Christianity

[iambiguous]

Yo, IC!!!

I think I might have responded to one of those videos.

Okay, above, IC recommended to Gary Childress that he "try the video on meaning"

That's this one: https://youtu.be/NKGnXgH_CzE

Go ahead, watch it. I did.

Basically, what is being argued here is that, as the Christian woman says, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. That as philosophers like Camus noted, No God and human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd.

In other words [and I agree with this] if there is no God than there is no basis for objective morality. It is all merely the result of the evolution of life on Earth and "human conventions".

So, the atheist suggests that "human flourishing" ought to be the criteria. And the Christian woman then points out [rightly in my view] that if there is no God than who is to say what flourishing means? She points out how Hitler thought that his Nazi policies were what would accomplish this. And, she notes, certain philosophers have argued that using the tools of philosophy will not lead us to objective morality. And I agree with this in turn.

Then she gets to the bottom line for most Christians: "What happens after you die"?

No God, no afterlife.

She sums it all up: "If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. He intentionally created you. So, your life ultimately does have meaning and value and purpose."

But then the Atheist makes the point, "Well, that doesn't prove that Christianity is true".

And she agrees. She merely points out again how comforted and consoled you can be if you do believe in Christianity.


Edit:

How does this video demonstrate to us that the Christian God resides in Heaven? Would not many folks here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...make the same claims about their own God?

Let me guess. If I truly understood what was being conveyed by the Christian Lady, I could not possibly doubt that the Christian God resides in Heaven.

Or is there another even more "powerful" video?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Excellent, Iambiguous! I have no problem at any level that you have issues with my style & content.

I am here for two basic reasons: 1) clarify my thinking as things are discussed here and as I continue my own reading. 2) to have lighthearted fun.

No, not rooted in Dasein but rather that your head is rooted up your back end. There is a difference!

[iambiguous]

Excellent, Iambiguous! I have no problem at any level that you have issues with my style & content.

I am here for two basic reasons: 1) clarify my thinking as things are discussed here and as I continue my own reading. 2) to have lighthearted fun.

No, not rooted in Dasein but rather that your head is rooted up your back end. There is a difference!

Again, it's not like I put a gun to his head, dictated the above, and ordered him to post it.

He did all of that of his own volition!!!

Well, in a free will world, of course.
















[like shooting fish in barrel]

[Iwannaplato]

and with that word, you'd have to banish all the synonyms for it, such as "bad," "wrong," "nasty," "unhealthy," "antisocial," "impractical," and so on..

Those are not synonyms for the word "evil".

All are words that serve the same concept. Some are more pejorative than others...but they're all ways of saying, "This thing is bad."

And by banishing the word "evil," you change nothing. All the phenomena to which it has formerly been applied continue: except now your stock of terms to describe them adequately may be impoverished. For example, is it enough to say that "pedophilia is unhelpful"? Or that "murder is antisocial?" Are those not palid, wimpy ways of trying to express a level of badness that's far better captured by a word like "evil"?

"Genocide is nasty": does that seem a reasonable description to you?

It seems like you are saying they are synonyms and then they are not synonyms because they don't work in sentences where 'evil' would.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Again, it's not like I put a gun to his head, dictated the above, and ordered him to post it.

I blame Dasein.

Dasein made me what I am!

Soon Iambiguous you’ll be in an eternal hell-realm. Might as while have a bit of fun for the time remaining, no?

[iambiguous]

Again, it's not like I put a gun to his head, dictated the above, and ordered him to post it.

I blame Dasein.

Dasein made me what I am!

Soon Iambiguous you’ll be in an eternal hell-realm. Might as while have a bit of fun for the time remaining, no?

Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- is more excruciating to come upon here than these ponderous pedants trying to be clever.

You've been thumped, my friend. Accept it and move on.

Or, in your case, up...up into the clouds with Harry and his ilk.




He said in jest.

[Harbal]

and with that word, you'd have to banish all the synonyms for it, such as "bad," "wrong," "nasty," "unhealthy," "antisocial," "impractical," and so on..

Those are not synonyms for the word "evil".

All are words that serve the same concept. Some are more pejorative than others...but they're all ways of saying, "This thing is bad."

If, by evil, you are only referring to a particular degree of badness, then it seems I have misunderstood your use of the word. I was under the impression you meant more than that by it.

And by banishing the word "evil," you change nothing. All the phenomena to which it has formerly been applied continue: except now your stock of terms to describe them adequately may be impoverished.

