What is Evil (in Both a Religious and Secular Sense)?

[Sunstone]

What is the nature of evil in both a religious and secular sense?

About 45 years ago, I took a course in comparative religious studies titled "The Problem of Evil" that dealt with the nature of evil in both religious and secular literature. (Our professor required us to read 11 books for the semester. Naturally, we students took one look at the length of the reading list and quickly renamed the course, "Introduction to Evil". ) As you might expect, the concept of evil varies considerably from one culture and/or thinker to the next.

To me, one of the more interesting definitions of evil that was advanced during the semester was that evil consisted in "the denial life" while good consisted in "the affirmation of life". I thought the definition had some problems with it, but that it was a good start. Another definition was that evil could be defined as "anything offensive to God". And, of course, there was the definition of evil as just another name for "bad". There are lots of ways to define evil, both religious and secular, but some ways seem more useful than others.



________________________

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are in practice 3 kinds of evil as bad:

• Natural bad, diseases and so on
• Other human action, harm and so on
• Own cognitive constructs, e.g I hate seeing people kiss in public, it makes me sick and so on

Of course, some diseases are in effect self inflicted and what makes harm harm is subjective. As for God and evil, that is with God in my religion and I can't speak of that, because I don't know God in that sense.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[rational experiences]

Evil, as defined by the mind who studies it, infers it, relates it, and agrees to cause it.....the male group history scientist.

Who begins their own storytelling as the innocent God male....supported by the planet of stone, fused and without fission.

The God male self, living on Earth with the Garden nature that held him bound to life.

Meanwhile his brothers and sisters he saw de manifest...for spirit was factually forced to come out of the eternal body...and most of it de manifested and went back in.

Our brother the God scientist however did not.

So he contrived against natural and natural history....as was taught.

And became what he was titled, a Satanist, meaning he believed in the formation of sink holes...to remove original sin, which was God O mass of spirit, energy/gases burning that was sealed shut in stone.

He wanted, as that group to remove the state original SIN...so said to self he was going to apply a HOLY ACT...sin removal.

Whereas in fact secretly it was his first evil act as a male group against spiritual history...the eternal story.

And the story is exactly known to him, but what you do not seem to realize, he is self possessed as the scientist by all of his male human owned original ARTIFICIAL thoughts.

For he thought them. As the state Pi O and also PHI O never existed, it was just a theory on how to force change natural.

And then he even goes as far to pretend that he created in science, whereas he destroyed...so gave self a defined artificial recorded message, that he cannot deny, the message to self said, seeing he was spiritual making a lot of evil thoughts originally his own feed back told him that he was a liar, and it was his owned spiritual confession.

Proven to self.

The status evil, history of, a group of male humans who lied about why they invented the state of science...to cause destruction and remove natural so that self could also be removed.

Yet makes the claim I was innocent, which is true, for they were, but what they thought and what they chose was not innocent.

 

[danieldemol]

What is the nature of evil in both a religious and secular sense?

About 45 years ago, I took a course in comparative religious studies titled "The Problem of Evil" that dealt with the nature of evil in both religious and secular literature. (Our professor required us to read 11 books for the semester. Naturally, we students took one look at the length of the reading list and quickly renamed the course, "Introduction to Evil". ) As you might expect, the concept of evil varies considerably from one culture and/or thinker to the next.

To me, one of the more interesting definitions of evil that was advanced during the semester was that evil consisted in "the denial life" while good consisted in "the affirmation of life". I thought the definition had some problems with it, but that it was a good start. Another definition was that evil could be defined as "anything offensive to God". And, of course, there was the definition of evil as just another name for "bad". There are lots of ways to define evil, both religious and secular, but some ways seem more useful than others.



________________________

Congratulations for asking a question which seems to be above the pay grade of most of us here on RF

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I struggle to find evil very often. I more often find behavioural disorders, trauma and stupidity.
Still, take those to extremes and I guess it starts to blend.
But it always felt more like a religious or dehumanizing concept to me. A way to seperate 'us' from 'them'. Which is not a very helpful concept imho.

