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

[atanu]

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.

Evil and suffering are synonymous. I prefer to use 'suffering' because it is more natural while evil implies some agency.

If you believe in God, the suffering may be attributed to a) 'God's sweet will' or 'our free will -- karma' (if God is a ruler separate from the ruled) or b) to ignorance of our nature, our reality (if you ascribe to non-dualism). According to the latter, "I am" is the all-pervasive consciousness that underlies the space-time-objects. We identify with objects, forgetting the "I am" and bring upon ourselves all kinds of suffering. In such a case, it is recommended that one must enquire "Who is it that suffers?" and realise that the body cannot say "I am".

To understand 'suffering' from a secular perspective, in my opinion, is difficult. It does not answer the fundamental question of subjective awareness. But we may see the following short video of a famous Neuro-biologist Robert Sapolsky, who was recommended to me by @Polymath257, to understand the secular take.

The biology of our best and worst selves

...

 

[blü 2]

And, of course, there was the definition of evil as just another name for "bad".

Humans are gregarious primates with an evolved set of moral responses appropriate to this. Those responses start with child nurture and protection, common to all mammals. They also include, and you can detect in even pre-verbal infants, a dislike of the one who harms, a liking of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth / virtue through self-denial. The rest of our morals come from upbringing, culture, education and experience. We also have empathy, probably because we have mirror neurons, and a conscience, the evolved sense that some of our statements are not just our opinion but have universal application.

This is the basis of our sense of what is good and what is bad.

'Evil' is from the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) word yfel meaning 'harm', 'bad' (as a noun).

'Evil' (as adjective) therefore means 'bad', or perhaps 'very bad', and also contains the idea of intention to harm ─ humans can be evil, tidal waves can't.

Harm (hence 'evil') is a relative idea ─ what harms me may benefit you. Think of stealing the legendary loaf of bread to feed your starving family. Think of the spy. Think of the maneuvers of war, the civilian toll in Syria, and before that Iraq, and so on.

Good is therefore what assists, promotes or affirms what I want for myself, or my family and friends, or my tribe, or the causes I support. Evil is what someone else wants to do that harms or negatively affects those people or causes.

 

[dfnj]

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.

In my opinion, evil is like beauty. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. What is evil and what is not evil is purely a subjective opinion. The executioner and the soldier are murderers, and they get a free pass. Many people believe Democrats are evil because they support abortion, while at the same time many Democrats say they do not support abortion but they support a woman's right to choose. Some people who are sadists don't know no means no while some masochists use a different safe word. What is evil and what is not evil is heavily depended on relationship between two parties.

Many times, people we hold in high esteem are given a free pass on many bad behaviors where as people we do not like we see more easily as being evil. Trump versus Obama would be an example.

Everyone from their own perspective somehow rationalizes everything they do as not being evil but as a necessary action based on circumstances.

You could argue since God created nature and human beings with so many imperfections then people are not responsible as being evil. Unless each of us has omnipotent powers many times we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. Unless each of us had omnipotent powers to control the list of choices we get to choose from then life is really not a good judge of character and none of us is truly evil.

But I am not a jellyfish. I do have a backbone and a spine. I will say evil is any action we knowingly take that causes someone else to experience suffering (against their will, people with safe words know what I'm saying). In this case, in my religion, the only way to salvation is not by saying magic words or joining the Jesus fan-club. God has nothing to do with salvation. In my religion, the only way to achieve salvation is by getting forgiveness from people you have sinned against. If you can't get it for whatever reason, then you need to do acts of service that cause you to suffer in equal measure in order to attain absolution.

In terms of evil and its affect I believe in the golden rule of karma. If you cause suffering in others you will live a life of suffering here and now in equal proportion. The way the human mind works is when we act badly, we create feelings of self-loathing. This feeling of self-loathing will cause us to create conditions in our lives that will cause us to suffer in equal proportion. Our mind becomes our own judge and executioner of our evil acts. People who cause large amounts of suffering in others live horrible lives with excessive suffering in equal proportions. We have to do things to appease our mind in order to attain absolution or we will suffer consequences.

Of course there are mentally retarded people with no empathy who are sociopaths. People who are mentally retarded are usually given a pass for their behaviors. Unless the retarded person commits murder in Texas. Texas executes people who are mentally retarded who have been convicted of murder. I'm surprised Texas doesn't execute the parents of murderers to boot!

I do not believe God or nature is evil. I believe God and nature are indifferent. Men dub something as evil based on a subjective judgment. I think God created nature and man with many imperfections. It is these imperfections that are the cause or source of all that is evil in the World. God is perfect, whole, and complete without any needs or desires. Needs and desires are why there is evil in the World. Our needs and our desires exist because we have imperfections. Since God does not have any needs or desires God is absolute "goodness". God always drops the ball with short-term unnecessary evil in favor of His long term plans.

