We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Whence Commith Evil?
| 144 | 16129 |
I have been sick since yesterday, stuck in bed all day yesterday, and have only managed to reach my computer do to the help of modern medicine. So now it is a proper time for the "Whence Commith Evil?" thread.
So were does "evil" come from? And I am not speaking for human evil, I am speaking for natural disasters, sickness, and other things that are "evil" but not caused by humans. Why would your god create that? And if it wasn't your god who created it, who was it? And why doesn't your god simply stop it? And if your god is for some reason unable to stop disease, then why can modern medicine stop what your god can't? And if your god causes it, then why can modern medicine stop it? Is medicine more powerful than your god?
- 144 Replies
I mean, if the only goal of life is to spread your DNA as far as possible, It's better to have a great sense of duty for your species than to keep whining about your own life and your own happiness.
I need to clarify what you mean by individual focused intelligence. Do you mean individuals possessing intelligence? :/ Not really clear there.
Also, I doubt that's the purpose of evolution. To spread your DNA. It's merely to survive, but it doesn't necessarily mean to survive to spread your DNA.
I tend to follow Walker's viewpoint. Evil is something we as humans have conjured up as a notion over the ages.
Pretty my point of view too.
As such, I would assert that evil is something that only emerges in relation with empathy or selfconsciousness; in short, related to the Theory of mind. First, you must have a concept about what you would perceive as evil to yourself (what you perceive as something 'wrong' done to you), before projecting it on others actions or any event.
Without that, I guess it is simply things happening and you reacting to it in the best way you come up with, without wasting to much thoughts about it's meaning.
It would be interesting to find out whether apes have a certain concept of evil or wrong, or not..
It would be interesting to find out whether apes have a certain concept of evil or wrong, or not..
I'm sure they get angry over bananas sometimes, and hold kangaroo trials...
Alright, I'm kidding.
So.
As individual focused intelligence I mean that kind of intelligence that focuses on the single individual instead of the group, colony or species, like feelings but also passions, interests, wishes, and so on.
Just to clarify, the other kind of intelligence is that make the ants incredibly loyal with the colony and carnivore animals to not eat each other.
As for the purpose of the evolution, it's to survive, but not for the individual, for the species. So, if a species is spread all over the world, it has more possibilities to survive.
Hope that's clear because we're going offtopic.
@hahiha
If you have read my arguing withnichodemus it's quite my point too: for ants (it was my example of life without consciousness) there's not evil, it's only for humans (and other intelligent animals, if there are).
as for the believe on faith alone thing.... similar to the "can history be proven" thread... a christian might suggest that the bible is proof enough... and others may say that it would be enough if you prove that it is true. unless you were present at the moment in question when there were no video cameras were present and/or no dna traces left etc then how would you "know" that anything did in fact happen the way it was told.... similar events to what are related to you may have happened and what was specifically told to you that happened may not have happened as described.
We find evidence that backs the claims, preferably physical evidence. For instance the claim that hundreds of people witnessed Jesus's miracles is unsupported as we have only the one source telling us this and nothing even by hear say from any of these hundreds of people. Given this the use of the Bible as evidence just becomes circular.
if all we're left with is a book with which we cannot verify much if any of it...and someone is skeptical and won't acknowledge that there is even a tiny sliver of truth with in the pages then I would think the only thing left to tell that person is that you're going to have to have faith that it happened.
If we can't verify the claim we shouldn't accept it as true. There in is the problem I have with the requirement or even use of faith.
some people see improbabilities such as tumors ,that were expected to grow and kill an individual, disappearing w/o reason as miracles that only a power beyond their comprehension would have to the ability to fix.
others will just say that it happened and that the person is just very lucky and maybe that we just don't understand the science behind why the tumor died.
Another possibility would be a misdiagnosis. Without further knowledge of what happened in such a scenario it would be hard to say for sure, but jumping to supernatural causes is looking at things backwards as you are unjustly ruling out other likely possibilities. it's not just saying they were lucky, etc. It's keeping those possibilities open and not jumping directly to something more fanciful and improbably that would require far more explanation or even be impossible to confirm.
