The Problem of evil, on Newstalk

MaxWig · 10-04-2015 4:40pm

silverharp wrote:

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.

Its a fair point.
I think what was interesting about Milgram though was just how little power was involved. A white coat and a clipboard was enough. No implicit threat. Just an 'Its ok, keep going'.

silverharp · 10-04-2015 4:57pm

MaxWig wrote: »

Its a fair point.
I think what was interesting about Milgram though was just how little power was involved. A white coat and a clipboard was enough. No implicit threat. Just an 'Its ok, keep going'.

Indeed infairness at least they didn't appear to enjoy it and in the real world the checks and balances should kick in either before or after. Imagine how worse it would be if you had a dislike for the people involved and chechs and balances taken away

Hotblack Desiato · 10-04-2015 11:31pm

MaxWig wrote: »

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.

There is a difference though, the non-religious do not claim that there is a supreme creator, the religious do and they often also claim that it is the source of all goodness.

So if there is a supremely powerful creator who is the source of all that is good, why is there evil? That's the problem of evil. Not that humans do bad things, in a universe without a god there is no explanation necessary- humans are creatures and creatures do stuff which they think at the time is to their benefit. Sometimes humans (and some other creatures) are altruistic, but at heart they are selfish. It's what the religious and non-religious alike call 'human nature'.

Or to quote an ancient Greek philosopher on this question -

Epicurus wrote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

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

That still doesn't explain why horrible natural disasters happen to believers. And happen to non-believers also - at the same rate as far as we can determine. Why would a god smite believers and blasphemers at the same rate? That's not what happened in the OT.

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'!

All religions are about in-groups and out-groups. Saved and unsaved.
The non-religious accept that we're all people, all flawed, but most of us trying our best.

fisgon · 11-04-2015 9:53am

MaxWig wrote: »

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

I can't speak for all non-religious, but in general we don't claim to explain the existence of evil. We don't have this grand world view and philosophy that seeks to explain all existence, sin, death and the afterlife. To the non religious, there is no mystery here. Some people do bad things for a variety of reasons - economic, social, psychological, - and some terrible natural things happen - again for a variety of reasons. There is no confusion, no mystery, no problem of evil. Stuff happens, we don't need to find a moral explanation for it.

The religious, on the other hand, do seek to explain all of this, and do claim that their god is in control of all existence. So your comparison is empty. We have a variety of answers based on science and facts, the religious are in a world of trouble trying to square their supernatural circle.

MaxWig wrote: »

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.

That may be what you are talking about, but it leaves out a key element of the problem of evil, which is suffering caused by nature, earthquakes, floods, plagues, famine, etc. Simply put, you are not discussing the problem of evil.

Akrasia · 11-04-2015 8:44pm

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.

The point is that evolution has left us with a wide range of behaviours that allow us to adapt to different circumstances.

The capacity of humans to act peacefully in times of peace, and violently in times of war is an obvious advantage in the long term survival of our species, and this variability in human nature also explains why there are 'evil' people.

The violent behaviour that is essential to survive conflict is suppressed or expressed differently in different individuals, and in a population of billions of people, it's inevitable that there will be lots of people where the violent aspects of human nature are turned up to 11, while there are also plenty of individuals who literally wouldn't be violent to even save their own lives

MaxWig · 11-04-2015 10:16pm

fisgon wrote:

I can't speak for all non-religious, but in general we don't claim to explain the existence of evil. We don't have this grand world view and philosophy that seeks to explain all existence, sin, death and the afterlife. To the non religious, there is no mystery here. Some people do bad things for a variety of reasons - economic, social, psychological, - and some terrible natural things happen - again for a variety of reasons. There is no confusion, no mystery, no problem of evil. Stuff happens, we don't need to find a moral explanation for it.

So violence and sadism are basically a part of life. No biggie. Lets just focus on keeping the fishing sustainable.
You don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of evil in human action?
Or that it is worth trying to figure out.
Its a cosy concept and one that's very easy to have here, now - at this particular time.
70 years ago here, it would have been hard not to ponder.
Saying that a couple of million people die in a war, and that there's a variety of reasons for this and c'est la vie is not particularly interesting or inspiring.

