Evil can refer to acts or to a state of being. Of course we humans are not privy to the states of being of other humans. Acc. Christians, God can judge.

I cannot judge, of course, except by examining actions. But I agree with the Christain view. Evil is a state of immorality which may or may not lead to wicked acts. Evil is a personal quality; a defect. When we say behaviors are "evil" we mean they result from this quality. "Bad" simply means harmful.

I think what he was doing was rejecting the idea of a supernatural source of evil. That evil acts don't happen because of some demonic influence. Rather, actions should be judged in the circumstances in which they happen - and yes, they can be "bad."

When I say an action is "evil" - I mean it only in the common, not supernatural, usage of the word. — Questioner

Actions are never evil. They can be bad. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of a crime and sent to prison. This is clearly a "bad" thing. It is evil only if the judge had wicked motives for convicting the person incorrectly. If the conviction was merely an honest mistake, the action is bad but there was no evil involved.

Well, yes it will make a difference. Calling people evil, rather than their behavior, condemns the whole person - whereas "evil behavior" may be separated from who the person is. "Separating the behavior from the person" - is actually a mainstay of both parenting and psychology. It allows you to engage from a more compassionate place. Evil behavior may be rehabilitated, an evil person not so much. — Questioner

Nietzsche: "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."

Behavior can be good or bad -- but it is not "evil". This is the basic Christian position, but makes sense even for us non-Christians. Evil is the quality of a person, not an action. Let's posit two pedophiles, both locked in solitary confinement. One has repented, and if he were released would never commit another crime. The other is unrepentant, and if he were released would return to his evil ways, Can we really say both are equally "good" or "evil"? Neither is behaving in an evil manner (they can't -- they're locked up).

Behavior is never "evil" without intent. The person who reasonably believes he was defending himself is not guilty of violence -- even when he was not in danger. It's the intent, not the reality, that makes an action both evil and legally culpable. Behaviors can be (per Nietzsche) good or bad -- people can be good or evil (or, like most of us, a bit of both).

That wasn't my personal experience. For nearly 40 years of marriage, every day was an adventure. Every day had romance, right up until my husband died in 2021.

We dealt with serious illness, so maybe our expressions of love were counters to that. — Questioner

I get it. But adventure and homeostasis (stability) are at odds. Without uncertainty, there is no adventure.

I was fortunate to find true love in my marriage. It was the most stabilizing thing I have ever known. — Questioner

Romantic novels and movies END at marriage, because stability and adventure rarely coexist. A "romance" can refer to either a fictional adventure story, or to a love affair. Marriage -- in a sense -- ends "romance". So romantic love is destabilizing -- it becomes stable when the "romance" (i.e. adventure) ends.

And our prime directive as living organisms is to maintain homeostasis - in all of our systems. Balance is nature's rule. When we meet destabilizing factors, hate is among our repertoire of coping mechanisms — Questioner

But both love and hate are destabilizing -- the enemies of homeostasis. Ira Gershwin's lyric:

I was doing alright
Nothing but rainbows in my sight
I was doing alright
Til you came by.

So love is a destabilizing factor -- but it doesn't lead to hate (unless we are weirdos, whose unrequited love leads us to hate the object). WE long to become unbalanced -- we seek adventure -- and romantic love is an adventure.

The meaning of THING is an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated.

No "things" don't exist (acc. this definition). Therefore more things exist. Not one "thing" is non-existent.

Not necessarily. Love and hate begin as responses in the same neurological connections, but how they are ultimately conferred with meaning will depend on cultural factors, too — Questioner

The problem with reductionist explanations for human emotions is that they don't explain anything. Of course love and hate have "neurological connections". Where does that get us? Does it help us understand love or hate? It sounds "scientific" -- but what predictive or explanatory value does it have?

It might be that some day we can understand the neurological bases and triggers for love and hate. Until then, however, we gain more understanding from poetry, novels, essays and songs.

But the premise of my statement - we are products of natural selection - holds true. — Questioner

My complaint that this involves the logical mistake of "affirming the consequent" remains. We are (doubtless) products of both natural selection and random chance. It is a logical error to assume that because a trait exists, it must have conferred selective advantages. Of course in the case of vision, the selective advantages are obvious (although some creationists argue for irreducible complexity). Love and hate are less obvious. For one thing, attitudes toward love and hate have differed from culture to culture. If these emotions confer selective advantages for humans in general, wouldn't we expect our attitudes toward them to be similar cross-culturally?