Now you could argue God is indirectly responsible for all the evil in the World by creating us with so many imperfections. But if we just had one single imperfection causing us to have some tiny need and desire we would be just as evil. The only way God could have prevented evil in the World would have been by creating each of us with omnipotent powers. Only when you have omnipotent powers would you have enough power to fulfill all your human needs and desires. But God did not create us as being perfect with omnipotent powers.

I think when people judge other people, they are really hating God. People who judge other people hate God because God did not create each of use with omnipotent powers. People will often hold up a ruler of perfection and use it to measure other people's imperfections. I think pretending people should behave as if they were as perfect as God as the only way someone is deserving of love is the wrong approach. I like to try to always side with the idea people are good and are doing the best they can to be the best person they can be in spite of their God given imperfections.

So in conclusion I would say there really is no evil in the World. All we have is imperfections causing problems. If our immune system were more robust then no one would die from Covad-19. People dying from Covad-19 means nothing. We all have imperfections. We all need to stop hating God.

 

[rational experiences]

When humans in science claim I am made in the image of God.

Was God spiritual or not spiritual would be the first question.

Then as a scientist you would question your own self. For since when are you the all knowing self. For you keep asking questions and expect answers. Even demand answers or in prayer demand God or in the name of Jesus to do what you say.

Therefore when humans express these conditions you have to assess your own human self.

We are all born from sperm and an ovary, are babies...so we know we came from innocence.

Then we are meant to review who were the 2 human parents.

Biologists say, on Earth, which science said was God the stone philosophy, seeing you live inside of a heavenly body. So you human self never came from out of space. You came from a life living inside of cold gas mass.

As a fact.

Your parents biology says came after animals whose behaviour is beast like....who demonstrate conditions that we make comments about.

So if you can comment upon other bodies in a behaviour then you can also comment about self in your behaviour.

We know if you own a behaviour mentality most of the times it is because of brain chemical imbalance. Which is rational.

So as most humans display a spiritual human temperament of loving, kind and caring and own a statement I love my human family and their diversity, the condition of majority rules is true, for it is real, we live it.

Then if you ask self why do I discuss evil, as if it owns a condition in my life.

When life as a human says no it does not.

The only one choice in life that is contrary to the natural conditions is science...conversion science, which has by archaeological Earth evidence, been practiced on Earth many times.....aligned with the destruction of all life or nearly all life eradication, by where the evidence is found.

Deep inside of the Earth changed fusion.

As that evidence.

Now I have been told that a human does not know evil. Which would mean that bodies exist in creation from which evil arrives that is ANTI in totality to what we represent. A body that is very diverse in its nature, but completely self balanced to own everything that it needs by the presence of everything else.

Inside of our owned atmosphere.

What one condition we see that is not of OUR atmosphere is EXTRA radiation...the metals.

And then we discuss evil and its formation, for we are in fact the highest and most spiritual conscious self identifying life and living self. By what we can study, what information from our studies proves to be correct, yet the studier is committed to conditions in a human life.

Whether they are studying for simple truth and proof, or if they are studying for self gain.

2 very different human conditions one, belonging to our spiritual truth, self and human living just on our ONE GOD Earth body or those who seek to want powers from the forces they claim are knowingly evil.

To own that taught definition and to constantly want to know and understand it....when our life is not EVIL.

Which is the alien/devil idea, where some scientists or humans say to someone else....you will never know, you do not understand and so do not pretend you do.

Yet that statement is said to a spiritual human trying to defend their family from those who seek it claiming that they know when no one else does.

How does a human protect their own selves against that mentality unless by self experienced human conditions, learnt, were in the learning, died, sacrificed or nearly died, and had it all recorded in the states of human image/voice recording conditions owned by our own atmospheric condition.

What we describe as the psychic aware teaching?

For that is the exact situation I am involved in.

So when some scientist and studier of evil for the want of it for a machine tries to tell me that I do not know what I am talking about....that statement is his own.

For you do not know what you are talking about. Spiritual humanity were always taught in the most evilest of life sacrifices you could ever imagine, yet you scientist never wanted it for your own self.

So when my spiritual Father who has been harmed in his life so many times by his owned poor beginning life choice...to do science, to tell you that you do not know what you are talking about...then know you scientist organization do not know.

He knew he was wrong...he died because of it.

And he told me to tell you lying male egotist and power mongering elitists that the alien/devil man, is an ANTI body formation that is produced as an artificial body in the Sun metal anti of your own being. How it came about as a conjuring just as you learnt.

The metal comes to Earth and it was held cold and fused in space. You brought it into our atmosphere that owns burning gases...it heats up and disperses unnatural amounts of extra radiation. Meanwhile space heated begins to suck on the overheating, by deep cold conditions.

