Does the word "evil" mean anything in a non-religious sense?

[anotherneil]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

 

[ppp]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

It's an intense adjective. Like gut-churning or jaw dropping.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

evil ::= intentionally malignant

 

[danieldemol]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

It doesn't have its religious meaning to me, yet I would probably feel comfortable calling Trump evil because I see his policies as a demonstrable source of harm to the poor and to minorities, so to sum up evil in the non-religious sense that I use it would simply mean a demonstrable source of harm.

Others may use it differently to me.

 

[blü 2]

Old English yfel simply meant 'bad'.

Evil these days mostly has theological connotations, meaning something like, 'states of affairs, actions and intentions displeasing to God'.

However, it's also serviceable as a word simply meaning "very nasty", "malicious".
.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think it's useful for describing calculated cruel, malicious, sadistic acts which offends the good conscience of normal people. Sometimes "bad" just doesn't cut it.

 

[Heyo]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

I try to avoid "evil" but I recognize it as a superlative of "bad" or "immoral" in casual conversation. I'm not sure, but it even may be a technical term in literature science, often in combination like "evil empire" or "evil stepmother".
So, no religious connotation, just moral.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like others, I tend not to use it because it is so often meant in the religious sense, and as to such I cannot subscribe, given this often means no change possible, and which I don't believe has to be so for all cases. Evil as being at the darkest end of the behaviour spectrum I can support, but probably not that useful as opposed to other descriptions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Old English yfel simply meant 'bad'.

Evil these days mostly has theological connotations, meaning something like, 'states of affairs, actions and intentions displeasing to God'.

However, it's also serviceable as a word simply meaning "very nasty", "malicious".
.

In fact, most dictionary definitions don't refer to any theological connations at all. What other word better describes the holocaust, or slavery, or the lynching of people for the crime of being the wrong colour? What word better describes what HAMAS did on October 7, 2023, or what Israel has done to the Palestinian peopel in Gaza ever since?

I think a lot of us turn to the word "evil" when we are trying to describe harmful things that are so much worse than we are accustomed to seeing, and usually contain a strong element of intent.

And it is that "intent" that causes me, if I ever do use "evil" in a religious sense, to ascribe evil to a god who would afflict an infant for David and Bathsheba's dalliance, or slaughter all the first born of Egypt for Pharaoh's intransigence, when that god could, presumably much more easily, punish David or Pharaoh themselves.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

I believe it does, for most it indicates that the crime committed is above human possibilities; whereas, the person must be mentally ill. This is wrong. In my opinion people need to be held to their actions. Evil needs to be banished from our language and replaced with wrong as in They, He or She was wrong in their actions and will be punished accordingly. Even religiously evil gives an out to the doer, if the evil can be banished then they are somehow worthy again.

 

[Quintessence]

Arguably, no human words mean anything in a non-religious sense since all humans are fundamentally religious (that is, all humans construct narratives of deep meaning and values that help address the existential nature of life and living).

 

[Audie]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

It has no religious meaning to me.

 

[Viker]

It can be used to describe various atrocities and unwholesome behavior of others. It has no significant meaning to me religious or nonreligious.

Atrocious, terrible, etc. work just as well.

 

[wellwisher]

I don't think it does; I think it doesn't mean anything or serve any useful purpose in scientific or political settings. I think it's only a religious word.

Evil is half of a binary knowledge system that human use to orientate themself to reality. It is typically associated with assessing human behavior and projection. Evil is like one side of the two sided coin of knowledge of good and evil. There is always a heads and tails. Like a coin, we can see good or evil, but only one at a time. However, the other, although hidden, is always implied as part of the set. We have heaven and hell but not just one or the other. We sense the need to make a pair; better average and less extreme.

In physics, a magnet has a North Pole and a South Pole, while science has never witnessed a monopole all by itself. These two poles always come in pairs. Good and evil are the same way. If I say a good; North Pole, you can say its evil twin; South Pole, and vice versa. If someone invents a new good, it won't be long before the evil side of the coin, is made conscious and vice versa. Addiction often starts as good times, which begin to atrophy until bad times replace the good times.

If we go back to physics, if you look at the electron and proton, they have positive and negative charges and based on the words, appear like good and evil. However, both electrons and protons, unlike north and south poles, can exist as mono-units. We can isolate each. These are polar opposites and not magnetic opposites. There are both described, via language, as binary pairs, but the proton and electron by each being separate but coordinated, are neither good or evil, but neutral; fact of science. There is no emotional evaluation like good and evil although the naming almost confused that.

Magnets are actually caused by electrons and electron orbitals. To place two similar negative electron charges in the same space, and not repel, they need to have opposite spin. The charges in rotational and translation motion forms the magnetic dipole. The dipole in magnetism, forms from the two same things; electrons, making magnetic; good and evil, part of a set of the same things. Polar forms from two different things that both can exist by itself. Like in the natural world of instinct, with predators and prey, there is no magnetic assessment of good and evil.

This concept of good and evil, also has to do with the brain, and how the left side of the brain process data more with magnetism. It helps us differentiate reality, but it can game the natural brain, that is more based on polar opposites; electrons and protons are both needed for balance. Hydrogen bonds of water are binary and can switch between polar and magnetic, without breaking the bond. The magnetic is related to surface tension and lowering entropy. While the polar side of the switch is connected more to the second law and higher entropy. Good and evil creates a tension of opposites; surface tension, that generates an entropic potential; potential for increasing complexity; chaos,

 

[ChatwithGod]

Yes, "evil" can refer to actions or behaviors that are profoundly immoral and malevolent, regardless of religious context.