GeorgeW

Rom, I don't think I am being understood as well. I have neither said, nor intended to imply, that anyone is "intrinsically evil." However, there are, IMO, certain acts of extreme cruelty that I would describe as 'evil.' I think, as a classic example, the Holocaust was evil. Actually, I think that any form of ethnic cleansing is evil. George

Romanish, I don't think identifying something as evil precludes, or even interferes with, ascertaining "causes and remedies." I also don't agree that we see everything in black or whites (polar opposites). Most of us recognize gradations (scalar). A verbal insult, while not considered a good thing to do, is not on the same as a brutal slaying. (The former can draw a warning from Joseph, the later permanently banned from this forum. ) For what it is worth, Islam divides acts into five categories. If I recall correctly, there are things a Muslim must do, things they should do, things that are neutral, things that are ill advised and things that are prohibited. George

While I would not neatly divide every action we take as 'good' or 'evil,' I think the word evil is a useful term to describe particularly egregious acts intentionally committed by a human for the purpose of harming another living being. I would also suggest that 'good' and 'evil' are scalar, not polar with 'evil' on the far end of the scale. George

How so? George

We are wired for intra-group cooperation and inter-group competition. George

Thanks for posting it. If someone is not familiar with the idea of group evolution, it is worthwhile (unless turned off by the new-agey format). I think you would enjoy his books. If you are interested in group evolution, I would recommend E.O. Wilson be read first. Then, Haidt's ideas have a better context. George

I am a fan of Haidt (in written form). I finally had time to watch the video and didn't much like it. It is much too new-agey, too Silicon Valley, too slick. I reminds me of the NPR gurus promoting a three-step (or five , or seven) program to a happy life (or wealth, or weight loss). It also reminds me Steve Jobs introducing a new iPhone (which to many people was a transcendent experience). But, Haidt is a serious scientist who bases his theories on good evidence. I found his books very persuasive. George

Absolutely. If there were no useful purpose we wouldn't have them. They didn't develop to entertain us, although that is sometimes a side benefit. They help attract us to positive things and help keep us away from danger. Myron, it is good to have you back. George

I don't think "spiritual choice realities" are "truly free" as well. It is not through free choice that more people in Alabama are Christian than in Saudi Arabia or Japan. Spiritual choices are heavily influenced by enculturation, social milieu and individual experiences. George

Hornet, Thanks for the reference. The book seems to have been written by a credible author, published by a credible publisher and has some good reviews and endorsements. George

Brent, "They fail to comprehend that both are inevitable if the creature is to be truly free. The free will of evolving man or exquisite angel is not a mere philosophic concept, a symbolic ideal. Man's ability to choose good or evil is a universe reality." I don't think it is at all reasonable to state that humans are "truly free." We are constrained by out genetics (which varies from person to person), our culture, our experiences and chance. George

First, this assumes we are in a position to make a determination about the nature of God. I don't think we are. Second, this assumes 'good' is some objective status. But, 'good,' IMO, is relative to the perspective of the describer. Third, this represents a very anthropocentric point of view. This assumes we humans are the purpose and center of the universe. I am not convinced that this is true. So, I have trouble ascribing any human devised descriptive to a cosmic level of which we can only see a small, limited portion (in time and space). George

I agree with this definition with the emphasis on "moral agent." However, I would also add intentionality to exclude unintended harm. I don't think there is a moral agent directly causing natural disasters. These are, IMO, just a consequence of natural processes. Whether there is/was an agent behind establishing the processes, I don't know. It is our nature as humans to try to find meaning in whatever occurs. Sometimes, IMO, there is no meaning. What happens is just a consequence of the grand system. If we are the wolf, we are grateful for the provision of the lamb. If we are the lamb, we see "natural evil." Our perspective is too subjective and too limited to comprehend the big picture. George

I don't have time to watch the video now, but I have read two of Haidt's books and E.O. Wilson's recent book which discuss the dual nature of humans, "homo duplex." As Haidt says in The Righteous Mind, we are "a creature who exists a two levels: as an individual and as a part of the larger society." I found their case to be very persuasive and am convinced that humans evolved to be eusocial animals. The positive emotional reaction we get from being a part of whole (like your military and sports examples) represent this. Our moral intuitions are part of this. Without this social instinct, 'altruism' cannot be adequately explained by the "selfish gene" existing alone. If evolution could not produce social animals, then how do we explain ants and bees. Surely, their behavior is genetic, not culture. What about herding and pack animals. Did they sit down and decide that working as a team would produce better results? If other social animals developed their social instincts through evolution, what would make us think we are an exception? George