If religion has one advantage over that particular view, its that it believes there is another way. Utopian, no doubt, but there's nothing wrong with utopian ideals.

All the bad things you mentioned have one thing in common. Death!
And paradoxically, if (wo)men didn't fear it, they wouldn't march over trenches into a hail of machine gun fire.

If the sum of human ingenuity regarding peace on earth is to reach a state of mutually assured destruction then I'd be tempted to start praying myself.

MaxWig · 11-04-2015 10:23pm

Akrasia wrote:

The point is that evolution has left us with a wide range of behaviours that allow us to adapt to different circumstances.

Akrasia wrote:

The capacity of humans to act peacefully in times of peace, and violently in times of war is an obvious advantage in the long term survival of our species, and this variability in human nature also explains why there are 'evil' people.

Akrasia wrote:

The violent behaviour that is essential to survive conflict is suppressed or expressed differently in different individuals, and in a population of billions of people, it's inevitable that there will be lots of people where the violent aspects of human nature are turned up to 11, while there are also plenty of individuals who literally wouldn't be violent to even save their own lives

Akrasia wrote:

The point is that evolution has left us with a wide range of behaviours that allow us to adapt to different circumstances.

Akrasia wrote:

The capacity of humans to act peacefully in times of peace, and violently in times of war is an obvious advantage in the long term survival of our species, and this variability in human nature also explains why there are 'evil' people.

Akrasia wrote:

The violent behaviour that is essential to survive conflict is suppressed or expressed differently in different individuals, and in a population of billions of people, it's inevitable that there will be lots of people where the violent aspects of human nature are turned up to 11, while there are also plenty of individuals who literally wouldn't be violent to even save their own lives

Peacefully in times of peace and violently in times of war?

Its the transition from peace to war I'd be wondering about there! How do peaceful people A and peaceful people B end up killing one another?

Peaceful people make a clear, rational decision that what makes sense is to start killing another group. Why? I know its a simplistic way of looking at it, but no more simplistic than dividing us up into evil and good. If some people are violent and some aren't it is only because they are finding different solutions to the same question.
Its daft to say that one is evil and that one isn't.

jank · 13-04-2015 3:42am

robindch wrote: »

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

In the most pure form atheism is static however, atheism as an identity seems to mean something more to many people than a 'lack of belief'. The proof of the pudding is there very forum.

fisgon · 13-04-2015 9:00am

MaxWig wrote: »

So violence and sadism are basically a part of life. No biggie. Lets just focus on keeping the fishing sustainable.
You don't believe that there is an answer to the problem of evil in human action?
Or that it is worth trying to figure out.
Its a cosy concept and one that's very easy to have here, now - at this particular time.
70 years ago here, it would have been hard not to ponder.
Saying that a couple of million people die in a war, and that there's a variety of reasons for this and c'est la vie is not particularly interesting or inspiring.

Again, you are absolutely and completely missing the point, maybe on purpose maybe because you just don't grasp the arguments. The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem for the religious, it has been discussed for centuries.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-problem-of-evil/

It is not about finding a solution to evil in the world, that is not "the problem" of the title. It is simply a philosophical problem that the religious need to address to make their beliefs consistent.

It shows how weak your arguments are that you have to set up these straw men, saying things that I never said and then arguing against them. "the problem of evil in human action" is not what is at stake here, religion explains it with reference to free will, the non-religious have other explanations. If you are talking about stopping people doing bad things, then you are in completely the wrong thread, because that is not what the Problem of Evil is.

MaxWig · 13-04-2015 9:19am

fisgon wrote: »

Again, you are absolutely and completely missing the point, maybe on purpose maybe because you just don't grasp the arguments. The Problem of Evil is a philosophical problem for the religious, it has been discussed for centuries.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/arguments-for-atheism/the-problem-of-evil/

It is not about finding a solution to evil in the world, that is not "the problem" of the title. It is simply a philosophical problem that the religious need to address to make their beliefs consistent.

It shows how weak your arguments are that you have to set up these straw men, saying things that I never said and then arguing against them. "the problem of evil in human action" is not what is at stake here, religion explains it with reference to free will, the non-religious have other explanations. If you are talking about stopping people doing bad things, then you are in completely the wrong thread, because that is not what the Problem of Evil is.

