GeorgeW

I'm not sure I am being understood here George.

If we believe that a thing, an act or people are intrinsically evil, then I really do think we have a problem for understanding.

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

All of these can be traced back to natural evil.

How so?

George

The claim that Haidt makes is simple, yet complex. We need both competion and cooperation to survive. There must then be emotions promoting both.

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

George

I felt he made some interesting points which certainly resonated with me.

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

Each time I have seen this video I lose my respect for Haidt. Just a collection of popular ideas and images.

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

Evolution is pragmatic.

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

But in short, my understanding of “truly free” is that it refers to spiritual-choice realities (within which, after all is said and done on this planet, we progress eternally) rather than physical, cultural, or particular environmental happenstance.

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

We would agree that if God exists, God is all knowing right? You just think it does not apply to being good?

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

For this discussion, let's ignore moral evil since it does not present a tough theological question. Let's instead focus on natural evil and describe natural evil as anything that causes suffering that does not have a moral agent behind the suffering and does not have some greater good. This excludes small amounts of pain since pain is what keeps us alive and our hand away from the fire. What about the carnivorous animals though?

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

In my opinion the term ‘natural evil’ has no applicable meaning.

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

It has always struck as important that the theological doctrine of natural evil so closely resembles the theory of natural selection in its purest "dog-eat-dog" form (the form which, until recently, has been the dominant view among biologists, according to Dr. Nowak).

 

The honest truth is that reproductive success for single individuals is not the sole factor that drives all life on Planet Earth, as many recent researchers have been showing with their work on the role of cooperation in all species.

Jen

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

On a practical level, I think that it stands to reason that if there is a God, that he is good. On a personal level, I believe in the ideas Christ talked about and a place where the wolf lives with the lamb as Isaiah says.

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

We seem to be trying to deny that natural evil exists in the first place instead of dealing with the issue at hand. We are also gravitating toward a very human centered perspective instead of suffering before the fall.

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

An uncaused cause is responsible for the nature we see?

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

Rivanna, Very nice. This is the world I grew up in.

George

The national church owns every Wholesale Food distributor in the USA. (I have been told that, I do not know if it is true.) [...]

 

I am very surprised that this interests so few people. Are we so tied up in materialism and self-serving apathy that this is all ho-hum?

I find it hard to believe that there is not a single Catholic, Protestant or Jewish food wholesaler in the entire US.

I will not vote for Romney for ideological reasons, not because he is a Mormon. Maybe you could explain why you think this might be a threat of some sort.

George

If by stasis you mean it in a sense of a balance where we can go no further because all forces are equal, yes it is to me desirable but not in the sense of a closed mind but rather a mind that fully accepts "it doesn't know" and is then able to be transcended because thoughts and actions have reached their limits and conceptually there is no where to go with concepts.

Actually, I was thinking of stasis in terms of reaching a stable, unchanging view. But, you make a good point about arriving at a point from which a human mind cannot progress.

George

This is a followup to Joseph's essay about deconstruction and reconstruction. I thought I would add a couple of thoughts in an appropriate thread.

Recently, in discussions about Bain Captial (Mitt Romney's old venture capital company), the term 'creative destruction' has been used. As I understand it, the idea is that sometimes destruction is needed in order for there to be 'creative reconstruction.' Without debating the merits of this as an economic process, the idea might be relevant to Joseph's proposal. Sometimes, it is necessary to destruct before one can creatively construct.

I think one of the dangers in deconstruction is getting stuck in the deconstructed phase. One can be left with nothing in place except negative attitudes about the previous structure. I am not sure this is healthy for the person or society. Isn't this where the prominent anti-theists are?

I would also say that the building metaphor may not be perfect as we can complete the reconstruction of a physical building, but should we ever complete the reconstruction of a theology? Is it desirable to arrive at stasis? Wouldn't this lead to a mind closed to other possibilities? Isn't this the idea of Evolutionary Christianity?

George

I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist.

George