I think we may agree on some points, probably regarding 'natural evil." However, I have trouble processing "‘potential’ evil originates from the differentials inherent in progressive time-space evolution while ‘actual’ evil (perhaps ‘moral’ evil fits loosely here) does not manifest absent unconscious or unintended erroneous will-choice." (And, I am not prepared to accept the "certified on high nearly 1 million years ago" or the dating of Adam and Eve.) George

Brent, I would also ask you to define 'evil.' It would also be helpful to distinguish between 'moral evil' and 'natural evil' (as in Trust's opening post), if you see any difference. George

Yes, it has been shown (as an example, see E.O. Wilson, a noted sociobiologist) that social cooperation is a feature of evolution among 'eusocial' animals (which includes humans). Altruism is hard to explain without a social dimension of evolution. Also, this 'dog-eat-dog' or 'survival-of-the-fittest' idea about of evolution is a caricature of natural selection. A species can adapt to a new environment or situation without 'eating another dog.' Often a new species simply fills an unfilled ecological niche. George

Can you explain why it stands to reason? Is "good" a universal, objective state? When a wolf kills a lamb and feeds his family, is this "good" from the perspective of all? The wolf? The wolf's children? The lamb? An disinterested observer? Can we all say, "good!" George

Shouldn't we first establish the existence of something before we 'deal with it?' Why would you describe a hurricane as evil? What if it does no harm to a person? What if it also brings needed rain? What if it does both? I think it would be helpful if you defined 'evil.' I personally think the notion of natural evil is a "human centered perspective." In fact, we have no other perspective to assert. George

I am sorry if I misunderstood your view. However, I don't feel like it was an ad hominem attack as I explicitly said, and believe, there would nothing wrong with it if you do. George

Yeah, good point. I read Shank's BAR article recently in the magazine. I thought the statistics for the name coincidence were particularly interesting. Although all the names were very common Jewish names at the time, the possibility of another man named Jesus (yeshu'a) with a father named Joseph (Yosef) and a brother name James (Yaqub) is not very likely. Also, I failed to mention that Bart Ehrman also thinks that Jesus was buried. He says, "Jesus was not only crucified, he was buried. In other words, he died a human death, by execution, at the hands of the Romans, and really was dead, as evidenced by his burial." If in fact, his bones were placed in an ossuary, this would be strong evidence against a bodily resurrection. Bones were not put into ossuaries until a year or so after death. George

Neon, You seem to be determined to discredit the evidence that Jesus was plausibly buried by whatever you can find. First, you try to discredit Evans with a debate with Bart Ehrman. Then, you use sources whom Ehrman discredits, like Doherty, Carrier and Price. Ehrman, by the way, describes one of Craig's earlier books as "among the most important and interesting studies of the past thirty or forty years . . ." If one doesn't think that the historical Jesus existed, one would not accept that he was buried. I happen to think he did exist (as does Ehrman, Spong, the fellows of the Jesus Seminar and others). I also think that Craig makes a good case (with solid archaeological evidence) that he was plausibly buried. You do not seem prepared to accept the historical Jesus. That is fine, I have no objection. But, at this point, I think this discussion is going nowhere productive and would best that left at agreeing to disagree. George

I am not suggesting an uncaused cause. Natural disasters (I would avoid the term 'evil' with its connotations of intent) are the result of natural processes functioning according to natural laws. These are part of the big picture of which we are too small to comprehend. George

Neon, Where do you propose that all those pre-70CE ossuaries around Jerusalem came from if Jews were not allowed to bury their dead according to custom? What about the ones with executed bodies in them? What about the one with the spike stuck in the foot (dated to the time of Pilate)? What are your sources? FWIW, Josephus confirmed that the Romans do "not leave a corpse unburied, show consideration even to declared enemies." He also said, "The Romans do not require their subjects to violate their national laws." George

No one, neither Evans nor myself, has said that the Romans were "kind and respectful to the Jews." According to Evans, during peace time, they respected Jewish burial law (and there is extensive archaeological evidence of this). They were not being kind, but pragmatic. It makes perfect sense that the occupiers would avoid unnecessarily antagonizing their subjects? During the uprising, they would have different motives. George