Not a straw man. I simply responded to your assertion that evil is no mystery to non-religious.

Disagree that I'm in the wrong thread. But I do enjoy when posters try to hint that some people shouldn't express their opinions here.

If your response to everything is 'God doesn't exist and nobody can prove otherwise', well good luck to you.
I just don't find it an interesting argument. Maybe three of four hundred years ago I would have. But not today.

ScumLord · 13-04-2015 2:23pm

Max Wig, I think at this point it would be helpful if you'd define what you think evil is.

Is evil a force that's been with the universe since it started? As in, the universe has good and evil, that evil is a force as real as gravity.

Or,

Is evil something that only exists in humans?

Is evil in humans a behavioral trait much the same as the behavior of trusting people of authority, like in the Milgram experiment? Is it something that can be explained by science? The same way addiction can be explained by science.

Is evil a paranormal force that only exists in humans that corrupts people into doing bad things? Or a paranormal force that controls humans and we need tools like religion to suppress it.

MaxWig · 13-04-2015 2:54pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Max Wig, I think at this point it would be helpful if you'd define what you think evil is.

I can try to explain my view, sure.

Is evil a force that's been with the universe since it started? As in, the universe has good and evil, that evil is a force as real as gravity.

No I don't believe that. It's a human construct/concept.

Or,

Is evil something that only exists in humans?

I think it only exists in human's perception of the world around them, but does not only apply to the actions of humans.

Is evil in humans a behavioral trait much the same as the behavior of trusting people of authority, like in the Milgram experiment? Is it something that can be explained by science? The same way addiction can be explained by science.

Well, I'd query what you mean when you say addiction can be explained by science. I'm not sure it can - not neatly anyway. But that's another story.

No, I don't think evil is a human 'trait' - I think evil is borne of all manner of human motivations. If we leave aside psychopathic sadism and the like, I think we can say fairly that evil is borne of neutrality.
When two conflicting sides war for instance, not only do each side not see their actions as evil - they believe they are 'good' - 'righteous' acts. This is as true of the Nazis as it is of any other army. (Wo)man believes him/herself to be good, but lives always under threat of evil.

Evil is always 'out there' - 'over there' - in 'them' - in the 'other'.
Save a couple of years, people have been at war somewhere for as long as you care to go back. Always in each case trying to rid the world of the 'evil' - the scourge - of the other.

Is evil a paranormal force that only exists in humans that corrupts people into doing bad things? Or a paranormal force that controls humans and we need tools like religion to suppress it.

Evil is the ubiquitous threat to all that is 'good'. Threats to one's way of life - to one's ideologies and beliefs - to one's life and culture and all that that entails.

Culture then is (wo)man's attempt to overcome evil (death) by making a mark upon the earth that will outlast the flawed body that will fade away when the mind still burns for life.

Evil to the child is all around - and it must be protected from it relentlessly for the first years of life. Everything is a threat. From the main road to the tasty looking toilet duck. Evil, put simply, is the bad that happens to us, and how it destroys our ability to enjoy the world- and ultimately our demise.

As we develop and grow, we find ways to avoid death itself, and also the reality of death that haunts us from the shadows. We repress it.

Religion is the ultimate expression of (wo)man's desire to transcend the reality of their existence, but by no means the only one.

People, with or without faith, look for a cause or a culture within which they can be nurtured, and where they can find some means of heroism for which to be lauded. Something they can excel at. Something which makes them 'stand out' - become something more than flesh and blood and bones.
Evil is anything that stops them - what ties them too rigidly to their ultimate fate, or annihilates the illusion of transcendence.

That is why people find it so easy (essential) to hate ideologies that do not concur with their own. Their existence means that their own beliefs are threatened. That is, 'We both can't be right'!! And if this culture within which I have found a home - where I can be respected as something other - something more than just a human animal - is so fallible, well then where does that leave me?

Evil is, basically, death in all its representations. The cause is irrelevant really.

ScumLord · 13-04-2015 4:22pm

MaxWig wrote: »

ScumLord wrote: »

No I don't believe that. It's a human construct/concept.

I think it only exists in human's perception of the world around them, but does not only apply to the actions of humans.

So evil is something only humans can put into the world? By that I mean, a lion can't be evil, a rock can't be evil.

