were brainwashed?

I was talking about something specific but if you want to go off on another tangent, ok then. All soldiers have to go through training so that they operate in a structured team and don't question their superiors, they all have to be somewhat brainwashed into shooting other people. Archaeologists keep finding muskets from old battlefields that were loaded multiple times. Those men stood on the front lines loading a musket, pretending to fire and loading again. They were in mortal danger but couldn't bring themselves to kill their enemy. The military have since solved that problem with training. Now a soldier can shoot someone without questioning himself. Now the issue is the soldier can't live with what he's done and ends up with a lifetime of mental problems.

IRA, again, a tiny minority. They don't represent the community at large, Irish people or the wishes of the Irish people.

I feel the same. My point is that 'evil' (granting you the definition) is not a aberration. It is a human trait. It raises it's head time and again. Saying it doesn't exist is ridiculous. And a cop out.
By saying that only a certain 'type' is 'evil', you fail to see the issue.

I'm not as such saying a certain type is evil. As I've already explained the concept of evil as a force is not one I believe in. Bad things happen all the time. People do bad things for a multitude of reasons, to reduce all those reasons down to "evil" is the biggest cop out of all.

You use 'evil' and 'violence' interchangeably. Do you realise that?

I don't.

Right - and that eradicates the notion of evil as a problem?

Evil isn't a problem, it's a catch all term. It's just a term, it's not the route cause of any problems. To say it is means we'll never find the cause of problems.

Those same people, given the right circumstance, would have been equally capable of terrible acts.
The point is that humans are inherently capable of blood-curdling viciousness - sadism in the extreme.

Sure, we're capable of a lot of things. It doesn't mean we have any desire too.

Nothing separates the vicious from the peaceful, except chance.

That's possibly true depending on the situation. But the normal state for any human society is one of peaceful cooperation.

The US in Vietnam who burned children alive.

The US, or some US soldiers? You can't blame the entire nation, many of whom protested the war for the actions of some soldiers.

The good Irish lads who blew families to pieces in the UK.

Another minority who turned to violence because they didn't have a majority.



Your damning every human being by the actions of a few, you're ignoring the majority of people that live in peace and instead highlighting the worst as the default.

MaxWig

ScumLord wrote: »

I was talking about something specific but if you want to go off on another tangent, ok then. All soldiers have to go through training so that they operate in a structured team and don't question their superiors, they all have to be somewhat brainwashed into shooting other people. Archaeologists keep finding muskets from old battlefields that were loaded multiple times. Those men stood on the front lines loading a musket, pretending to fire and loading again. They were in mortal danger but couldn't bring themselves to kill their enemy. The military have since solved that problem with training. Now a soldier can shoot someone without questioning himself. Now the issue is the soldier can't live with what he's done and ends up with a lifetime of mental problems.

Who is talking about representing a community? You are. Nobody else.

IRA, again, a tiny minority. They don't represent the community at large, Irish people or the wishes of the Irish people.

As above.

I'm not as such saying a certain type is evil. As I've already explained the concept of evil as a force is not one I believe in. Bad things happen all the time. People do bad things for a multitude of reasons, to reduce all those reasons down to "evil" is the biggest cop out of all.

I'm not arguing that there are not reasons.

I don't.

You did in the sentence I copied twice for good measure.

Evil isn't a problem, it's a catch all term. It's just a term, it's not the route cause of any problems. To say it is means we'll never find the cause of problems.

That means nothing. Because a word describes many things, does not negate the phenomenon.

Sure, we're capable of a lot of things. It doesn't mean we have any desire too.

Again, utterly inaccurate. But if we take it how you meant it, man in one state has no desire for vicious aggression towards another. In another state, he clearly does. Rwanda. Vietnam. Auschwitz. Gulags. Just plain murder! Whatever you are having yourself.

These are the 'false' states you imply. False desires. Not the real state of man. Something else. Outside man, not in our nature. A mistake. Etc, etc, etc. The oopsie theory of man.

That's possibly true depending on the situation. But the normal state for any human society is one of peaceful cooperation.

The normal state of 'any' human society. Except the ones I mentioned above, right? Seriously, how do you stand over this?
Read your sentences back.

The US, or some US soldiers? You can't blame the entire nation, many of whom protested the war for the actions of some soldiers.

