"Evil" does not exist?

But saying this, like using terms such as “sociopathy and psychopathy", just replaces the term “satan" with more modern terminology and reference points. A thousand or ten thousand years from now, it will all make us chuckle. Perhaps, having then completed the previously alluded to tunnel…
If that's true then I'll opt for the science rather than representations of the supernatural, and these are more than just "terms" of identification, they're based on emperical knowledge. And ten thousand years from now, providing we don't blow ourselves up or destroy the ozone layer we may find a way to control or prevent aberrant behavior. but as an optimist I always see light at the end of the tunnel. Cap't Jack
I am reading a fictional novel by Anne Rice and one of the characters presents the concept the evil does not really exist, only mistakes. Actions we perceive as "evil" are results of hormones, chemical reactions in the brain and even mental illness--but there is nothing behind it beyond that (i.e. supernatural forces such as evil).
From a Christian perspective, evil simply means bad and describes a behavior that is contrary to God's ways which are good. In order for man to be bad, or evil, he must have the free will to choose his behavior. When you take God out of the equation and view mankind from the perspective of Evolution, then you must answer the question of where free will comes from if it exists at all. If we are a product of hormones, chemical reactions and experiences, then we have no free will. Instead our actions are determined for us by chance of how all these things previously mentioned came together. That's Determinism. I don't think it depends on the supernatural, but on the question of free will.
I am reading a fictional novel by Anne Rice and one of the characters presents the concept the evil does not really exist, only mistakes. Actions we perceive as "evil" are results of hormones, chemical reactions in the brain and even mental illness--but there is nothing behind it beyond that (i.e. supernatural forces such as evil).
From a Christian perspective, evil simply means bad and describes a behavior that is contrary to God's ways which are good. In order for man to be bad, or evil, he must have the free will to choose his behavior. When you take God out of the equation and view mankind from the perspective of Evolution, then you must answer the question of where free will comes from if it exists at all. If we are a product of hormones, chemical reactions and experiences, then we have no free will. Instead our actions are determined for us by chance of how all these things previously mentioned came together. That's Determinism. I don't think it depends on the supernatural, but on the question of free will. And we can also be both determinate and indeterminate at the same time. If, that is, you assume that every possible choice exists in totality but that from any one perspective (your given universe), you are only able to experience one of those results at a time. This way of understanding reality doesn't require a God.
Ann Rice sounds like a skeptic at heart, maybe even an atheist. Lois
Out of curiosity I checked her website. I don't think she's an atheist, or a skeptic of any sort, judging by the quotes] she put on her site. I remember reading that she underwent a "born again" conversion a number of years ago, at which point she decided to stop writing her vampire novels. Whether that's accurate or not, people change.

I haven’t read any Anne Rice but like most vampire movies, including the ones on her behalf. The metaphor of the vampire is one of the best creations to describe how we love those who threaten us the most regardless of the obvious logic in us to run away. It shows that even though we can maintain a moral conviction, we’d gladly give it up for happiness and comfort.

Evil just means "really bad". I agree that so called evil behavior is a result of biology, like all behavior is. However, it's in our nature to perceive things to be good, evil, etc. and that is what matters.