When two conflicting sides war for instance, not only do each side not see their actions as evil - they believe they are 'good' - 'righteous' acts. This is as true of the Nazis as it is of any other army. (Wo)man believes him/herself to be good, but lives always under threat of evil.

Evil is always 'out there' - 'over there' - in 'them' - in the 'other'.
Save a couple of years, people have been at war somewhere for as long as you care to go back. Always in each case trying to rid the world of the 'evil' - the scourge - of the other.

That's a huge oversimplification of what leads to war. Hatred of alternative cultures or religions are often used by war mongers to increase the size of their forces but for the most part humans go to war for the same reasons as any other creature that goes to war. Resources.

Evil is the ubiquitous threat to all that is 'good'. Threats to one's way of life - to one's ideologies and beliefs - to one's life and culture and all that that entails.

But giving women the vote was seen as a threat to the ideologies of men when it came in and it was. Culture changes constantly. Are you saying is the process of changing culture, which happens on a daily basis, is evil. There are lots of cultures and ways of life, just because they exist doesn't mean they're correct and have a right to exist.

Evil is, basically, death in all its representations. The cause is irrelevant really.

This just makes no sense to me. Death is a crucial part of life, without death, there can be no life. If a plant or animal doesn't die I don't eat. If a plant or an animal doesn't die the insects and bacteria can't eat and make food for the plants.

Without death there is no change, no evolution, no improvements. Death is not evil, we're one of the only animals that know it's waiting for us and the vast majority have come to terms with it by simply ignoring it the vast majority of the time.

Death is not evil.

Brian Shanahan · 13-04-2015 8:32pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

I think that's part of the problem, Sarah Carey is to good robust and frank debate very similar to what Herod Antipater was to good childcare practises (well according to the bible anyway).

Most of her "debates" quickly descend to meaningless wishy washy platitudes.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 9:04am

ScumLord wrote: »

MaxWig wrote: »

So evil is something only humans can put into the world? By that I mean, a lion can't be evil, a rock can't be evil.

You wrote that in response to me saying - "does not only apply to the actions of humans". I'm not sure I can write in a language any more basic than that.
Evil is a label we give to our experience of the world, or parts of it.
If you are going to continue to ask do I think that a forest fire is objectively evil, then we'll just agree to ignore each other I'm afraid.
But I'll go through it again from my point of view (sometimes repetition works). A forest fire rages though a patch of woodland. Creating bountiful conditions for new life to begin, the sun to reach new ground yada yada yada. It also burns a young woman's family alive in a locked car. That young woman does not look at the car and think 'Ah, that's the circle of life'. She experiences the sheer terror of death, loss and the annihilation of her dreams and her reality. The fire, to her, was evil.
She will ask why? And what you are proposing you'd say is 'Loads of reasons. Let's start with the sun. Did you know the sun........' It's a bad joke. A sitcom trope. The character who literally does not understand humanity.
It does not make you a scientist to 'know' that the fire was caused by something other than evil. I t makes you the guy that repeats inane facts that everyone is quite aware of.

That's a huge oversimplification of what leads to war. Hatred of alternative cultures or religions are often used by war mongers to increase the size of their forces but for the most part humans go to war for the same reasons as any other creature that goes to war. Resources.

Yes it is often used by warmongers. So are you saying it's real, or it's not real?
But again you fall into this notion that the person who chops off another's head is somehow more benign for the fact that he was recruited by a warlord. A strange notion.

And while I take your rather small point, your suggestion that I am oversimplifying is odd. Resources do not begin to account for the glee with which humans dispatch other humans - often their own country men, sometimes neighbours (Kosovo, Rwanda).
A desire for resources does not explain rape; child murder; beheadings; burning alive; torture; ritual humiliation; disemboweling etc. etc. etc. etc. That list could go on ad nauseum.

But giving women the vote was seen as a threat to the ideologies of men when it came in and it was. Culture changes constantly. Are you saying is the process of changing culture, which happens on a daily basis, is evil. There are lots of cultures and ways of life, just because they exist doesn't mean they're correct and have a right to exist.