The UFO gets pulled back out, but its metal body cold, is opened, it then sucks into it our Earth bio life supported gases. Natural light gases, cold gases and water and oxygen and our microbes that we use as a bio life to own our life.

And it forms the presence ANTI evil spirit. If you want to continually argue about what the state of evil is...the only way that you ever learn your science lesson is when it comes and attacks you personally.

In that moment you will personally wish that you had never been born.

 

[Sunstone]

Good and evil are almost certainly subjective perceptions. Even religious people admit this when it comes to non-human actions. Consider that the average Christian would consider a pack of wolves devouring a baby deer alive to be "just part of nature" but almost certainly wouldn't call it "sinful." I consider all human behavior, even the most despicable imaginable to be "part of nature" in the same way that this scenario is. After all, humans are animals. Of course, there are human behaviors that I personally hate and believe we should do everything we can to stop them and punish them (murder, rape, etc). But, are they objectively evil in a different sense from the barbaric actions we see made by other animals every day? I don't think so.

To say that "evil is almost certainly subjective" presupposes a definition of evil. What is that definition?

 

[Sunstone]

Just a quick clarification. Are you asking what I personally define evil as? I'm assuming that's what you're after.
It is something like trying to define God, but I'll give it a whirl if I'm understanding what you are looking for (now).

I was curious what you meant by "evil" in your post.

 

[Sunstone]

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

You're are off to a good start. The idea of evil is certainly subjective and at least possibly relative (i.e. "context-based" in your terms).

...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."

This seems garbled in the sense that you appear to be conflating subjectivity with relativism.

 

[Sunstone]

No such thing as a definition of evil within secular language and thought.

How are you defining "evil" when you say it does not exist as a secular concept?

For religious definitions it is what ever anyone's gods and books, say is evil.

Obviously. What was your point?

 

[Sunstone]

I will say evil is any action we knowingly take that causes someone else to experience suffering (against their will, people with safe words know what I'm saying).

So in conclusion I would say there really is no evil in the World.

I'm curious. How do you reconcile those two statements?

 

[Sunstone]

There would seem to be very little point in saying "evil is subjective and/or relative" unless one has first defined what one means by "evil".

 

[dfnj]

I'm curious. How do you reconcile those two statements?

It's a matter of perspective. The first statement had to do with evil with regards to act between two people. The second statement had to do with the idea evil is some kind thing or spirit existing on its own. People have imperfections. Imperfections cause people to have needs and desires. People commit acts of evil based on their needs and desires. It's only evil if someone dubs it as evil. If people stopped dubbing there would be no evil. There would just be bad behavior and problems. The Covad-19 virus is not acting out of spite. People act out of spite. But again, spite is not thing or spirit with a conscious agenda.

If you stop comparing people's imperfections to the ruler of perfection then maybe people are not evil at all. Maybe people are just doing the best they can with their God given imperfections is also what I meant by the second statement.

People consciously doing "good" is probably optional. People behaving badly because of their imperfections is probably inevitable. I am sure there are some people who consciously do evil which is what I meant by the first statement. Some people just behave badly for no reason. Most people behave badly because of some underlining need or desire is the reason.

 

[dfnj]

There would seem to be very little point in saying "evil is subjective and/or relative" unless one has first defined what one means by "evil".

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Evil is like beauty. We know it when we see it. But there many cases where something is considered to be evil by one group of people and okay by another. Executioners and soldiers commit acts of murder but for some people this is not immoral because they are just doing their job.

Everyone is beautiful. Everyone is evil. We each get to choose how we experience our lives.

What is really evil is people who think evil has an absolute definition which is based on one person's subjective judgment, and that is, their own!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You're are off to a good start. The idea of evil is certainly subjective and at least possibly relative (i.e. "context-based" in your terms).



This seems garbled in the sense that you appear to be conflating subjectivity with relativism.

Here are some definitions of the two words as pertains to the topic at hand:

subjective - adj. - existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent:

relative - adj. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent

What makes you believe that these two terms are so dissimilar that they cannot be used (in this case) interchangeably? Please clarify.

 

[wandering peacefully]

How are you defining "evil" when you say it does not exist as a secular concept?

That was the point. There isn't a definition in secular language and thought. I need to proceed to a religious concept to find a definition of evil.
It appears you would rather not have me comment on your topics unless I have answers which satisfy your level of comprehension and understanding on the questions you ask. I'll oblige.

 

[Certainty For Eternity]

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.