I'm not blaming a nation. I'm blaming human nature.

Another minority who turned to violence because they didn't have a majority

.

Ok. Finally, can we start a list.

So, Number 1. Man displays viciousness and sadism when he finds himself without a majority? Number 2. ________

Your damning every human being by the actions of a few, you're ignoring the majority of people that live in peace and instead highlighting the worst as the default.

I'm not highlighting the worst as a default. I'm simply saying that your suggestion that most people don't have it in their nature is a nonsense!

fisgon

MaxWig wrote: »

fisgon wrote: »

MaxWig wrote: »

No I got the point. Of course science doesn't have a 'problem of evil'. Scientists do though. If something dreadful is visited upon them . You can beat around the bush all day with this, but humans have a problem comprehending the inhumanity man visits upon man. It's a 'problem'. And one that has had the intelligentsia chattering for centuries.

It's not a religious one. It's a societal one. Your earthquake analogy is weak I think. Much more relevant to a society from the past. And certainly more relevant to a discussion abut the origin of religion. The concept however is the same. Earthquake burns village. In the past, the villagers ask God - Why? Now, a baby get's its head chopped off and thrown in a bin, and society asks itself - Why? Really not a lot has changed. And clapping ourselves on the back about how sophisticated we are not to believe in an omnipotent god doesn't change that fact

I'm really not sure I follow your point at all, and I do think that you are missing the central point of the discussion, which is the problem of evil, and the inability of the religious to find an answer to it.

I laid it out very clearly in my last post. And my point about the Haitian earthquake wasn't "an analogy", it was simply an example of terrible suffering that the religious cannot explain within the framework of their "omniscient, omnipotent, beneficent" god.

What you seem to be talking about is something else, though exactly what your point is is hard to fathom. We are not talking about "society", this has nothing to do with the problem of evil. And lots of people still do believe in an omnipotent god, that's why we pose the problem of evil.

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

its complicated , if you are saying if you tested all SS men an women would there be a statistical association with psychopathic personalities , I have no idea. I'd assume most of them would not have been serial killers in civilian life or otherwise on their own account would have sought out ways to kill or torture people. What they were doing was "legal" for them.

It turned out a far larger proportion of people than expected were willing to torture others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

jank wrote: »

Never knew that a belief system be it political or religious is entirely static.

That's the point, beliefs change but the bible doesn't - christians claim the bible gives them an objective morality, in reality they pick and choose their morality like everyone else.

Even Atheism is not static, just look at atheism+ and groups like that.

'Atheism plus a lot of other stuff that isn't part of atheism at all and which many/most atheists will have no truck with.' :rolleyes:

MaxWig

fisgon wrote: »

I'm really not sure I follow your point at all, and I do think that you are missing the central point of the discussion, which is the problem of evil, and the inability of the religious to find an answer to it.

I get that. I'm simply adding that non-religious have no more answers than do religious.
The inability is ubiquitous.

I laid it out very clearly in my last post. And my point about the Haitian earthquake wasn't "an analogy", it was simply an example of terrible suffering that the religious cannot explain within the framework of their "omniscient, omnipotent, beneficent" god.

OK. Well I certainly know there are 'religious' persons who would explain it by plate tectonics. Y'know - geology.

What you seem to be talking about is something else, though exactly what your point is is hard to fathom. We are not talking about "society", this has nothing to do with the problem of evil. And lots of people still do believe in an omnipotent god, that's why we pose the problem of evil.

In the panel discussion they speak about most of the evil in the world being the result of man's actions.
That is what I am talking about.

I happen to believe that very much of man's inhumanity to man is the result of the process of 'us and them'ing.

As in, 'us atheists and them religious'!

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It turned out a far larger proportion of people than expected were willing to torture others.

Millgram's experiment, like the Stanford Prison experiment, has come close to spawning a veritable industry of rebuttals, clarifications, updates, thoughts, addenda and random commentary.

Fascinating stuff all the same, even though it's unlikely anybody will ever be allowed to repeat it, at least, in an academic setting anyway.

silverharp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It turned out a far larger proportion of people than expected were willing to torture others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

That's why I made the point a few different times that we acknowledge that absolute power is bad. And that society needs good controls and checks and balances.