Again, we're back to the forest fire. No, I am not saying culture changing is evil. I'm saying that if I am a cultural hero one minute and that the next I am a laughing stock - a dinosaur of a previous era - my talents or views mocked and derided - then my experience of that is akin to evil. I have lost what made me special I have lost my place in the culture that up until that point found a space for me. It is very different to war, or death by fire - but it was one specific point I made that you picked up on. And my point was more directed at threats to the very culture itself that protects me, and less so to the forces that drive change. However I do not see them as opposed.

So again - should I repeat? I guess so. Evil is not an objective phenomenon. It is not a truth. In conflict, there are at least two evils and two goods. I clearly stated that in my last post, but you ignored that bit.
So I repeat again - evil (and good) is how we perceive the world.
Good and Bad - can't get more basic than that.

This just makes no sense to me. Death is a crucial part of life, without death, there can be no life. If a plant or animal doesn't die I don't eat. If a plant or an animal doesn't die the insects and bacteria can't eat and make food for the plants.

Yes, yes. Death is a crucial part of life. Not the part people look forward to though.
This is getting embarrassing. You accuse me of oversimplification and then you try to suggest that death, to humans, is a neutral valued phenomenon.
Death is a crucial part of life, yes.
Make you wonder why people get so upset about it, right?
Maybe they haven't seen David Attenborough.
I feel a little insultede responding to such thrash but I'll try.

Again, we are talking about an individual's experience of the world. The only place a perceived evil can exist. The only place taste and emotion can exist.
The only place 'want' can exist. The only place desire exists. And death is the end of that. It is the end of your experience of the world. Your loves, your desires, your wants, your dreams, your everything. Extinguished.
And yes of course, microbial life forms and insects will feast on your flesh - wahooo.
The circle of life.

Without death there is no change, no evolution, no improvements. Death is not evil, we're one of the only animals that know it's waiting for us and the vast majority have come to terms with it by simply ignoring it the vast majority of the time.

'Ignoring' and 'coming to terms with' are not even close to being compatible. But you are half right. We ignore it. We pretend it isn't there. I wonder why when it is such a great thing.
You only need a little sophistication of thought and some honesty to recognise what is at stake.
Your death is the end. It is not an evolution. Not a change. Not an improvement. At least - not to you. It is simply the failure of your body and the destruction of your mind.

Death is not evil.

I wsaw a lion kill a gazelle on TV last night. Fed the cubs.

Hakuna matata - the circle of life - yada yada yada.

Yes. Death is not evil.

Tell me - what, if anything, do you think was evil about Auschwitz?

Or was that just the circle of life too?

silverharp · 14-04-2015 9:23am

I disagree that dying in a forest fire or natural scenario would be described by any party as evil. Evil tends to be doing particular harm to people for some kind of advantage .
If say an old lady has her car stolen in a shopping centre, while it would certainly be described as wrong , evil isn't the first word I'd use but it is on a scale of evil. Now take someone that tricks an old lady out of their savings , now evil takes on a more useful meaning as the criminal is breaking multiple human conventions for advantage . Now if the criminal tortures or kills the old lady we move up the scale of evil.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 9:36am

silverharp wrote: »

I disagree that dying in a forest fire or natural scenario would be described by any party as evil. Evil tends to be doing particular harm to people for some kind of advantage .
If say an old lady has her car stolen in a shopping centre, while it would certainly be described as wrong , evil isn't the first word I'd use but it is on a scale of evil. Now take someone that tricks an old lady out of their savings , now evil takes on a more useful meaning as the criminal is breaking multiple human conventions for advantage . Now if the criminal tortures or kills the old lady we move up the scale of evil.

Right. What about absent-mindedly throwing a cigarette butt out a car window during a hot dry spell near a woodland area.

Is that on the evil scale?

silverharp · 14-04-2015 9:48am

MaxWig wrote: »

Right. What about absent-mindedly throwing a cigarette butt out a car window during a hot dry spell near a woodland area.

Is that on the evil scale?

No that is carelessness or ignorance , if someone died and the car was traced I'd expect them to be charged with something maybe not murder though.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 9:54am

silverharp wrote: »

No that is carelessness or ignorance , if someone died and the car was traced I'd expect them to be charged with something maybe not murder though.

I think we're talking about different things.