 

[PureX]

I think evil requires choice, and so is something that only humans engage in. It is the choice to act against the gift of being (both living and non-living), in favor of desire.

 

[Sunstone]

I struggle to find evil very often. I more often find behavioural disorders, trauma and stupidity.

The OP is asking for a definition of evil, not a statement about whether or not this or that definition of evil exists. To say something is not evil, but rather a behavioral disorder, etc. is to imply a definition of evil. What is that definition?

But it always felt more like a religious or dehumanizing concept to me. A way to seperate 'us' from 'them'. Which is not a very helpful concept imho.

Again, your statement implies a definition of evil. What is that definition?

 

[joe1776]

Evil is merely a perception. If we were capable of unconditional love, we would see violent behavior as a sickness.

I read once that the parents of Ted Bundy, the brutal serial killer had written parents of the victims to express their most profound sympathy. They added that, despite their son's horrible crimes, they were unable to deny their love for him.

Genuine love is unconditional. Children need to be loved whether they become saints or serial killers.

Bundy's parents didn't say this but I can imagine that they would see their son's acts as the result of sickness not evil.

If a Creator exists, and I do allow the possibility, we are loved unconditionally. What we see as evil, The Creator would see as sickness.

We see evil because we are judgmental and incapable of unconditional love except for our children, and then only sometimes.

If, as a society, we saw sickness instead of evil, and lacking a cure, we would quarantine people for life on early instances of violent behavior. We'd have a safer society if we saw violence as sickness rather than evil and quarantined the afflicted rather than punish them and then set them free..

 

[The_Fisher_King]

What is the nature of evil in both a religious and secular sense?

About 45 years ago, I took a course in comparative religious studies titled "The Problem of Evil" that dealt with the nature of evil in both religious and secular literature. (Our professor required us to read 11 books for the semester. Naturally, we students took one look at the length of the reading list and quickly renamed the course, "Introduction to Evil". ) As you might expect, the concept of evil varies considerably from one culture and/or thinker to the next.

To me, one of the more interesting definitions of evil that was advanced during the semester was that evil consisted in "the denial life" while good consisted in "the affirmation of life". I thought the definition had some problems with it, but that it was a good start. Another definition was that evil could be defined as "anything offensive to God". And, of course, there was the definition of evil as just another name for "bad". There are lots of ways to define evil, both religious and secular, but some ways seem more useful than others.



________________________

I'm pretty much with the 'anything offensive to God' brigade, though I would go further and say 'very deeply offensive to God'. For me evil is firstly not a word to be used lightly or just thrown around. Secondly, evil denotes a being or act that puts one at a very great distance from God and what God desires.

 

[PureX]

Evil is merely a perception. If we were capable of unconditional love, we would see violent behavior as a sickness.

I read once that the parents of Ted Bundy, the brutal serial killer had written parents of the victims to express their most profound sympathy. They added that, despite their son's horrible crimes they were unable to deny their love for him.

Genuine love is unconditional. Children need to be loved whether they become saints or serial killers.

Bundy's parents didn't say this but I can imagine that they would see their son's acts as the result of sickness not evil.

If a Creator exists, and I do allow the possibility, we are loved unconditionally. What we see as evil, The Creator would see as sickness.

We see evil because we are judgmental and incapable of unconditional love except for our children, and then only sometimes.

If, as a society, we saw sickness instead of evil, and lacking a cure, we would quarantine people for life on early instances of violent behavior. We'd have a safer society if we saw violence as sickness rather than evil and quarantined the afflicted rather than punish them.

I don't see why we should consider sickness and evil to be mutually exclusive of each other.

 

[joe1776]

I don't see why we should consider sickness and evil to be mutually exclusive of each other.

Neither do I. However, aggressive violence is one or the other, not both.

 

[PureX]

Neither do I. However, aggressive violence is one or the other, not both.

