Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But this thread isn't about God - it's about evil.

Yes, we've had a lot of 'God is the answer to evil' posts, fair enough. She may be.

But, if evil isn't us giving in to animal desires without thought for others - then what causes it?

Even if there were an original, first, Adam who was aware of evil and chose to do it anyway - that means nothing really. The genes he passed on wouldn't cause every descendant to behave as he did. Human behaviour is far, far more complicated than that.

I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.

Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Most notably, the claim that the conscious mind plays no role in decision making and only kids itself that it does does not explain why we have evolved a conscious mind that kids itself. Assuming the conscious mind is an inaccurate model of the subconscious which is doing all the work, then we must run the model at some cost in energy. For the conscious mind to evolve the cost must pay off in some way. The leading hypotheses of how it pays off of which I'm aware - for example, that the conscious mind monitors decisions and evaluates or second guesses them - require that actually the conscious mind is able to step in and alter decisions.

---

I think your assumption is incorrect.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

[qb] Now, your position about the conscious mind being simply an illusion that kids itself commits you to the view that we may subconsciously/ instinctively know things that we consciously think we don't know or even deny. So the strongest response you're consistently entitled to would have been: 'I have no evidence that I know anything of the sort'. But that's not what you said, and the rest of your post implied a reaction only justified by the stronger position you actually said. [qb]

---

It is, in fact, exactly what I said. I know nothing of the sort, where "know" means I am conscious of it as a provable truth.

---

quote:

---

If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm extremely grateful for HWR's contributions, as they are close to my other side of the same coin: Rigorous atheism with Christ.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!"

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christ radiates God, Martin: the goodness and love, peace and light of God.

There is no place for evil or sin, for deception or denial, in the presence of Christ.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
I'm extremely grateful for HWR's contributions, as they are close to my other side of the same coin: Rigorous atheism with Christ.

---

Very nice, Martin. It reminds me of Simone Weil's famous remark, atheism is the purification of religion.

I quite like sloppy Christianity with a dash of sloppy atheism.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But this thread isn't about God - it's about evil.

Yes, we've had a lot of 'God is the answer to evil' posts, fair enough. She may be.

But, if evil isn't us giving in to animal desires without thought for others - then what causes it?

Even if there were an original, first, Adam who was aware of evil and chose to do it anyway - that means nothing really. The genes he passed on wouldn't cause every descendant to behave as he did. Human behaviour is far, far more complicated than that.

I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.

Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

You are sitting in a restaurant, quietly eating your meat and potatoes, when the waiter sails past you with the lobster that arrives on the table next to you. What a beautiful dish! If only you had the means to dine that way!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

You are sitting in a restaurant, quietly eating your meat and potatoes, when the waiter sails past you with the lobster that arrives on the table next to you. What a beautiful dish! If only you had the means to dine that way!

---

You are joking? It may be a passing thought - with me it wouldn't be a lobster but spying a gorgeous car. But that's all it is - a passing 'if only' - not something which eats away or causes any kind of problem!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Everybody gets angry from time to time - it's how you deal with the anger that matters, the feeling itself isn't evil.

But you didn't answer my point about envy/jealousy. It's usually a fleeing, passing and harmless 'if only'. Like buying a lottery ticket so that you can dream for a moment.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know why you think that anyone would think it necessary to tell lies 'in pursuit of a soul's salvation.'

---

I’ve been there when it was done – A “well-regarded Youth Evangelist” said “Faith is easy, you have it every time you turn on a tap” That’s lying about what faith is – when I turn on a tap I have a reasonable expectation based on thousands of past experiences.

---

quote:

---

It’s an old tradition, some say going back to Eusebius or even earlier.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Everybody gets angry from time to time - it's how you deal with the anger that matters, the feeling itself isn't evil.

But you didn't answer my point about envy/jealousy. It's usually a fleeing, passing and harmless 'if only'. Like buying a lottery ticket so that you can dream for a moment.