If "really bad" is all it means, why not call it "really bad" instead of using a term that has supernatural connotations and is so easily misunderstood? I doubt that anyone translates "really bad" into a supernatural force. Lois
But saying this, like using terms such as “sociopathy and psychopathy", just replaces the term “satan" with more modern terminology and reference points. A thousand or ten thousand years from now, it will all make us chuckle. Perhaps, having then completed the previously alluded to tunnel…
If that's true then I'll opt for the science rather than representations of the supernatural, and these are more than just "terms" of identification, they're based on emperical knowledge. And ten thousand years from now, providing we don't blow ourselves up or destroy the ozone layer we may find a way to control or prevent aberrant behavior. but as an optimist I always see light at the end of the tunnel. Cap't Jack
I would suggest that we all become more aware of the stratification factor. There are more than 7 billion people in the world. A certain percentage of them lack the kind of education that you and I are privy to. The nature of their "practical wisdom" will be a little fuzzier in the area of reason than yours or mine. It will rely more or less on intuition, myth, conditioned reflex. The expression of this in their daily lives, the survival of their selves and their culture, empirically proves the validity of their belief structures. Modern specialization in reason, scientific method, etc. is a discipline. It is not it's self truth. It's function is to aid in alignment with truth. The Buddhist/Yogic disciplines of meditation, mindfulness, etc. serve the same purpose. Even Christianity has it's deeper traditions and techniques that rise to these levels of validity. Our interests should not be what methods are used, but what intention is expressed. How honest is the enquiry. As for what is the Truth we hope to align with? That must remain open ended and ever new. If we think we have found it, we have been fooled. It is unknowable. It is All....
This way of understanding reality doesn't require a God.
I'm amazed at how hard it is for even very smart people to get free of this "neolithic" notion of "a God". Using this phrase, indicates an inability to contemplate absolute, undivided totality. When arguing for the non-existence of "a God", what are you arguing against? If you are really, but ingenuously, arguing against the existence of "God", you are really arguing against the "existence" of absolute, undivided totality? One can not say that "God" does not exist or that "God" exists. Existence and non-Existence are relative terms. "God" as absolute, undivided totality, existence and the potential to exist, is Undivided, Eternal, Singular, Now. I would suggest acknowledgement of this from both sides of the politic. The debate could then move into new territory or disappear altogether. Who knows what wonders we would behold?
Evil just means "really bad". I agree that so called evil behavior is a result of biology, like all behavior is. However, it's in our nature to perceive things to be good, evil, etc. and that is what matters.
If "really bad" is all it means, why not call it "really bad" instead of using a term that has supernatural connotations and is so easily misunderstood? I doubt that anyone translates "really bad" into a supernatural force. Lois I've always used "Evil" when I want to emphasized the extreme or archetypal quality of some behaviour or situation. Thats what four letter words are for.
Evil just means "really bad". I agree that so called evil behavior is a result of biology, like all behavior is. However, it's in our nature to perceive things to be good, evil, etc. and that is what matters.
If "really bad" is all it means, why not call it "really bad" instead of using a term that has supernatural connotations and is so easily misunderstood? I doubt that anyone translates "really bad" into a supernatural force. Lois I've always used "Evil" when I want to emphasized the extreme or archetypal quality of some behaviour or situation. Thats what four letter words are for. Like, LOVE?
I would suggest that we all become more aware of the stratification factor. There are more than 7 billion people in the world. A certain percentage of them lack the kind of education that you and I are privy to. The nature of their “practical wisdom" will be a little fuzzier in the area of reason than yours or mine. It will rely more or less on intuition, myth, conditioned reflex. The expression of this in their daily lives, the survival of their selves and their culture, empirically proves the validity of their belief structures. Modern specialization in reason, scientific method, etc. is a discipline. It is not it’s self truth. It’s function is to aid in alignment with truth. The Buddhist/Yogic disciplines of meditation, mindfullness, etc. serve the same purpose. Even Christianity has it’s deeper traditions and techniques that rise to these levels of validity. Our interests should not be what methods are used, but what intention is expressed. How honest is the enquiry. As for what is the Truth we hope to align with? That must remain open ended and ever new. If we think we have found it, we have been fooled. It is unknowable. It is All….
