Is the Tide Turning on Religious Belief?

[Dr. Who]

Nope. Mankind thought that "man is the measure of all things" centuries ago and it was shown wrong. Where's the progress? Again, seems like regress.

“Man is the measure of all things, of things that are, while they are, of things that aren’t, while they aren’t.” This is interpreted to mean that knowledge can be altered thanks to the changing circumstances of human perception.

While it's true that each individual's reality is based on his or her perceptions, such perceptions are filtered through biases and limited by the individual's experience and abilities, so actual knowledge cannot be reliably determined that way, it's too subjective. By consolidating the perceptions of many individuals we can make a far more objective determination but with the caveat that we are still limited by that which we have not yet discovered, so we may nonetheless be incorrect. Perfect knowledge may not be attainable but the quest for that knowledge is as important as its achievement.

[Chris]

“Man is the measure of all things, of things that are, while they are, of things that aren’t, while they aren’t.” This is interpreted to mean that knowledge can be altered thanks to the changing circumstances of human perception.

While it's true that each individual's reality is based on his or her perceptions, such perceptions are filtered through biases and limited by the individual's experience and abilities, so actual knowledge cannot be reliably determined that way, it's too subjective. By consolidating the perceptions of many individuals we can make a far more objective determination but with the caveat that we are still limited by that which we have not yet discovered, so we may nonetheless be incorrect. Perfect knowledge may not be attainable but the quest for that knowledge is as important as its achievement.

Already posted part of Plato's counterargument from "Theaetetus."

[Dr. Who]

Because evil exists. It's not a theistic phenomenon. So, no, I don't get your view.

It's a theistic concept. Absent the supernatural, evil is the function of the actions of individuals operating alone or in concert. It isn't a force. Individuals can be insane, they can be selfish, greedy, violent and malicious. Save for the mental health issues, the rest are simply character flaws that for one reason or another were not discouraged in the individual while they were a child. Poor upbringing, lack of upbringing or having parents with similar character flaws can be causative but so can experiences outside of the home. Even culture and religion can contribute to a phenomena known as "othering" whereby those outside of the group are dehumanized to the point where the normal rules of human behavior vis-a-vis the treatment of other people, no longer apply.

[Chris]

It's a theistic concept. Absent the supernatural, evil is the function of the actions of individuals operating alone or in concert. It isn't a force. Individuals can be insane, they can be selfish, greedy, violent and malicious. Save for the mental health issues, the rest are simply character flaws that for one reason or another were not discouraged in the individual while they were a child. Poor upbringing, lack of upbringing or having parents with similar character flaws can be causative but so can experiences outside of the home. Even culture and religion can contribute to a phenomena known as "othering" whereby those outside of the group are dehumanized to the point where the normal rules of human behavior vis-a-vis the treatment of other people, no longer apply.

OK, so evil is theistic concept and the atheist has no concept of it at all. And we're back to the atheist asking a question about a non-existent problem with a non-existent God. IOW not only does the atheist not have an answer, he doesn't even have a question.

A: How can a good God permit evil?
T: What do you mean by God?
A: Nothing. Nonexistent.
T: What do you mean by evil?
A: Nothing. Nonexistent.
T: What do you mean by good?
A: Nothing. Nonexistent.
T: Does anything have meaning?
A: ????????????

[Dr. Who]

OK, so evil is theistic concept and the atheist has no concept of it at all. And we're back to the atheist asking a question about a non-existent problem with a non-existent God. IOW not only does the atheist not have an answer, he doesn't even have a question.

A: How can a good God permit evil?
T: What do you mean by God?
A: Nothing. Nonexistent.
T: What do you mean by evil?
A: Nothing. Nonexistent.
T: What do you mean by good?
A: Nothing. Nonexistent.
T: Does anything have meaning?
A: ????????????