---

Anger is crime enough to do time. You can't be a little pregnant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Nonsense. Perhaps in a heaven of your construction anger might be absent, but it is grievous poppycock to suggest that you can reconstruct this turdly world into that heaven. In the various heavens of others' construction, there is a wrathful god taking his anger out on all sorts of people, including nameless Canaanite children slaughtered per his orders and Noah kids' playmates.

And yes you can be a little pregnant. Just like you can be slightly drunk. There are two uses, at least, of prego and tipsy, and at least two for anger, one of which might be righteous anger. To suggest one use of a word is the only usage possible is not correct.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Adam who?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
The anger condemned by the text is the anger of Cain, resentful anger, clarified in the examples I provided. No one suggested only one use of the word, or posited that ALL anger is wrong, so you can put that strawman back in storage, to use on an actual hayseed.

---

quote:

---

I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.

Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
And resentful anger is rare, which was exactly my point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

I don't think many people are evil. We make mistakes, we learn. By and large we do our best to care for others, both people known and unknown to us. We get on amazingly well, even in very large groups.

Some (sociopaths, psychopaths) have, one way or another, gone badly wrong and now have no empathy. But - although the damage they cause is terrible - they are very much in the minority.

Those who live their lives plotting evil are (mercifully) rare. The vast, vast majority of us are muddling through life as best we can on this difficult/confusing/animal/ planet which God in her wisdom chose to bless us with.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
But you posted that you resented people with beautiful cars, not better food or nicer clothes. Resentment is resentment. Plotting need not manifest to make you culpable.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.

It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.

It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Do people really tot up their sins of the day, including resentment, envy, negative thoughts, lustful thoughts, and so on? Gordon absolutely bleeding Miss Bennett.

It reminds me that at work (therapy), probably the commonest thing I used to say to people was, 'stop being so hard on yourself', as one of the commonest neurotic symptoms was precisely that.

It used to frighten me how hard people were on themselves, I don't mean religious people, so I suppose this scrupulosity has sunk deep into the collective psyche.

---

The idea is to capture our thoughts so that we don't put harmful ideas into action. Once we have, it is a good thing to reflect upon it, decide we won't do it again, and ask for God's forgiveness. That gives us a clean sheet, so that we're no longer burdened by them.

Resentment, envy etc are acid to us if we allow them to remain unchecked.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To me, the whole process sounds very burdensome. It reminds me of clients I had who every night, would go through the day at work, trying to remember all the mistakes they'd made. But why?

---

There are a lot of people who are too hard on themselves and would benefit greatly if they could ease up on themselves. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people who really should be harder on themselves and at least think a little bit about what they ought to do differently. My guess is that compared to the former group, the latter group is not very well represented among your clients.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!

I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that's true really. It's true I suppose, that unthinking people tend to remain unthinking, but as we know, life has a habit of giving most people a shock now and again, and then you find bewilderment and so on, and even a kind of break-down, if you are lucky!

I'm not sure how many people remain untouched in that way.

---

How about people who see problems they create for themselves compared to people who think all the problems they see are someone else's fault? I'll be surprised if you think there is no significant bias in the selection criteria for the sample you are basing your observations on.

I appreciate the insights you offer here, but how much can you apply them to the whole population?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The next person you meet will have a unique set of characteristics.

---

Absolutely. But it's more obvious how to apply that as a therapist than as a paster in the pulpit.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not really.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Not really.

---

OK, then I am surprised. A therapist listens to an individual or small group and tries not to judge or assume. A preacher delivers a message to a large group covering the whole spectrum, trying to inspire those who blame and those who are ashamed. Can a preacher focus only on the message that we should not be too hard on ourselves? Or would it need to be balanced by something else?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: But of course, there are so many levels in people. For example, the ones who blame, are often deeply ashamed.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: But curiously, individuals are rather similar, since many people are not homogeneous.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Can't we create a special forum where people can go to say "You don't have scientific proof for the existence of God!" and then we set up a rota where we take turns of going into that forum and reply "We know!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christ radiates God, Martin: the goodness and love, peace and light of God.