But if we take your position, then I would say that we project our fears (of those accidents and incidents that happen through no human agency) onto others.

silverharp · 14-04-2015 9:59am

MaxWig wrote: »

I think we're talking about different things.

But if we take your position, then I would say that we project our fears (of those accidents and incidents that happen through no human agency) onto others.

I don't understand what that means. We might rage against fate for being in the wrong place at the wrong time if something random happens like a car accident

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 10:10am

silverharp wrote: »

I don't understand what that means. We might rage against fate for being in the wrong place at the wrong time if something random happens like a car accident

As Scumlord mentioned in his last post, as humans we are aware of our impending demise. It is not a matter of if, but when.

We break the world down to good and bad.

Food - good / Hunger - bad

Health - good / Sickness - bad

Life is good and Death is bad

But death is the full stop. It is what lends the 'bad' to all those other things.

sbsquarepants · 14-04-2015 10:31am

MaxWig wrote: »

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.

.

I think there in lies the error - nature is not cruel, nature is not kind. Nature is just nature. I view it as kind of like a computer program or a maths equation.
E=MCsquared lead us to Hiroshima, it could potentially lead us to our entire destruction - does that make it an evil equation or a cruel equation? Of course not.
Nature is just a set of rules and interconnected systems - it doesn't have a goal or an end it just exists. When good things happen it's not cos natures kind and when bad things happen it's not cos nature's cruel - nature isn't sentient, it doesn't care one way or the other. The rules exist on independently whether there are people, animals, or anything else around to be helped or hindered by them.

Are we "in nature" - of course we are- where else could we be?

silverharp · 14-04-2015 10:33am

MaxWig wrote: »

As Scumlord mentioned in his last post, as humans we are aware of our impending demise. It is not a matter of if, but when.

We break the world down to good and bad.

Food - good / Hunger - bad

Health - good / Sickness - bad

Life is good and Death is bad

But death is the full stop. It is what lends the 'bad' to all those other things.

Sure but it makes evil a subset of bad things And things can be bad or evil without it having a bearing on our mortality.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 10:34am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think there in lies the error - nature is not cruel, nature is not kind. Nature is just nature. I view it as kind of like a computer program or a maths equation.
E=MCsquared lead us to Hiroshima, it could potentially lead us to our entire destruction - does that make it an evil equation or a cruel equation? Of course not.
Nature is just a set of rules and interconnected systems - it doesn't have a goal or an end it just exists. When good things happen it's not cos natures kind and when bad things happen it's not cos nature's cruel - nature isn't sentient, it doesn't care one way or the other. The rules exist on independently whether there are people, animals, or anything else around to be helped or hindered by them.

Sure. But then we just say there is no such thing as 'good' or 'bad', and we reach the end of the question.

Is it bad this (insert tragedy here) happened?
No, there's no such thing as bad.

It is our experience of these things I am talking about, rather than some ultimate truth.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 10:38am

silverharp wrote: »

Sure but it makes evil a subset of bad things And things can be bad or evil without it having a bearing on our mortality.

But it is our mortality that shapes our perception of the world.

Snakes, spiders, heights, germs, guns, the boogie man - these things are feared because we believe they might kill us.

Not because of any inherent quality they possess.

You can explain that the snake is not poisonous.
That the spider is harmless.
That the height is safe provided you don't jump off etc. etc.

It won't make any difference. People will remain afraid of them because they associate them with danger i.e death!

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 12:53pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are we "in nature" - of course we are- where else could we be?

Everything taken so literally.

We have mastered nature.

We have developed systems that conquer it (except we still decay and die - there's the rub).

We no longer feel like animals (and yes, I know we are animals. I subscribe to evolution, I know it's ego-centric etc etc.)

But we feel utterly removed from the nature that a pig or a squirrel or a tiger or an elephant lives in.

Animals are our pets and food and servants.

We are half natural, half symbolic. (and yes, I know we are animals).

I am me!

sbsquarepants · 14-04-2015 1:07pm

MaxWig wrote: »

Everything taken so literally.

We have mastered nature.

We have developed systems that conquer it (except we still decay and die - there's the rub).

We no longer feel like animals (and yes, I know we are animals. I subscribe to evolution, I know it's ego-centric etc etc.)