Huh? It's kind of always both. When is violence not aggression?

 

[joe1776]

Huh? It's kind of always both. When is violence not aggression?

Violent aggression can't be both sickness and evil. They are two different perceptions of the same kind of behavior.

 

[PureX]

Violent aggression can't be both sickness and evil. They are two different perceptions of the same kind of behavior.

Yet the behavior is the same. Which is why calling it "evil", or calling it "sickness" does not designate mutual exclusivity. Calling it "sickness" refers us back to the cause, while calling it "evil" refers us forward to the result. But the phenomenon, itself, remains the same.

 

[joe1776]

Yet the behavior is the same. Which is why calling it "evil", or calling it "sickness" does not designate mutual exclusivity. Calling it "sickness" refers us back to the cause, while calling it "evil" refers us forward to the result. But the phenomenon, itself, remains the same.

If the cause is sickness, how could the result logically be evil? Can you name another sickness that results in evil?

 

[sealchan]

What is the nature of evil in both a religious and secular sense?

About 45 years ago, I took a course in comparative religious studies titled "The Problem of Evil" that dealt with the nature of evil in both religious and secular literature. (Our professor required us to read 11 books for the semester. Naturally, we students took one look at the length of the reading list and quickly renamed the course, "Introduction to Evil". ) As you might expect, the concept of evil varies considerably from one culture and/or thinker to the next.

To me, one of the more interesting definitions of evil that was advanced during the semester was that evil consisted in "the denial life" while good consisted in "the affirmation of life". I thought the definition had some problems with it, but that it was a good start. Another definition was that evil could be defined as "anything offensive to God". And, of course, there was the definition of evil as just another name for "bad". There are lots of ways to define evil, both religious and secular, but some ways seem more useful than others.



________________________

My definition of evil...that which actively works against the safety and preservation of agents in a system with which the knower identifies.

As such evil is implicit within the design of the Universe as all things and their persistence through time depend upon an evolutionary development, which is brutal, resolving into relatively stable systems which persist in a regular struggle with forces that would harm that system.

God is ultimately responsible for the character of the Universe. How we Bible readers make sense of God's pronouncement of His/Her/It's creation as "Good" is a non-trivial undertaking.

 

[PureX]

If the cause is sickness, how could the result logically be evil? Can you name another sickness that results in evil?

Addiction.

 

[joe1776]

Addiction.

Give me a specific example to work with, please.

 

[pearl]

To me, one of the more interesting definitions of evil that was advanced during the semester was that evil consisted in "the denial life" while good consisted in "the affirmation of life". I thought the definition had some problems with it, but that it was a good start. Another definition was that evil could be defined as "anything offensive to God". And, of course, there was the definition of evil as just another name for "bad". There are lots of ways to define evil, both religious and secular, but some ways seem more useful than others.

Nothing in itself is evil in the absence of life but is a spin off of life.
The name for it is epiphenomenon, an incidental or secondary occurrence that can only happen in conjunction with a primary occurrence, which is its prior condition, life is the prior condition for evil. Anything that deprives humans of vital needs; death, pain, disablement, deprivation of pleasure, deprivation of freedom and opportunity, deprivation of worth and self-esteem. These items are objectively evil, and not merely matters of choice or preference. The current pandemic is a good example.
Moral evil is the free, deliberate, and unjustified intention/action of inflicting evil on oneself or another.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can't help but see the idea of "evil" as being completely subjective and entirely context-based.

We humans, for example, would look at a human pre-meditatively murdering another human as an "evil" act. A house fly, however, would realize only that a meal opportunity has just presented itself. In those differences, we can recognize that the housefly doesn't understand the implications of what has just happened... but that changes nothing, and actually works in favor of my idea that it is all subjective, because it is entirely plausible that any particular witnessing party may not even understand the act taking place enough to make a judgment on it one way or another. It takes understanding, interpretation and a heavy dose of contextual bias to come to the conclusion that something is "evil."