________________________

The question I would ask is this? What is your foundation for your beliefs? If you are going to build a house, you don’t start with the roof, you start with the foundations. And for your foundations, I ask ‘what is your authority for which you believe and construct your system of beliefs?’ I believe the Bible is the authority. How do I know? It tells me so itself. It is a collection of 66 books written by 40 authors. It is a book of history, of how God has interacted with his people. History is history and cannot be ignored. It is like saying that WW2 did not happen. The book begins with the creation of the world in a garden and ends in a city called Heaven. It tells an account of thousands of years of God dealing with human beings who are made in His image. Maybe I am like you, a sceptic. I would rather believe that there is no God, but that was not acceptable because I could see there was an immense miraculous design in everything which I could not ignore. But to answer your question about evil. God is holy, that is, He is perfect and without blemish. Man has decided to go his own way and has become unholy and embraced evil. But God has provided a way back that is acceptable to Him, that is the cross. To reject God is be eternally suicidal. Whatever decision you make, imperfect as it is, God will respect it. All human beings were made to be with God forever and to have fellowship with Him, but He will not have anyone in Heaven who does not want to be there.

 

[rational experiences]

Prophecy and humans who owned the ability to be prophetic were correct.

So humans used the statement to be prophetic, owning data inference to warn self so self could be warned and not choose to be harmed.

Yet today science uses prophecy as if it is a step by step God model on how to be destroyed whilst claiming, oh evil is science.

Humans harmed by the choice of other humans, named as science therefore wonder at why that sort of mentality tries to claim it is superior thinking. When the thinking was all about God the stone and having it disappear by magic he says.

The thought of it all...that sort of human self. Was a human who we said was evil by intention. Fully aware, spiritual, knowing that self should be a family member in society and civilization and not own any fake reasoning about using creation terms to have us harmed. The liar self.

So he cannot blame the behaviour of animals, for he is human, totally aware and knows what he wants to choose. To ANTI us.

Humans always taught that only science, human with machine owned the state cause ANTI. And we called them Satanists and said they were doing Satanic science....causing the conjuring of the evil spirit....by a Sun machine.

Now the stupidity of the original male science group, claim about their wrong first choice, science was that they were innocent. And the Bible makes that claim, how innocent they were to not know nor understand evil the conjuring of it...and so should be seen as innocent. Yet whilst they still continue to apply acts of evil conjuring their family knew they are not innocent....they are self motivated Destroyers.

Why that Title is placed into Biblical literature as a teaching to a human self.

Humans were never evil not by any use to be informed.

We said our spirit was abducted...we are a bio life form, so that is not the spirit that gets abducted. The spirit in the Heavens that we use oxygen and water with microbes is abducted, what we use to live and survive.

And science the states of evil causes takes it from us to use to cool their evil irradiation of the products that they use for invention. And we are meant to congratulate them on making life easier, whilst destroying us as the same time.

So the teachings about living naturally and not by wealth or its intentions, to define a life, where it is made easier, when it is not made easier, it gets us destroyed was the mentality that was taught against. As spiritual reasoning against science the Destroyer.

A group of humans who claim that they own control, that they own the choices and rights to do whatever they personally want for whatever personal ideals they own. Not allowing the consensus to be taught the truth of what science causes or what science realized in occult phenomena, but only advising the public whatever they feel like for their own reasons.

That definition is of an evil human by intention of choice, whilst they claim how innocent they all are.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear Sunstone,

I think that all evil stems from ego and that much evil is unaddressed and/or misdirected pain.

Like much of what mankind does, also evil seeks to comfort and soothe someone’s angst. But the idea that one can sustainably succeed in this by hurting another, is distorted.

Even when evil claims to be indifferent to the suffering it spreads, it is not. For evil breeds evil; making reality evermore hostile to all. And in a hostile reality, comfort from angst, is very short-lived.


I find it important to often remind myself that, while I cannot partake in life without encountering evil, I always have the choice of whether or not to contribute its spreading.

As soon as possible (with practice, it will be sooner than without), address the effects that any wrongdoings have on your being; acknowledge them truly - especially the painful - and make a conscious choice not to allow them to own you and what you do here next.

This is the one and only power that each and everyone of us have over evil and its grip on mankind.


Yours humbly,
Hermit

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here are some definitions of the two words as pertains to the topic at hand:

subjective - adj. - existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent:

relative - adj. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent

What makes you believe that these two terms are so dissimilar that they cannot be used (in this case) interchangeably? Please clarify.

@Sunstone - A note on this - I apparently pasted the same exact definition twice without realizing, and by the time I did, the site had removed the option to edit. Here are the definitions I meant to post:

subjective - adj. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

relative - adj. existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent

And my real point is in the idea that "subjective" is sort of a subset of relative. Whereby "subjective" items have their specific nature only by relation to the mind, and are not absolute or independent. Note the color coding of terms here and above to denote which parts of this extrapolation of "subjective" map to the meaningful parts of "relative."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have a working definition of evil. It is one word: neglect.

Evil is the negligence of one toward another's (or the self's) needs, wants, and desires.

 

[Sunstone]

I have a working definition of evil. It is one word: neglect.

Evil is the negligence of one toward another's (or the self's) needs, wants, and desires.

Great to see you!