Just to clarify, the other kind of intelligence is that make the ants incredibly loyal with the colony and carnivore animals to not eat each other.
Not really. Ants have no intelligence whatsoever, they live purely by instincts. And hate to tell you but tons of carnivore animals eat each other.
Not really. Ants have no intelligence whatsoever, they live purely by instincts. And hate to tell you but tons of carnivore animals eat each other.
if a human (supposed ultimate known intelligent (my proposition)) is hungry enough... and there's another's dead remains just sitting here... and human 1 has no other alternative... human 1 would may end up eating the remains of that other person to stay alive. its happened multiple times w/ those stranded in harsh environments... i'm not sure where you guys were going with this but intelligence doesn't always keep you from eating something taboo... (and the still wild people of some islands or rainforests still eat man flesh)...
and as for animals not having emotions... i would think some dogs (if not all) do... i had 2 dogs... I recently had to bury one
( :'( ). my other dog laid by the burial site and would howl from time to time right after. His demeanor visibly changed. there was significantly less pep in his step for a few days.... and (may just be my opinion...probably is) he looked sad.
i still hold to the idea that unless there is a guiding force behind the actions of a natural phenomena like a tsunami or a tornado it is a neutral force that is neither good nor evil... it may benefit or detriment those affected... but i wouldn't slap a "good/evil" tag on it for that.
( :'( ). my other dog laid by the burial site and would howl from time to time right after. His demeanor visibly changed. there was significantly less pep in his step for a few days.... and (may just be my opinion...probably is) he looked sad.
Sorry for your loss, I had a cat do something very similar.
i still hold to the idea that unless there is a guiding force behind the actions of a natural phenomena like a tsunami or a tornado it is a neutral force that is neither good nor evil... it may benefit or detriment those affected... but i wouldn't slap a "good/evil" tag on it for that.
In some religious views God is that force, even with our modern understanding of such events. Still though many religious people claim God created this world, and if this is so even if he was not responsible for these events directly he would have been responsible for creating the conditions necessary for such disasters to happen. Further applying his omniscience and omnipotence to this equation he would have known of these events and has done nothing to stop them even though he would be able to.
As Walker said "Either God doesn't exist, and so there is no evil other than what we create by opposing our moral standards, or he does exist as purported, however he is not moral, or he is simply a wicked creature."
Aaargh nichodemus! In last page you said that is not proven that ants doesn't have feelings and now you say ants haven't intelligence at all!
However instinct comes from the brain, so they are intelligence. Only it's not a conscious intelligence.
And I was meaning lion doesn't eat lion and tiger doesn't eat tiger. This is almost always true.
Aaargh nichodemus! In last page you said that is not proven that ants doesn't have feelings and now you say ants haven't intelligence at all!
Feelings and intelligence do not have a link :/ I may feel angry, but so can a twit or a genius.
And I said there hasn't been conclusive research, but scientists have roughly ranked animals according to their intelligence already. Roughly.
And I was meaning lion doesn't eat lion and tiger doesn't eat tiger. This is almost always true.
Snakes eat one and another. Mantis do. Sharks do.
Well, snakes, mantis and sharks have their reason. Plus notice that those are not social animals, so their group intelligence is fewer.
Well, snakes, mantis and sharks have their reason. Plus notice that those are not social animals, so their group intelligence is fewer.
1500 species do it.
Classical vertebrate examples include the chimpanzees where groups of adult males have been observed to attack and consume conspecific infants.
Hmmm. Social animals too.
Feelings and intelligence do not have a link
You really need to define what you mean by 'intelligence'. I keep seeing it tossed around on this thread, however for the sake of a debate such terms need to be clearly defined.
I don't even know why intelligence has been brought up as a point by Gaboloth in relation to evil's sources.
Well I gave my explanation, then you started whining about it so I tried to explain it. Sorry.
You must be logged in to post a reply!