Yes, the phenomena continue, but perhaps some of the misconceptions about the causes of the phenomena might diminish.

For example, is it enough to say that "pedophilia is unhelpful"? Or that "murder is antisocial?" Are those not palid, wimpy ways of trying to express a level of badness that's far better captured by a word like "evil"?

Yes, "unhelpful" and "antisocial" could be thought of as palid, wimpy ways of describing paedophilia and murder, but that is hardly surprising considering you chose those two words specifically because of their palidity and wimpiness in relation to the things you have assigned them to. Could you really not think of anything stronger?

"Genocide is nasty": does that seem a reasonable description to you?

Certainly more reasonable than saying genocide isn't nasty. But, again, you chose the word, "nasty", specifically because of its inadequacy. "Genocide is an atrocity": Does that seen an unreasonable description to you? Or what about abomination, or genocide is monstrous?

Those words expess an extremeness in degree of badness without implying anything about the cause of it, other than its being unjustifiable. The word, "evil", on the other hand, seems to perform the dual role of decribing both an action or event, and the reason for its happening. You could, for example, say that the Holocaust was evil, and perpetrated by men who were motivated by evil, which, in my opinion, is a dangerously mistaken way of thinking about it. The Holocaust was brought about by human beings, behaving in a way that human beings are capable of. Human nature at its worst, coupled with a particular set of circumstances. To understand why such things happen, and in turn figure out how to prevent them from happening, we need to better understand human nature, what can go wrong within it, and how it goes wrong. While ever we attribute such things to the mysterious dark force we call evil, we are not going to get very far in understanding how stop them.

[Harbal]

"it implies they have an extra dimension to them beyond the mundane. And that is where the superstitious nonsense comes in."

Indeed harbal. The concept/word 'evil' stigmatizes with morality and mystery what otherwise falls under the general rubric of natural intuition in social animals. As the great X factor philosopher HumAnize once said 'don't do evil shit', which would involve stuff like philosophically unjustified murder. Like I know what he means and if u don't have brain damage, u do too. All that's being inferred here is the existence of a natural altruism that is very statistically real in human societies.

But bro when it's called 'evil' a spooky element is added that gets people all bent out of shape and horrified... and their misunderstanding of the cause of the 'evil' thing is matched only by their unforgiving disposition toward the phenomena. It's really a bad situation. Human behavior is mystified by the concept 'evil' and in being so, attention is taken away from the truth of the matter; that man is responsible for himself and there are no godly standards or rules or laws or providence in general to appeal to. Thank u and good day gentlemen.

Yes, I think that is kind of what I'm saying.

[Immanuel Can]

Those are not synonyms for the word "evil".

All are words that serve the same concept. Some are more pejorative than others...but they're all ways of saying, "This thing is bad."

And by banishing the word "evil," you change nothing. All the phenomena to which it has formerly been applied continue: except now your stock of terms to describe them adequately may be impoverished. For example, is it enough to say that "pedophilia is unhelpful"? Or that "murder is antisocial?" Are those not palid, wimpy ways of trying to express a level of badness that's far better captured by a word like "evil"?

"Genocide is nasty": does that seem a reasonable description to you?

It seems like you are saying they are synonyms and then they are not synonyms because they don't work in sentences where 'evil' would.

They are synonyms to the extent that they are all what we call "negative value-laden terms". But not all synonyms serve the same function; and that's the reason for synonyms. "Nasty" isn't quite the same as "unhealthy," which isn't quite the same as "bad," which isn't a complete equivalent for "evil." But they all are in the same linguistic cluster of synonyms, and are variably used to describe phenomena we want to mark as bad.

But can we easily dispense with "evil" as one of that cluster?

Let's take an example: let's say we stop calling genocide "evil." Why we would want to do that is one question: but let's leave that unasked for now.

Will our decision to stop using the word "evil" in reference to genocides make them less likely to happen? Will it make them less egregious? Will it make them fewer? None of the above, of course: the phenomenon of genocide will still be with us as much as ever. However, as we said, we're not going to call it "evil." But what shall we call it? "Bad"? "Nasty"? "Unhealthy?" "Impractical?" "Naughty?"

If we choose an inadequate pejorative, we risk trivializing it: we make it sound like a slap-ion-the-wrist offense, or perhaps not even much of an offense at all. But if we choose a strong enough pejorative, (such as, maybe "wicked," or "diabolical," or "disgusting," or "vile") have we made any advance on the alternative of simply calling it "evil"? It's hard to see that we've won anything there; and the reason is that there are things that happen in this world that fully deserve our strongest pejoratives: and genocide would surely be one of them.