When atheists are asking the question, it is based on what the theist believes. The theist believes in evil as more than just the negative choices of individuals. To the theist, or according to scripture, evil is a manifest force in the universe with the ability to influence behavior, so on that basis, given that the theist holds that God is the creator of all, He is then also the creator of evil and he permits evil to have the freedom to wreak havoc on Earth although he purportedly has the power to stop it or spare the innocent. The question is then, if God is a loving creator, why does he subject the harmless, the innocent and the good people in equal measure with the bad, to the malign forces of evil and given that He does (because it's usually a two-part question), why then is he worthy of adoration?

[Chris]

When atheists are asking the question, it is based on what the theist believes. The theist believes in evil as more than just the negative choices of individuals. To the theist, or according to scripture, evil is a manifest force in the universe with the ability to influence behavior, so on that basis, given that the theist holds that God is the creator of all, He is then also the creator of evil and he permits evil to have the freedom to wreak havoc on Earth although he purportedly has the power to stop it or spare the innocent. The question is then, if God is a loving creator, why does he subject the harmless, the innocent and the good people in equal measure with the bad, to the malign forces of evil and given that He does (because it's usually a two-part question), why then is he worthy of adoration?

If atheists reject God, Evil, Good as meaningless and nonexistent, as you have insisted, then the question is likewise meaningless and nonexistent and nothing a theist says will be meaningful to the atheist.

You've walked yourself into a corner.

Let me help you out, atheist Luke Russell, author of Evil: A Philosophical Investigation summarizes:

When asked to describe wartime atrocities, acts of terrorism, and serial killers, many of us for reach the word “evil”. But what does it mean to say that an action or a person is evil? Some philosophers have claimed that there is no such thing as evil, and that thinking in terms of evil is simplistic and dangerous. In response to this sceptical challenge, this book attempts to show that the concept of evil has a legitimate place within contemporary secular moral thought. It addresses questions concerning the nature of evil action, such as whether evil actions must be incomprehensible, whether evil actions can be banal, and whether there is a psychological hallmark that distinguishes evils from other wrongs. The book also explores issues regarding the nature of evil persons, including whether every evil person is an evildoer, whether every evil person is irredeemable, and whether a person could be evil merely by virtue of having evil feelings. The concept of evil is extreme, and is easily misused. Nonetheless, this book suggests that the concept of evil has an important role to play when it comes to evaluating and explaining the worst kind of wrongdoing.

He summarizes a chapter 1 The Secular Moral Concept of Evil:

This chapter asks whether the concept of evil is exclusively religious or supernaturally loaded, and what it means to say that evil exists. Some atheists refuse to use the word “evil” because of what they see as its religious connotations. Yet many other atheists use “evil” in condemning atrocities such as the Holocaust, and serial killers such as Ted Bundy. The concept of evil, like that of forgiveness, is available for use by theists and atheists alike, in contrast to an exclusively religious concept such as that of sin. Evil exists in the way that courage, malice, or honesty exist; not as a mysterious supernatural force that is capable of taking over a person, but as a character trait and as a moral property of actions. The chapter concludes with an explication of the philosophical method of conceptual analysis, which will be applied to the concept of evil.

I can find 100s if not 1000s of atheists arguing similarly.

But according to you and your definition they are impossible--meaningless and nonexistent.



If the Holocaust was not evil, that was it?

[Dr. Who]

If atheists reject God, Evil, Good as meaningless and nonexistent, as you have insisted, then the question is likewise meaningless and nonexistent and nothing a theist says will be meaningful to the atheist.

You've walked yourself into a corner.

Let me help you out, atheist Luke Russell, author of Evil: A Philosophical Investigation summarizes:

When asked to describe wartime atrocities, acts of terrorism, and serial killers, many of us for reach the word “evil”. But what does it mean to say that an action or a person is evil? Some philosophers have claimed that there is no such thing as evil, and that thinking in terms of evil is simplistic and dangerous. In response to this sceptical challenge, this book attempts to show that the concept of evil has a legitimate place within contemporary secular moral thought. It addresses questions concerning the nature of evil action, such as whether evil actions must be incomprehensible, whether evil actions can be banal, and whether there is a psychological hallmark that distinguishes evils from other wrongs. The book also explores issues regarding the nature of evil persons, including whether every evil person is an evildoer, whether every evil person is irredeemable, and whether a person could be evil merely by virtue of having evil feelings. The concept of evil is extreme, and is easily misused. Nonetheless, this book suggests that the concept of evil has an important role to play when it comes to evaluating and explaining the worst kind of wrongdoing.