Romantic love and its relation to marriage differs dramatically in different cultures.

It is probably true that all female mammals must have some emotional response to their offspring that leads them to nurture and nurse them. This obviously selfless behavior is essential for the continuance of the gene pool. But other forms of love (and hate) are less essential.

I am a retired high school biology teacher, and one of the many things that I told my students is that everything about us survived in us because it gave us some kind of advantage in the environment in which we were living. — Questioner

The logical error here is called "affirming the cosequent." Darwinian evolution is based on the notion that if a trait gives us a (genetic) advantage, it will tend to become more widespread. It is a logical error to assume that if a trait has become widespread, it must have given us an advantage.

This is paricularly true of culturally influenced feelings and behaviors, like love and hate. Of course it is possible (even probable) that a trait or behavior that has become common has conferred advantages, but assuming it must have done so is an error

We cannot assume that because wars, witch burnings, pograms, and inquisitions have often "survived", they must have been evolutionarily advantageous.

The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden doesn't even come close to the real human experience. — Athena

Actually, it does come close. Adam and Eve are enjoined from eating from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. This (I maintain) represents the advent of civilization, when moral rules must become codified, and knowledge of good and evil explicit. They are expelled from Eden, and must labor for their food (Abel becomes a herdsman, Cain a farmer). This suggests the move from hunting and gathering to agriculture -- which happened in the not distant past for those who first told the story.

I studied cultural anthropology in grad school, and some of my profs had studied with people who had recently made this switch. They all hated it. They hated the work; they hated being tied to the land. Many couldn't handle it, and though their slash and burn fields doubled their yield with an hour-a-day of daily weeding, they were often abandoned by the former hunters and gatherers, who wanted to visit their cousins in the next valley.

The physical record bears this out. Measures of health -- average height and longevity - decreased at the advent of civilization. This makes sense. A diet based mainly on the staple crop and contagious diseases that spread with crowded, urban conditions were probably the main culprits.

So the "Eden" of primitive life morphed into agriculture and civilization -- and slavery for huge swaths of the population. No wonder they longed for an Edenic past.

IN more general terms, a religious world view differs from a scientific one in that the scientific world view thinks we are progressing; the religious thinks we have fallen from an idyllic past. This is true for many religions (including the ancient Greeks', Athena) who told stories about the Gods walking the earth and breeding heroic children with humans in a glorified past.

If omniscience is infinite and beyond human comprehension, God’s actions are impossible to judge.

No. What follows is this:

If God’s actions are impossible to judge, then claims about God’s benevolence are equally impossible to justify.

You can’t have it both ways. — Truth Seeker

I don't need to have it both ways. It's one way, or the other. The Christian (which I am not) who believes the Bible is the Word of God is confronted with claims of God's "benevolence" along with histories of floods and slaughters of first-born sons. He is required by his faith to accept that God's actions are benevolent. I'm no expert on Christian apologetics -- if I were I could quote chapter and verse. But the problem doesn't seem impossible.

"Good" and "evil" are subjective concepts. So are "pleasure" and "pain". It's not impossible that an all-knowing and all-powerful (or, at least, far smarter and more powerful being than you or I) would have a different opinion about God's supposedly evil acts. After all, we humans have differing opinions. Slavery was once considered perfectly acceptable. So were lots of other things we now abhor. Why is it so difficult to accept that "perfect judgment" might differ from ours, especially when it is combined with knowledge of things (like the afterlife) about which we are ignorant?

I agree though (as I stated earlier) that if "benevolence" is defined as "in line with God's will", then saying God is "omnibenevolent" is meaningless.

By the way, lest I break the rules about careful writing, I know that "I" is grammatically correct. However, some Oxonian writer (I forget whom) once wrote: "When you hear a knock on the door and ask, "Who is it?', if the knocker answers, "I" he is using proper grammar, but you shouldn't let him in."

Wait, what's the good kind? — frank

Me.