I have no difficulty calling genocide an "evil." And I don't think any morally alert person really could. So it's hard to see the point of H.'s objection, other than that perhaps he hates the idea of God, and fears that a word like "evil" implies backing by a divine assessment, not merely by a human one. But human assessments can be objectively apt, and can be consonant with divine ones, even if the speaker refuses to acknowledge that fact. And as I said, banishing "evil" will not change the number, the severity or the frequency of the undesirable phenomenon.

The fear is, in the absence of a sufficiently strong and apt term by which to assign moral value to an act, we just might trivialize and thus extenuate it. I'm for keeping the term "evil."

[Immanuel Can]

If, by evil, you are only referring to a particular degree of badness, then it seems I have misunderstood your use of the word. I was under the impression you meant more than that by it.[/wuote]
More? What "more"?

Could you really not think of anything stronger?

Genocide. See my last response to Iwanna.

"Genocide is nasty": does that seem a reasonable description to you?

Certainly more reasonable than saying genocide isn't nasty. But, again, you chose the word, "nasty", specifically because of its inadequacy. "Genocide is an atrocity": Does that seen an unreasonable description to you? Or what about abomination, or genocide is monstrous?

You're into the same problem: none of those words is better than "evil." For one thing, "abomination" is a religious word, and unless I misunderstand your point, I think you want to get rid of religion-implying terms. And "monstrous"? That can just mean "very big," and thus totally lack any pejorative connotation.

The word, "evil", on the other hand, seems to perform the dual role of decribing both an action or event, and the reason for its happening.

I think I see what bothers you; correct me, if I'm wrong.

You don't like that it might possibly be construed to suggest there is a common nature in "evil" things, one that raises the question not just of actions but of motives. Have I come near to your concern?

The Holocaust was brought about by human beings, behaving in a way that human beings are capable of.

Quite so.

Human nature at its worst, coupled with a particular set of circumstances.

But why "worst"?

I'm not condoning the Holocaust: rather, I'm asking why that word strikes you as apt. If the Holocaust is an expression of human nature, and human nature is nothing more than an expression of the larger, impersonal world of Nature, then "better" and "worse" are gratuitious terms. Getting pulled down by lions is "worse" for the individual gazelle, but "better" for the lions, and possibly (according to survival of the fittest) "better" for the herd and "better" for evolutionary development. So gazelle death isn't really so bad.

But with the Holocaust, we (rightly, I think) want to say much more. We want to say that it was a horrendous badness, of such a kind that it truly DOES shake the very foundations of our confidence in human nature. And I don't think I'm at all alone in that impression, even among non-Jews and raw secularists. The Holocaust was a consummate disillusionment moment in the 20th Century, one with lessons embedded in it that should never be forgotten -- not least of which is the one you're decrying, namely that human nature, which we are sometimes tempted to valourize and worship, is capable not merely of great achievement but in that achievement, also of unspeakable evil.

To understand why such things happen, and in turn figure out how to prevent them from happening, we need to better understand human nature, what can go wrong within it, and how it goes wrong.

"Wrong"?

You see, all that does is replace the pejorative "evil" with the word "wrong." But "wrong" is far more tame.

While ever we attribute such things to the mysterious dark force we call evil, we are not going to get very far in understanding how stop them.

I wonder whether that will turn out to be true; or whether, in refusing even to entertain the postulate that perhaps there is an affinity in all evil, we will simply overlook the basic hypothesis that would give us clarity and understanding about what we're dealing with.

In any case, we're not in a position to decide that in advance, are we? I mean, you're not going to say you have evidence that there is no common thread between various kind of evil, I assume, because I can't imagine what such evidence would even look like. So I think we might do better to remain open to all hypotheses, rather than gratuitiously foreclosing on one.

[ThinkOfOne]

If, by evil, you are only referring to a particular degree of badness, then it seems I have misunderstood your use of the word. I was under the impression you meant more than that by it.[/wuote]
More? What "more"?

Could you really not think of anything stronger?

Genocide. See my last response to Iwanna.

"Genocide is nasty": does that seem a reasonable description to you?

Certainly more reasonable than saying genocide isn't nasty. But, again, you chose the word, "nasty", specifically because of its inadequacy. "Genocide is an atrocity": Does that seen an unreasonable description to you? Or what about abomination, or genocide is monstrous?