He summarizes a chapter 1 The Secular Moral Concept of Evil:

This chapter asks whether the concept of evil is exclusively religious or supernaturally loaded, and what it means to say that evil exists. Some atheists refuse to use the word “evil” because of what they see as its religious connotations. Yet many other atheists use “evil” in condemning atrocities such as the Holocaust, and serial killers such as Ted Bundy. The concept of evil, like that of forgiveness, is available for use by theists and atheists alike, in contrast to an exclusively religious concept such as that of sin. Evil exists in the way that courage, malice, or honesty exist; not as a mysterious supernatural force that is capable of taking over a person, but as a character trait and as a moral property of actions. The chapter concludes with an explication of the philosophical method of conceptual analysis, which will be applied to the concept of evil.

I can find 100s if not 1000s of atheists arguing similarly.

But according to you and your definition they are impossible--meaningless and nonexistent.



If the Holocaust was not evil, that was it?

See the bolded. That was essentially what I was saying, however, you asked how an atheist would account for evil and the answer is that the atheist cannot account for the individual characters of others. You could as easily ask the atheist to account for courage. Again, there is no accounting for courage because it is a property of individual character. The atheist denies that Evil as a supernatural force exists, not that actions, due to their utter depravity, may be characterized as evil. The Holocaust was an evil deed perpetrated by a psychopath who engaged people by force (the German military) or nature (the SS) to carry out. However genocide, while universally deemed an atrocity and the worst kind of war crime, is the result of the phenomena of "othering" that gives people permission to abandon their moral principles because the "others" cease to be considered human. Hitler successfully "othered" the Jews, making their extermination seem not an immoral act but an act of nationalism - even a patriotic duty. No atheist would deny the power of psychological manipulation to rationalize the irrational.

[Mister D]

So, we've established that the Holocaust was "evil". Why was it evil? Because enough people agreed that it was?

[Chris]

See the bolded. That was essentially what I was saying, however, you asked how an atheist would account for evil and the answer is that the atheist cannot account for the individual characters of others. You could as easily ask the atheist to account for courage. Again, there is no accounting for courage because it is a property of individual character. The atheist denies that Evil as a supernatural force exists, not that actions, due to their utter depravity, may be characterized as evil. The Holocaust was an evil deed perpetrated by a psychopath who engaged people by force (the German military) or nature (the SS) to carry out. However genocide, while universally deemed an atrocity and the worst kind of war crime, is the result of the phenomena of "othering" that gives people permission to abandon their moral principles because the "others" cease to be considered human. Hitler successfully "othered" the Jews, making their extermination seem not an immoral act but an act of nationalism - even a patriotic duty. No atheist would deny the power of psychological manipulation to rationalize the irrational.

See the bolded. That was essentially what I was saying...that actions, due to their utter depravity, may be characterized as evil....

And what I said over 200 posts ago:

In the context of this thread, in particular FK's asking about the evil of raping a child, @Cletus had a couple more, I offered several ranging from Hilter to abortion, no supernatural force was implied, in fact in reply to Wolf I demonstrated with quotes from a couple Christians on it that we all think of it in terms of self-responsibility, more generally the moral responsibility of people who do these things.

I think people are taking some expression of it as metaphor literally. Supernatural dark forces are those forces within man--pride, greed, selfishness, etc--that lead him to commit morally reprehensible actions....

So once again we find the theist and the atheist saying the same thing, accounting for evil in the choices man makes. No one is arguing it's a supernatural force, except for atheists like you insisting theists do when in fact they don't.

And, again, this is predictable given the great influence Christianity has had and continues to have in the West.

Still, after many posts saying atheists don't acknowledge evil, now suddenly you have reversed yourself.

[Chris]

So, we've established that the Holocaust was "evil". Why was it evil? Because enough people agreed that it was?

It's taken many pages to get Who to admit evil exists. "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."