When Europeans started trading with China in the 16th Century, they were a little shocked to discover that Christianity was already there. It was the Nestorian form, and had travelled there through Central Asia. There are still churches out there that are fusions of Christianity and Buddhism. Two thousand years. All over the globe. It's not a simple story. — frank

The Mongols conquered Russia, Poland, and much of Hungary by the 1240s. They were noted for their respect for indigenous religions -- many became Christians, Moslems and Buddhists. In fact Dalai (as in Dalai Lama) is a Mongolian word for "ocean" ("ocean of wisdom").

The Mongols improved trade routes and furthered cultural diffusion -- their empire fell apart in the 1300s largely due to the bubonic plague, which caused fear of travelers and traders (who might bring the plague). The intricate communications systems necessary for managing a huge empire collapsed.

Hyperbole abounds in religious texts. Odin is called "all seeing" -- but we know he relies on those two ravens to bring him the news. The hyperbole of the Old Testament is based on competition between different tribal gods. "All-powerful" or "all-knowing" may just imply a comparison, rather than an accurate description.

Here's Tennyson's take on "knowing":

"Flower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower-but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, all in all,
I should know what God and man is."

Of course the rhyme of "crannies" with "man is" is magnificent. But what does it even mean to "understand... all in all"? Does the creator of a thing "understand it all in all"? Did Tennyson understand his poem "all in all"? Or are there many interpretations and understandings?

If such a thing as omniscience is possible, then it is infinite and beyond human comprehension. Therefore, God's actions are impossible to judge, given our imperfect knowledge. The Christian must take His "benevolence" on faith, believing that if we knew the motives and results (if we had perfect knowledge) all would be clarified.

Truth Seeker — Truth Seeker

In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" William Blake asserts that heaven and hell are flip sides of the same coin. Heaven is Apollonian; hell Dionysian. Perhaps "good" is not possible without evil Creating a world in which there is evil (or in which there is potentially evil) may be (from God's perspective) the only way to create a world in which the good can be valued. If everything was good, the word "good" would lose all meaning -- it would just be whatever is.

Also, we don't know how death feels to sentient beings. They are all dead, and can't tell us.

Whining that God failed to create a perfect world -- from your perspective -- ignores how wonderful the creation is.

"3When I behold Your heavens,
the work of Your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which You have set in place—
what is man that You are mindful of him,
or the son of man that You care for him?"

Is it really fair to say that the moon and the stars are not good enough to suit your fancy? "Man was born to trouble, as the sparks fly upwards." Oh, well. Life is wonderful anyhow.

I am not convinced the Biblical God is good. — Truth Seeker

One principle of literary criticism is that it is unfair to criticize a book for failing to be a different book. The critic should criticize a book for what it is, not what it isn't.

The Bible affirms the beneficence of God repeatedly. The reader (critic) is thus required to attempt to overcome the seeming paradox resulting from God's goodness and the seemingly wicked acts Truthseeker lists.

It's not easy, but thousands of years of religious apologetics (with which I am not an expert) might help.

Regarding the "genocides": isn't it acceptable for the child who builds the sandcastle to kick it over? It might be evil for the local bully to destroy the other kid's creation -- but not for the maker.

In addition, God created a world in which death exists. To an immortal outside of time and space the distinction between dying in a flood and dying of old age might be irrelevant.

As God asked Job, He might ask Truthseeker," 4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

The moral rules that apply to man clearly do not apply to God -- the finite does not apply to the infinite. Death is doled out by God in many ways -- but humans are enjoined from doling it out to their fellows.
Judging the benevolence of God by human standards is a mistake.

Regarding Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden, I happen to be reading Paradise Lost right now. Here is the magnificent ending of that epic, as Adam and Eve are expelled from Eden.

"They, looking back, all the eastern side beheld
Of Paradise, so late their happy seat,
Waved over by that flaming brand; the gate
With dreadful faces thronged, and fiery arms:
Some natural tears they dropt, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:
They, hand in hand, with wandering steps and slow,
Through Eden took their solitary way."

Was Paradise lost, or gained? "The world was all before them" and they were free. Freedom entails difficulties, but overcoming them is a pleasure (and a virtue) beyond that of simple existence without suffering.