You're into the same problem: none of those words is better than "evil." For one thing, "abomination" is a religious word, and unless I misunderstand your point, I think you want to get rid of religion-implying terms. And "monstrous"? That can just mean "very big," and thus totally lack any pejorative connotation.

The word, "evil", on the other hand, seems to perform the dual role of decribing both an action or event, and the reason for its happening.

I think I see what bothers you; correct me, if I'm wrong.

You don't like that it might possibly be construed to suggest there is a common nature in "evil" things, one that raises the question not just of actions but of motives. Have I come near to your concern?

The Holocaust was brought about by human beings, behaving in a way that human beings are capable of.

Quite so.

Human nature at its worst, coupled with a particular set of circumstances.

But why "worst"?

I'm not condoning the Holocaust: rather, I'm asking why that word strikes you as apt. If the Holocaust is an expression of human nature, and human nature is nothing more than an expression of the larger, impersonal world of Nature, then "better" and "worse" are gratuitious terms. Getting pulled down by lions is "worse" for the individual gazelle, but "better" for the lions, and possibly (according to survival of the fittest) "better" for the herd and "better" for evolutionary development. So gazelle death isn't really so bad.

But with the Holocaust, we (rightly, I think) want to say much more. We want to say that it was a horrendous badness, of such a kind that it truly DOES shake the very foundations of our confidence in human nature. And I don't think I'm at all alone in that impression, even among non-Jews and raw secularists. The Holocaust was a consummate disillusionment moment in the 20th Century, one with lessons embedded in it that should never be forgotten -- not least of which is the one you're decrying, namely that human nature, which we are sometimes tempted to valourize and worship, is capable not merely of great achievement but in that achievement, also of unspeakable evil.

To understand why such things happen, and in turn figure out how to prevent them from happening, we need to better understand human nature, what can go wrong within it, and how it goes wrong.

"Wrong"?

You see, all that does is replace the pejorative "evil" with the word "wrong." But "wrong" is far more tame.

While ever we attribute such things to the mysterious dark force we call evil, we are not going to get very far in understanding how stop them.

I wonder whether that will turn out to be true; or whether, in refusing even to entertain the postulate that perhaps there is an affinity in all evil, we will simply overlook the basic hypothesis that would give us clarity and understanding about what we're dealing with.

In any case, we're not in a position to decide that in advance, are we? I mean, you're not going to say you have evidence that there is no common thread between various kind of evil, I assume, because I can't imagine what such evidence would even look like. So I think we might do better to remain open to all hypotheses, rather than gratuitiously foreclosing on one.

The word "evil" has become a very loaded term. It is often employed to elicit emotional reactions rather than logical ones. For that reason, it is frequently employed as demagoguery. For example:

No one can deny that the term ‘evil’ can be harmful or dangerous when it is misapplied, used perniciously, or used without sensitivity to complicated historical or political contexts. For instance, it is likely that by calling terrorists ‘evildoers’ and Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ‘the axis of evil’ former U.S. President George W. Bush made it more likely that suspected terrorists would be mistreated and less likely that there would be peaceful relations between the peoples and governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea and the peoples and government of the United States.

From <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/>

[Immanuel Can]

The word "evil" has become a very loaded term. It is often employed to elicit emotional reactions rather than logical ones. For that reason, it is frequently employed as demagoguery.

The possibility of abuse of something, however, is no argument against its right use. The same could be said of all language: propagandists can abuse it. So there's really no compelling argument from that observation, I think, except that we be vigilant as to how a term is being employed.

[ThinkOfOne]

The word "evil" has become a very loaded term. It is often employed to elicit emotional reactions rather than logical ones. For that reason, it is frequently employed as demagoguery.

The possibility of abuse of something, however, is no argument against its right use. The same could be said of all language: propagandists can abuse it. So there's really no compelling argument from that observation, I think, except that we be vigilant as to how a term is being employed.

For many, in the US anyway, it has become a "dog whistle" term. They hear the whistle and react. It's why Trump employs it so often. Where's the "vigilance" from Christians? If Christians want to preserve its "right use", why haven't they done so? Perhaps because so many are busy reacting to and/or sounding the whistle?

[Iwannaplato]

They are synonyms to the extent that they are all what we call "negative value-laden terms". But not all synonyms serve the same function; and that's the reason for synonyms.