But we feel utterly removed from the nature that a pig or a squirrel or a tiger or an elephant lives in.

Animals are our pets and food and servants.

We are half natural, half symbolic. (and yes, I know we are animals).

I am me!

We've mastered nature? When did this happen?

We are undeniably a step above pigs and tigers and we have gained a certain measure of control in that we can change our environments to suit us better, rather than have to move to suit the conditions by building shelter and by heating or cooling and so on, we have medicine and an understanding of our bodies and hygiene etc. that keeps us alive and healthy where before we would have died, but we have not mastered anything, not even close.
Every basic biological requirement still needs to be met or we will die just like anything else that exists within the rules of nature. When it comes right down to it, all the technology in the world is less than worthless if you don't have water to drink, or food to eat.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 1:11pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

We've mastered nature? When did this happen?

We are undeniably a step above pigs and tigers and we have gained a certain measure of control in that we can change our environments to suit us better, rather than have to move to suit the conditions by building shelter and by heating or cooling and so on, we have medicine and an understanding of our bodies and hygiene etc. that keeps us alive and healthy where before we would have died, but we have not mastered anything, not even close.
Every basic biological requirement still needs to be met or we will die just like anything else that exists within the rules of nature. When it comes right down to it, all the technology in the world is less than worthless if you don't have water to drink, or food to eat.

But you do have food to eat.

And you do have water to drink.

And you do have heat.

And you just press buttons for the privilege.

OK, you don't think we've mastered nature.

We'll agree to disagree on semantics.

We are stating the same thing. Calling it something different.

sbsquarepants · 14-04-2015 1:15pm

It's not semantics at all.

We are in a good position to gather up and distribute all the things that nature demands (and provides) in return for life to continue. That is not being it's master. Slave would be a much better description!

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 1:22pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not semantics at all.

We are in a good position to gather up all the things that nature demands (and provides) in return for life to continue. That is not being it's master. Slave would be a much better description!

Well there is a paradox.

We are utterly removed from nature - having a long time ago discarded our need to hunt or gather, or kill or be killed etc.

We travel to other celestial bodies - we look back in time to the big bang - we unlock the secrets of the universe.

We created mathematics that explains everything to us.

We build and create, and spend very little time worrying about what nature may or may not visit upon us. We simply have no need to. As we have mastered it's pitfalls and hidden dangers.

But you are right of course, as I've stated in the last several of my posts.

There is one aspect of nature that is not mastered.

Our corporeality. Our mortality. Our creatureliness.

sbsquarepants · 14-04-2015 1:45pm

MaxWig wrote: »

Well there is a paradox.

We are utterly removed from nature - having a long time ago discarded our need to hunt or gather, or kill or be killed etc.

.

There is no paradox whatsoever.

We are not removed from nature in any way - we still hunt and gather, just in a different way.
Cows don't volunteer to jump into mincers out of respect for their human overlords you know! Wild cabbages don't grow on supermarket shelves!

We have mechanised and streamlined a lot from the days of chasing dangerous beasts around forests with sharp sticks - but it's all just tweaks within the same framework. The basic rules have not changed and will not change - we have not stepped outside of anything in anyway whatsoever.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 1:52pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is no paradox whatsoever.

We are not removed from nature in any way - we still hunt and gather, just in a different way.
Cows don't volunteer to jump into mincers out of respect for their human overlords you know! Wild cabbages don't grow on supermarket shelves!

We have mechanised and streamlined a lot from the days of chasing dangerous beasts around forests with sharp sticks - but it's all just tweaks within the same framework. The basic rules have not changed and will not change - we have not stepped outside of anything in anyway whatsoever.

OK.

Like I said, I understand your point completely.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. Just how you view it.

You are communicating with me across an invisible network of communication in the absolute certainty that you will not have to think about your next meal, or if hunger, pestilence, infection, predators or anything else will hurt you today.
They might, but you are pretty certain they won't. Not a second thought.

You are living in your head. You are a symbolic being. You are language.

Like I said, I understand the point you are making.

I do not disagree with you.

I just find it irrelevant.

I think maybe you don't fully understand just how outside nature you are.

I'm not talking about the Jamie Oliver - people don't know where meat comes from - type of distance from nature.

I'm talking about the development of language, culture and science and symbolism type.

