The Problem of evil, on Newstalk

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.

MaxWig

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.