Right, but it seemed like you were saying that Harbal's sense there was a problem was not possible since there were the other synonyms he and we use. But if they do not serve the same function and there are problems, as you list yourself, with using other synonyms in certain instances, then the fact that someone might use synonyms for a word does not mean they are go against their own position.

"Nasty" isn't quite the same as "unhealthy," which isn't quite the same as "bad," which isn't a complete equivalent for "evil." But they all are in the same linguistic cluster of synonyms, and are variably used to describe phenomena we want to mark as bad.

To make as negative yes.

But can we easily dispense with "evil" as one of that cluster?

If it serves a function we don't want like or think is good, sure. If we had a philosophical position that ruled out or was morally against nuances or meanings of a word, sure.

Let's take an example: let's say we stop calling genocide "evil." Why we would want to do that is one question: but let's leave that unasked for now.

Will our decision to stop using the word "evil" in reference to genocides make them less likely to happen?

Will it make them less egregious? Will it make them fewer? None of the above, of course: the phenomenon of genocide will still be with us as much as ever. However, as we said, we're not going to call it "evil." But what shall we call it? "Bad"? "Nasty"? "Unhealthy?" "Impractical?" "Naughty?"

If we choose an inadequate pejorative, we risk trivializing it:

You'll have to ask Harbal which adjective he would use. But we have all sorts of intensifiers in English.

I would guess, and Harbal will have to weigh in for himself, that for many the word evil comes with a couple of senses 1) that the person or group involved thinks of themselves as opposing the good. They know X is good and they do Y with the perverse intention of going against the good. And actually in genocide I am not sure that's happening. Other acts, I think it might apply more, but generally I see genocidal actions carried out in the name of doing some good and they have always required propaganda aimed at telling people this. But more importantly 2) 'Evil' is often associated with a transcendent force - it can be associated with Lucifer or whatever the leader of the negative transcendent force is in a certain worldview - or it can be more abstract. The problem here can be that it is no longer about behavior it is some subtle alignment with that force that evil people are doing, supposedly. There is this behind the scenes force that has taken them over or that they have given themselves to, often, yes, with that sense of knowingly added into the judgment. And ironically that might make genocide more likely. Because the Serbs can be told that, say, past grievances against the Bosnians, or past acts by the Bosnians, even generations before, can be attributed to the evil essence of Bosnians. Their neighbors may go and get water from the well, just like we do. And feed their chickens just like we do and have been decent neighbors, just like we are, but in essense not directly experiencable, they are aligned with Lucifer or evil.

I have no difficulty calling genocide an "evil." And I don't think any morally alert person really could. So it's hard to see the point of H.'s objection, other than that perhaps he hates the idea of God, and fears that a word like "evil" implies backing by a divine assessment, not merely by a human one.

It's certainly possible that his not believing in God is related to this. But I would think anyone, be their theist or atheist, could have sympathy and understanding given the religious use of the word 'evil'. Of course it may well have been ok and functioned like a synonym of 'bad' in instances where Harbal would agree with the church or churches and temples and....But given how it has been used, I think even theists can understand that there have been enormous excesses, and give the metaphysical nature brought into the air by the word 'evil' where it need not even show itself visibly in certain people and they can be condemned and also that it tend to indicate a complete otherness in the evil person, the person labelled with that word, it may also be not simply making alien what I would think any good Christian would think is actually not alien (the potential for doing bad things, even extremely reprehensible, catastrophic things being in all of us).

This doesn't mean you need to agree with the removal of the word. But I think some understanding instead of a kind of strawmannish incredulity.

But human assessments can be objectively apt, and can be consonant with divine ones, even if the speaker refuses to acknowledge that fact. And as I said, banishing "evil" will not change the number, the severity or the frequency of the undesirable phenomenon.

Right but that's looking at it in a kind of Newtonian specific instantce of cause and effect way. Perhaps if we didn't look at people in the ways associated with that word, that more general phenomenon might reduce the chances of terrible acts.

[Immanuel Can]

The word "evil" has become a very loaded term. It is often employed to elicit emotional reactions rather than logical ones. For that reason, it is frequently employed as demagoguery.

The possibility of abuse of something, however, is no argument against its right use. The same could be said of all language: propagandists can abuse it. So there's really no compelling argument from that observation, I think, except that we be vigilant as to how a term is being employed.

For many, in the US anyway, it has become a "dog whistle" term.

Ironically, the term "dog whistle" is itself a Leftist dog whistle. Sensible folks tend not to buy into that nonsense.