There is no place for evil or sin, for deception or denial, in the presence of Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made. Why is that not an inaccurate model?

---

quote:

---

(I also know lots of things that are not provable: for example, I know that the birds I saw in a tree yesterday were woodpigeons, which is not provable, because there's no documentary evidence; and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.)

---

quote:

---

If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.

---

quote:

---

In any case, my point is that if you really think that the conscious mind has no choice in what decisions it makes, and that all the work happens at the subconscious level, it makes no sense to talk about basing beliefs on evidence available to the conscious brain. If the subconscious brain decides what it believes based on whatever evidence it chooses,

---

quote:

---

and then lets the conscious brain kid itself that it was making the decision on rational criteria, then you cannot claim for yourself any warrant to claim that your beliefs are actually more rationally grounded than anyone else's.

---

quote:

---

This requires a bit more modesty towards other people's epistemological positions that you've so far shown.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere, but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.

And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.

Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: Except that a lot of religious people, including some Christians, maintain that they do have such a proof

---

I don't. But you are rehashing your same old non-arguments, on a thread that isn't about proof for God, about scientific evidence, or about neurological proof of free will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
HWR. Puh-leeeeze! I agree with LeRoc, damn his eyes. I said something nice about you anadromously or elsewhere,

---

quote:

---

but this is just not appropriate here. A strong minority of us, here at least, make NO such claims of proof. Utterly reject ALL such claims.

---

quote:

---

And of course we have non-transferable, interior, Jungian, proofs. And I'm a Freudian. It would be so much easier to be strong atheists, but we just can't get over The Hump to get there.

---

quote:

---

Rhetoric shorn of two legs, leaving logic alone, is a woefully inadequate stool on which to declaim to Christian atheists.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: I responded to a post which claimed that the self-giving love that leads to actions against our own interests, has its origin in God. We know that instinctively.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made. Why is that not an inaccurate model?

---

I took the model concept to mean that the conscious is modelling the unconscious - I think that is inaccurate. I do think that "The conscious brain believes it is making the decisions, but in fact the decisions are already made." is an accurate model (description) as to how the experimental evidence indicates that things work.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

(I also know lots of things that are not provable: for example, I know that the birds I saw in a tree yesterday were woodpigeons, which is not provable, because there's no documentary evidence; and that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points.)

---

But the first is capable of proof – you could have photographed the birds. You can’t photograph God. Whilst I’m neither a mathematician nor a physicist I believe the second is only true within certain limits.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you can do so I recommend that you watch the television series “The Brain with David Eagleman”. The first two shows are available on the BBC iPlayer - BBC4.

---

Firstly, I've read a fair amount of New Scientist and also a fair amount of philosophical discussion of these experiments, stroke victims, change blindness, etc. Therefore, I have what I consider a justifiable belief that the probability of me learning enough that I don't know already and that significantly affects my understanding of these matters is low compared to the time I would have to spend on it.

If you can't be bothered to take the time to make your points yourself I can't be bothered to do your work for you.

---

If I said this I would expect to be told that it was a cop-out – that I was not prepared to risk having my precoEnceived ideas shot down. Would you take second- hand religious instruction from a young , inexperienced, unqualified novice or go to the source – to the professor who is a professional sharer of his, and his colleagues, experiences and results. After all - you might find out that I’ve misunderstood the facts and be able to offer to help me get an accurate understanding mightn’t you?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

In any case, my point is that if you really think that the conscious mind has no choice in what decisions it makes, and that all the work happens at the subconscious level, it makes no sense to talk about basing beliefs on evidence available to the conscious brain. If the subconscious brain decides what it believes based on whatever evidence it chooses,

---

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I said or have I failed to make it clear enough? The unconscious does not choose what evidence to consider, it reacts to the totality of its data.

---

quote:

---

Additional data is harvested by the conscious brain – sight, hearing, etc. and added to the information available

---