(By the way, in "Paradise Lost" Satan is a dynamo, rebelling against an autocratic heaven. God and Jesus are more mamby-pamby. Is autocracy consistent with a utopian heaven? i'd suggest utopia must be an anarchy. Satan's rebellion lacked nobility because he would rather "rule in Hell than serve
in heaven." Other revolutionaries have followed suit. The autocracies of the Tsar or the Shah were destroyed, but autocracy merely shifted leadership.)

Also, I'm not religious. But it seems to me that judging God by human standards is a mistake. I'll grant that this makes asserting God's omnibenevolence circular.

↪Ecurb This objection trades on an ambiguity between suffering as a chosen challenge and suffering as imposed harm. Once that distinction is made, the argument loses its force — Truth Seeker

The fact that mountaineers choose suffering means that they (at least) see some virtue in overcoming it. Besides,, without suffering, courage would be meaningless., So would heroism. Have you read "The Worm Ouroboros" by E.R. Edison? It's a pre-Tolkien fantasy in which the heroes defeat the enemy, and then rue their peaceful lives without challenges and suffering, courage and heroism.

IN addition, who can know the mind of God? Maybe He values heroism more than you do? Maybe genocide offers the victims eternal bliss. OK, He massacred all those first born Egyptians, but we don't know what became of them after death.

It is true that "omnibenevolence" loses significance if everything God does is good by definition. IN that case, saying God is "benevolent" is like saying "God is God". But that's the theme of the Bible. God is good by definition. The careful reader must accept that (not in real life, but as a literary theme).

Premise 4:

A perfectly omnibenevolent being necessarily prefers the outcome that maximizes well-being and minimizes suffering. — Truth Seeker

Minimizing suffering does not necessarily maximize well-being. Without suffering (or potential suffering) there could be no adventure, no courage, no fortitude. Perhaps these virtues conduce well-being. Don't mountaineers choose suffering (because it is necessary to adventure and fortitude)? The Greeks believed that the Gods could not be heroic, because they were immortal. The reduction of their suffering necessarily led to the impossibility of certain virtues.

Although Kings often battled with the Church, Christianity offered philosophical support for Monarchy. After all, God rules in heaven. I'm reading "Paradise Lost" now, and Satan rebels against the autocracy of God's rule/ His rebellion is a noble one, although, like other revolutionaries, he doesn't want to change the system, merely his role in the system. It is better (he thinks) "to reign in hell than serve in heaven."

The divine right of kings mirrors God's rule in heaven. But if coercive force is a bad thing, mustn't utopia be an anarchy? Heaven and Hell suffer from the same flaw: autocratic rule.

↪Ecurb
Well, I hardly said that people lust after being forgiven on request. What a peculiar thing to say! I don't envision them achieving orgasm on actually being forgiven, either. But perhaps, for reasons unclear to me, you interpreted my suggestion people would find forgiveness of sin attractive to refer to physical attraction.

Here's how confession worked, in the old days. You entered the confessional, asked the priest to bless you, for you had sinned. You advised the priest how long it had been since your last confession. You described your sins. You were told your sins would be forgiven provided you sincerely repented and said certain prayers. Ego te absolvo peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii et Spiritus Sancti/i] are the priestly words of absolution on behalf of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rendered in Latin. That was the way of it.

In the Catholic tradition, one could obtain remission of temporal punishment for sins through prayer or good conduct. They're called indulgences.

Do you imagine that those who ask for their sins to be forgiven do so but then don't believe they've been forgiven until they've received some divine communication confirming absolution?

History is full of examples of Christians being assured their sins will be forgiven ( for example, for going on a Crusade or pilgrimage).

By the way, I'm no fellow traveler of yours. Neither an atheist nor a theist. — Ciceronianus

"Lust" can refer (metaphorically) to a spiritual desire as well as a physical one.

I don't know what people "believe" -- and neither do you. I'd guess many Catholics confess as a ritual act, and have no firm belief one way or another. And many Crusaders wanted their earthly debts forgiven, rather than their spiritual ones (as well as seeking earthly riches in the Holy Land).

What I was objecting to is your earlier claim that Christianity was attractive because on the ease with which one can attain salvation. But "narrow is the way" that leads to salvation; "easy is the way that leads to destruction." Isn't the "fear of God" a Christian principle?