Everyone who is a product of higher education, I.e. able to draw conclusions based on reason rather than intuition, is aware of stratification as our knowledge is a product of same. And yes there are those who attempt to reconcile their earlier held beliefs with the knowledge that religion, i.e. the supernatural element, isn't fact based. And that these concepts of good and evil must be used to communicate with someone not well versed in the emperical method. I view them as nothing more than a method of communication, good and evil , angelic, satanic etc.as most Americans still believe these concepts are part of their "truth". And no, I don't believe that the function of science is to align in anyway with those self truths as you call them, but to dispell them as myths. As for truths, everyone forms their own regardless of the amount of or lack of knowledge gained via research or intuition. And in this instance, you're right; your "truth" and mine will be unknowable. Cap't Jack
And we can also be both determinate and indeterminate at the same time. If, that is, you assume that every possible choice exists in totality but that from any one perspective (your given universe), you are only able to experience one of those results at a time. This way of understanding reality doesn't require a God.
You used the word "choice." If we have no free will we cannot have choice. Everything we do is determined by what came before. In this philosophy there is no moral responsibility. There is also nothing done by us that is praiseworthy, since all we do is determined by what has proceeded us. The debate about free will is not a debate about whether or not God exists. Traditionally this debate has been within a theological framework, but atheists can debate it on their own terms. If someone is hanging his hopes for the future on science and reason, then a lack of free will and the idea that all our actions are determined by causal factors kinda puts a damper on finding our way through reason.
I don't think it depends on the supernatural, but on the question of free will.
But free will as you're describing it is supernatural. Stephen
And we can also be both determinate and indeterminate at the same time. If, that is, you assume that every possible choice exists in totality but that from any one perspective (your given universe), you are only able to experience one of those results at a time. This way of understanding reality doesn't require a God.
You used the word "choice." If we have no free will we cannot have choice. Everything we do is determined by what came before. In this philosophy there is no moral responsibility. There is also nothing done by us that is praiseworthy, since all we do is determined by what has proceeded us. The debate about free will is not a debate about whether or not God exists. Traditionally this debate has been within a theological framework, but atheists can debate it on their own terms. If someone is hanging his hopes for the future on science and reason, then a lack of free will and the idea that all our actions are determined by causal factors kinda puts a damper on finding our way through reason. We can still have an 'apparent' capability to choose under the assumption that every possible choice exists in a determined way. For instance, from our perspective, we can only see a limited set of potentially infinite dimensions. This may trap us from being able to point to other optional realities even though they may still exist. Just as we are forced to be unable to perceive all time at once, it can be realistically envisioned that their exists another dimension which consists of sets of times, different universes from each point in time that is perpendicular from it. From a God's perspective, all those realities exist at once, and be clear and understandable. It's a kind of nice way of thinking of it as well -- imagine that for every person's perspective, maybe we never actually experience permanent death or suffering. Those lines of realities that favor our continuation might, for instance, be the preferential reality that our consciousness actually takes on in the end. It wouldn't dissolve the reality of suffering and bad choices that occur from our perspective of the environment. But it may put at ease the thought that people, and all other living things for that matter, have a resolved and just reward in the end. And you don't even need the assurance of God to guarantee justice anymore.
We can still have an 'apparent' capability to choose under the assumption that every possible choice exists in a determined way. For instance, from our perspective, we can only see a limited set of potentially infinite dimensions.'
In Determinism, which is what the original post described, it is not simply that we don't know all the possible choices, it is that we are a product of what's existed before, so we must do what our biology and environment has programed us to do. Our actions are already determined before we have any thought about a situation. Our choice is an illusion rather than a reality. That's the theory. In a theological debate on free will, we would debate how much free will God actually allows us to have. I agree that He has a very different perspective and it comes down to how much we trust his teaching.
But free will as you're describing it is supernatural. Stephen
How would you describe free will without it being supernatural?
But free will as you're describing it is supernatural. Stephen
How would you describe free will without it being supernatural? The term free will can be used to refer to different concepts with different meanings. I don't see any point in going into free will meaning something else. Belief in free will as in the concept you have in mind is a supernatural belief.
We can still have an 'apparent' capability to choose under the assumption that every possible choice exists in a determined way. For instance, from our perspective, we can only see a limited set of potentially infinite dimensions.'
