(no subject)

[novapsyche]

So, for those who believe: Is evil a natural force? a supernatural force? Is it part of "God's plan" or the "grand design", or it is something wholly apart from such?

Comments

On Evil.

[ryoganox.livejournal.com]

Evil is not a natural force, Nature is neither Good nor Evil, Nature just is.

I feel that Evil, is part of God's design. Mostly cause of my views of "Good and Evil". I have always believed you can not have one without the other. For without Evil, you could never know what is Evil or Wrong. It is part of a cosmic design to help understand right and wrong.

Ryan

Re: On Evil.

[artofcode.livejournal.com]

Indeed, sort of.

Without humans, though, there would be no one to invent the concepts of good and evil. Maybe we are here to lend our perspective to nature's behavior.

If so, can we influence nature's behavior?

Re: On Evil.

[ryoganox.livejournal.com]

I don't think it is a Human concept. I feel that for God to establish order to the Chaos of creation, rules were needed. Balance was needed. The "Laws of the Jungle" do not work for the development and growth of humanity. Good and Evil were designed to help with the creation of "Civilization" So in part, it is a human concept. If we were to follow the laws of nature, might makes right.

We can influence nature's "moral" code. We have, with the domestication of several wild animals. Through our domestication we have instilled our morals upon these animals. "Obedience" training is nothing more than enforcing our basic moral system upon the animals.

Ryan

Re: On Evil.

[artofcode.livejournal.com]

Hmm, ok. Sounds like a pretty solid position.
I don't completely agree, but it sounds pretty good.

[tmbgman.livejournal.com]

Evil: That natural chaotic force, entropy.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

So for you it is a natural force or part of the universe?

[tmbgman.livejournal.com]

Basically it means I agree with ryoganox or as Robert Smith would say...

The world is neither fair nor unfair
The idea is just a way for us to understand
But the world is neither fair nor unfair
So one survives
The others die
And you always want
A reason why
But the world is neither just nor unjust
Its just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it

-Where the Birds Always Sing

[artofcode.livejournal.com]

cool.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

By the way, I don't see how entropy or chaos can be equated with evil. Likened to it, fine.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

None of the above. Evil is not. It is the ultimate negation. Good exists, good is. Evil is simply the absence of good, a handy bit of nomenclature to keep ideas clear in our heads. I find this analogy to be the most useful:

Evil is to good as cold is to heat. Cold does not exist. Heat exists. Cold is merely a handy term that we give to the absence of heat. We do get interesting interplays do to something with more heat coming into contact with something with less heat, but cold is not a force or energy. It simply is not.

It is interesting to note that with out current understanding of physics, absolute zero converges with the complete stopping of molecular motion. However, molecular structure depends on motion, therefore at aboslute zero, molecular structure would collapse. In essence, existance would cease.

I believe it is the same with absolute evil .. that it is only a theory. I believe that existance depends on good, no matter how twisted and minimal it might be. In this way, there is no duality, no polar opposite to God.

So, evil is really just a term of relativity. We can certainly look at the world and see things that we would call evil. But evil is simply the result of an active will pushing good away. I also think that this is why every event, no matter how evil, seems to lead to at least *some* good.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

I believe evil is an adjective, not a force

[artofcode.livejournal.com]

Good point.
Reflects the human perspective on natural phenomena.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

Reflects the human perspective on natural phenomena.

not necessarily the human perspective. I think other animals and non-animals can recognize something evil. And I think evil things can happen even when there is no sentience to observe them. And the adjective can certainly apply to all phenomena, not just natural phenomena. In fact, I'm not sure purely natural phenomena can be evil, since evil is a moral designation and therefore seems to need the action of a moral being to at least trigger it. So for instance chemicals leeching into the water from a discarded battery can be unobserved evil, but resulting from the activity of a person. A shifting river opening a poisonous sinkhole is not evil at all. The results might be much the same, but the adjective could only apply to one.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

evil is a moral designation

Maybe that explains why I don't believe evil exists. In my opinion, morality is a social construct.

Our eyes naturally pick up color, and when we are young we are taught which colors are which. But color really doesn't exist--it is a trick of the mind to help us navigate in the world.

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

morality is definitely a social construct. so is color. they both exist.

you would have enjoyed speaking with a friend of mine at grad school who kept questioning whether the system we were describing really existed (yes) or whether we were really just discussing a construct that existed only in our minds (yes). I don't know if he ever understood how I could comfortably say yes both statements were true.

Just because we define how we talk about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

different wavelengths of light most definitely exist. They impact our eyes in different, describable ways. Are our eyes perfect or consistent instruments? no. are they consistent across people? no. Does the definition of color help us communicate and interpret our environment? yes. does color "exist"? I think it makes more sense to say that it does. Just like it makes sense to say you have a relationship to your cousin's wife. Socially constructed, but nonetheless true.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

If morality is a moral construct, and evil is a designation (if I remember your words correctly), then evil is merely an abstraction that really has no value other than what we place in it.

As far as the color analogy, IIRC from a discussion in physics some weeks ago, the only "real" color in the universe is black. (I contended "no color", but the physicists all said, "The only color that exists is black, as it is the sum of all color." I acquiesed.) Color is an illusion, though it corresponds quite certainly to differing wavelengths of light. It is a matter of light hitting the retina and how we observe that light.

If you read Cosmic Consciousness by Bucke, you'll see among his argument that the sense of color has changed since man has recorded history. The two main colors man has acknowledged from time immemorial are black and red. The chromatic scale has widened since then. For a while there were five major colors, then more (I don't have specifics as I don't have the book in front of me [but now that I think about it, I should probably put it on my to-buy list]). From there the scale has broadened. And that's only in the last 6,000 years.

[artofcode.livejournal.com]

I'm getting a mixed message. Are you saying that evil events are "evil" because it was caused by some being, as opposed to occurring "naturally"?

Maybe the being was just careless, or didn't understand the ramifications. Or maybe the being manages to catch food, stay warm, stay alive because of the "evil" action.

Maybe "evil" is too strong a word for some things that are just really unfortunate chance occurances. Maybe some "evil" things are just bad luck or random misfortune.

I think there is an element of intent behind good, bad, and "evil" actions.