The enlargement of the world, the exploration of the world and the shrinking of the world.

The capture of knowledge.

N'mind.

Basically I hear you.

sbsquarepants · 14-04-2015 2:02pm

I'm not thinking about my next meal because it has already been captured and killed (similar to caveman days but basically I've subcontracted out the icky parts to minimum wage Brazilians). It's currently defrosting on my counter at home. But I am a slave to that meal and the one after - I can not under any circumstances decide to just stop eating.
No matter how invisible my communication device it still obeys the laws of nature, just like everything else.
Not living in a cave, drinking rainwater and eating grubs and berries is in no way the same thing as being "outside" nature. I'm just not bear grylls!

Everything every living creature NEEDS to do to survive - I need to do those things too, I just go about them in a slightly more co-ordinated fashion, but I cannot decide to not do them, not for any reason, not ever, no exceptions whatsoever. That is squarely inside just like everything else.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 2:02pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There is no paradox whatsoever.

I should reiterate.

I do get what you are saying.

I understand that everything in the natural world is part of the natural world.

Everything we see in on Earth etc.

I am talking about our experience, our view of ourselves as much as anything else.

It is no coincidence that humanity separated itself from the animal world a long time ago.

It tried to depart with the animal.

MaxWig · 14-04-2015 2:08pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not thinking about my next meal because it has already been captured and killed (similar to caveman days but basically I've subcontracted out the icky parts to minimum wage Brazilians). It's currently defrosting on my counter at home. But I am a slave to that meal and the one after - I can not under any circumstances decide to just stop eating.
No matter how invisible my communication device it still obeys the laws of nature, just like everything else.
Not living in a cave, drinking rainwater and eating grubs and berries is in no way the same thing as being "outside" nature. I'm just not bear grylls!

Everything every living creature NEEDS to do to survive - I need to do those things too, I just go about them in a slightly more co-ordinated fashion, but I cannot decide to not do them, not for any reason, not ever, no exceptions whatsoever. That is squarely inside just like everything else.

Right.

Like I said - I'm not being dragged into a silly argument about whether the laws of nature apply to our bodies or not.

I've already repeatedly acknowledged this.

You need to eat or you will die.

Yes, we are 'slightly more co-ordinated' than the rest of the animal kingdom at sourcing our next meal.

We are 'slightly more co-ordinated' at avoiding predators.

And we are 'slightly more co-ordinated' passing messages to one another.

That about sums up the difference.

ScumLord · 16-04-2015 12:37pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not semantics at all.

It's pointless trying to discuss with someone who's being purposely obtuse. Everything said to Max wig is just twisted to suit his own world view and thrown back at you so mixed up it's impossible to even decyfer the position or intention of the post.

It's a rabbit hole sbsquarepants, run for your sanity.

MaxWig · 16-04-2015 12:50pm

ScumLord wrote: »

It's pointless trying to discuss with someone who's being purposely obtuse. Everything said to Max wig is just twisted to suit his own world view and thrown back at you so mixed up it's impossible to even decyfer the position or intention of the post.

It's a rabbit hole sbsquarepants, run for your sanity.

I dispute that Scumlord, but you probably expected me to

MaxWig · 16-04-2015 1:26pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Everything every living creature NEEDS to do to survive - I need to do those things too, I just go about them in a slightly more co-ordinated fashion, but I cannot decide to not do them, not for any reason, not ever, no exceptions whatsoever. That is squarely inside just like everything else.

Unless you're hooked up to a life support machine I guess.

I mean, I know that isn't 'mastering' nature.

It's pretty much how a little bird get's it's nutrients and oxygen but y'know....

different as well.

You might add brain surgery, antibiotics, organ transplants (including tissue fro other animals), pesticides, fungicides, electric blankets and the rest to that list, but basically, we are as much a slave to nature as the next creature.

Except in our ability to predict disease, treat it; predict natural disasters by photographing weather from space - eradicating entire viruses with large scale inocculation programmes - genetically modifying food crops to withstand microbial attacks - yada yada yada

Intensive agriculture - the rerouting of waterways for irrigation - fire for heat (biggie, that one) - the wheel - the yoyo - and house music!

The Problem of evil, on Newstalk

Comments