IN addition, reductionist, psychological explanations for the spread of a complicated, many-faceted cultural occurrence tend to lack explanatory value. Although Christianity probably offered comfort to some, it offered distress to many others (who thought they were damned). Yet it flourished. I'd suggest the explanations that offer more understanding are cultural: political, mythological, and societal. Paul fought with James the Just (Jesus' brother) because he ignored the historical Jesus in his interest in the Myth of Christ. Yet it was he, more than any other disciple, who founded Christianity.

The world was changing. Judaism was a tribal religion -- but the Roman Empire had made tribalism obsolete (or if not obsolete, at least dated). The "tribe" morphed into "the set of believers". Of course this is a problem for modern Christians (especially evangelicals in the U.S.). Unlike Catholic rituals (which "confirm" tribal identity), "belief" is not publicly identifiable. Hence, a litany of "beliefs" confirming it (anti-abortion, anti-communism, etc.).

I don't agree with Cice's claim that people lust after being forgiven upon request. NO sophisticated Christian would be motivated by that. It's not the "request" that saves -- it's the grace of God who judges the souls of men. I say this as a confirmed atheist. I object to my fellow travelers offering shallow critiques of the religion which (for us Westerners) has shaped our culture and values.

Another point, apropos of what some other posters have stated:

Christianity combined Greek philosophy with Jewish law and order. The God of the Old Testament is rarely omnipotent or omniscient. He often is surprised by his people (hardly demonstrating omniscience). He seems to want to favorably compare Himself to competing Gods ("You shall have no other Gods before me").

He is also often masterful and poetic, even when He is tormenting Job he trenchantly asks him,

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?"

The New Testament God sends His only son to save mankind (although we might ask, "Who was it that set us up to fail?") Jesus represented God as philosophical - but not in the Greek, logical way. Instead, He is a story-teller, and a myth-maker. Ethics, for Him and for Christians, is not logical, but analogical. "What would Jesus do?"

So Christianity combined Jewish law with Greek philosophy, and added an analogical touch.

The story resonates, especially at Christmas. God so loved the world.....

Claude Levi-Strauss claimed that myth is about overcoming contradictions and opposites. In Christianity, death = birth. The meek shall inherit the earth. These stories resonate with people. Here's GK Chesterton's take, appropriate for the season:

There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
Here we have battle and blazing eyes,
And chance and honor and high surprise,
But our homes are under miraculous skies
Where the yule tale was begun.

A Child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam,
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost - how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wives' tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.

:up: Well said, and welcome to the forum.

On the other hand, I never managed to find the insightful and brilliant in his books, because the first one I read was so dull it put me off reading any others: Musicophilia. My loss, I suppose. — Jamal

In An Anthropoogist on Mars Sacks has a chapter about blind people who recover their vision. They can suddenly see, but cannot interpret what they see. Depth perception (which most of us learn while batting mobiles around in our cribs) is difficult. It takes a year or more for them to navigate the world as a seeing person.

Then Sacks mentions the story of Jesus restoring the sight to a blind man, from Mark 8.

“And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands upon him, he asked him if he saw ought And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.

After that he put his hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly..”

The Mark version is remarkable in its agreement with the Sacks stories about those whose sight has been restored by modern medical techniques. The formerly blind man could not differentiate between men and trees. In terms of literary skill, Sacks' ability to reference Biblical literature adds to the resonance of the story. Does any of this add credence to the Gospel tale? Well, maybe not. But it demonstrates Sacks' breath of knowledge, which typifies his writing. It's bits like this that I admire in Sacks.

The notion that science is the only path to knowledge is, of course, silly. HIstory (including case histories) is never repeatable. Even scientific experiments are not repeatable -- all are unique events.

The history of psychology and psychoanalysis is replete with meaningful and insightful works that are not "scientific". Freud revolutionized how we see ourselves and our subconsciouses, but his psychoanalyses have not been found effective in treating psychological disorders. Does that mean they are worthless? Freud was, if no more, a literary genius. "Totem and Taboo" is not, perhaps, an accurate history of totemism. Instead, it is a myth -- deeper and more meaningful than history. Sacks books may not have been quite at that level, but they are both insightful and brilliant -- whether or not they contain a few "stretchers".

"Show me a man who does not lie, and I'll show you a man who hasn't much to say," wrote Mark Twain. Sacks certainly had a lot to say, some of it controversial.