In Determinism, which is what the original post described, it is not simply that we don't know all the possible choices, it is that we are a product of what's existed before, so we must do what our biology and environment has programed us to do. Our actions are already determined before we have any thought about a situation. Our choice is an illusion rather than a reality. That's the theory. In a theological debate on free will, we would debate how much free will God actually allows us to have. I agree that He has a very different perspective and it comes down to how much we trust his teaching. We may know our choices, we just can't guarantee that what we thought we knew and eventually act upon is beyond the physics and chemistry of the brain that we credit our thoughts to. In your present understanding, real choice necessarily involves something beyond any capability our brains are limited to, its nature. This makes your belief, "super"-natural because it suggests that the brain itself is irrelevant to decision making and cause for behavior. You are left with asserting that the brain is an irrelevant mechanism. So why do we witness brain damaged people with anomalies of behavior that are inadequate to appropriate decision making? This shouldn't occur if our powers to decide aren't related to a determinate brain. In old-folk homes, people are often abused, not by the staff, but by the old people themselves. Even if they had a previous life of moral significance, their behaviors betray them due to the damaging effects of the brain. Or do you propose that their actions portray a sincere reflection of their choices to be evil?

Determinism is not my belief. It is what the original poster described as voiced by an author. In that theory, the physics and chemistry of the brain are simply a continuation of nature, therefore man acts according to what the chemistry determines. He has no choice. Proponents of that theory would point to the fact that brain damaged people or those with anomalies act differently because their brain has been altered. They have no choice. The theory of Determinism proposes that free will is an illusion, because we can only act according to what the structure and chemistry of the brain determines as shaped by nature. Therefore, there’s no such thing as evil, as the original poster asked, because nothing we do is by our own choice. We are all acting out what nature has designed.

Determinism is not my belief. It is what the original poster described as voiced by an author. In that theory, the physics and chemistry of the brain are simply a continuation of nature, therefore man acts according to what the chemistry determines. He has no choice. Proponents of that theory would point to the fact that brain damaged people or those with anomalies act differently because their brain has been altered. They have no choice. The theory of Determinism proposes that free will is an illusion, because we can only act according to what the structure and chemistry of the brain determines as shaped by nature. Therefore, there's no such thing as evil, as the original poster asked, because nothing we do is by our own choice. We are all acting out what nature has designed.
I already understood that you don't believe in determinism. You believe that their exists a free will because it justifies moral integrity. Without it, you believe justice has no means to back any arbitrary law because then it only depends on who controls the justice. This is still unavoidable even with your belief that God provided this and that he gave us free will to address real choices that we must be accountable for. Why? Because only some form of humanistic authority can be the source of what God would dictate our morality should be anyways. You can't credit the Bible with this because in order for you to trust that its contents represent your God's wishes, the nature of the book would have to be such that it would never have to be published by a human's hand. It steals the reason for it to be an authority by God. If His power was such that all Bibles magically appeared out of thin air by a Heavenly Press, there would be at least a reason to question the source as not coming from the authority of other people. It would also not be possible that other religious scripture should exist that have a similar justification to God's authority that differ from one another. If morality is a true existence that comes from 'elsewhere', why wouldn't the same power to be able to choose not also have the same means of communicating a common innate ability to know right from wrong? Why should we require any source whatsoever to ever learn about God, his history, and what he wants of us? We'd have no reason to differ in our beliefs and because we'd have the same God in our heads from birth. We wouldn't be able to doubt our innate knowledge of right or wrong or even be tricked by others to believe otherwise. And don't suppose that the Devil either could possibly trick you because then this just steals away the very free will you claim to believe in by giving the power to another entity for determination. So what do we do now? The best we can do is to create conventions among ourselves as humans to dictate our morality, hope that we can adjust to optimize our own lives in the communities of these morals and find some way, if we can, to develop a justice with our knowledge, wisdom, and even the technologies that may one day provide us all with happy and prosperous lives.