[kenberg]

helene_t, on Feb 24 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

kenberg, on Feb 24 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

There is evil in the world. If God were all knowing, all good, and all powerful then He would know about this and, being all good, he would correct the situation. Therefore the existence of evil disproves the existence of God. In this counter-argument, God would ensure His own destruction by ridding the world of evil.

Is this a joke? The premise was that good requires evil, presumably because good is defined by it's contrast to evil.

Sliced bread would still exist without the Gerber convention. Maybe we would perceive sliced bread differently because it would no longer be contrasted with Gerber. Maybe a benevolent god created Gerber for us to appreciate the relative goodness of sliced bread. But a god that created holocaust for the same reason would hardly be benevolent.

Maybe not exactly a joke, but sort of. The assignment was to consider the logic of

the non-existence of evil implies the non-existence of good
the non-existence of good implies the non-existence of God.

My view is that the whole argument is not to be taken seriously but that if it is, then apparently God cannot destroy evil without it leading to his own destruction.

I went from a fairly religious childhood to a non-religious adulthood. Considerations such as this played no role whatsoever in my transition. Nor do I think that they play any role in the views of my Christian friends.

On the other hand, I can imagine that the argument that was presented: "If there is no evil then there is no good, and if there is no good then there is no God" might very well have been used by overly logical theists to counter the overly logical argument that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of God. Thomas Aquinas, for example, had a weakness for misused logic.

The point I want to stick with is that you get nowhere, neither towards God nor away from God, with this sort of analysis. And you certainly don't resolve the issue of capital punishment this way.

[helene_t]

Tx Ken. That's what I thought, tx for confirming. I agree with all that. I am sure my religious friends have better reasons for their believes, also.

[luke warm]

[quote name='Winstonm' date='Feb 24 2008, 12:31 PM']"if there is no evil there is no good": first off, this asserts a causitive relationship when no such relationship is proven.[/quote]
as in many such cases the 'evil' and 'good' i speak of are metaphysical, or transcendent, much like logic itself... however, if one denies that evil exists (or its counterpart), not much can be said about it... the discussion stalls in the quicksand of subjectivity... such and such is good here but not there, or now but not then... this is evil here and now, but not there an then, etc...
[quote name='kenberg' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:53 PM']A: If there is no evil there is no good

This has more the nature of an axiom than an argument. Axioms often contain undefined terms, so let's work with it. It would follow that we should all agree that never, under any circumstances, would we ever do anything good. The axiom, in the logically equivalent contrapositive form (If there is good then there is evil) , asserts that the existence of good forces the existence of evil. This is something of a paradox. If I do something good, it will cause the existence of evil. But then what I do isn't really good, is it.[/quote]
imo this is the same misunderstanding winston has of the matter, that of a causative link... your contrapositive asserts that the existence of good forces the existence of evil... this is not necessarily so, i haven't claimed it to be so, and it is (imo) neither logical nor intuitive to believe it to be so... assume for the sake of argument the axiom "God is good" to be true... it seems self-evident to me that God could have created any number of worlds without evil... that he didn't (to my knowledge) only points to the sufficiency of *this* creation for his purposes
[quote]B: If there is no good then there is no God.

This seems more logical, assuming that somewhere else we have the axiom that God is good. Again take the contrapositive: If there is a God then somewhere there is some good. Of course. If there is a God, and God is good, then there is something good, namely God.

You could vary this: Satan is evil, and if there is no evil then there is no Satan. Sure, since the existence of Satan, combined with the description of Satan as evil, shows that there is evil.  Satan exists implies evil exists is logically equivalent to evil doesn't exist implies Satan doesn't exist.

It's possibly of interest (well, anything is possible) to note that the arguments here are a rebuttal (I don't say effective rebuttal)[/quote]
i'd say that to call them rebuttals of any stripe is an exaggeration
[quote]to the age old problem of reconciling evil and the existence of God. The usual argument goes: There is evil in the world. If God were all knowing, all good, and all powerful then He would know about this and, being all good, he would correct the situation. Therefore the existence of evil disproves the existence of God.[/quote]
and of course i know you aren't arguing this
[quote]In this counter-argument, God would ensure His own destruction by ridding the world of evil. As soon as evil disappeared, so would good (by axiom A) and the disappearance of good would then, by axiom B, force the disappearance of God. The bottom line here is that we must all suffer evil in order to preserve the existence of God. [/quote]
again, this does not follow... it assumes that because God (good) exists, evil must exist and that without evil, good (God) ceases to exist...
[quote]Ideologues of various stripes seem to be very fond of word games and it may be satisfying to catch them out in them, but it is ultimately pointless.[/quote]
i don't know if i should be offended by this or not... i will pretend i'm not
[quote name='helene_t' date='Feb 24 2008, 02:32 PM'][quote name='kenberg' date='Feb 24 2008, 07:53 PM'] There is evil in the world. If God were all knowing, all good, and all powerful then He would know about this and, being all good, he would correct the situation. Therefore the existence of evil disproves the existence of God. In this counter-argument, God would ensure His own destruction by ridding the world of evil. [/quote]
Is this a joke? The premise was that good requires evil, presumably because good is defined by it's contrast to evil.[/quote]
that wasn't my premise... but if evil does exist, how does one know it? how is it measured?
[quote name='Winstonm' date='Feb 24 2008, 03:00 PM']I have trouble with this premise because I can't determine if it is a causitive relationship - evil creates good - or a correlative relationship - good and evil exist and move in relationship to each other.[/quote]
why must it be either of those two?
[quote]If the determination of good and evil is relative contrast, it seems more likely to be a correlative expression, meaning an assumption that the terms are valid, but their values change in relationship to each other - which would seem to argue against absolutism.

However, by saying 'without evil there can be no good" suggests to me a causitive relationship - one is required in order for the other to occur.

The end result - again, to my untrained mind - is a statement of causation (good requires evil) argued as a correlation (because of the relative contrast).[/quote]
the purpose of 'without evil there can be no good' was aimed at those who deny that one or the other, or both, exist... if, as some here have said, evil does not exist then good does not exist... now for the ones who say neither exists, there is no problem... all acts are morally neutral, there are no "good" or "evil" acts, only those with which we agree or disagree
[quote name='kenberg' date='Feb 24 2008, 03:56 PM']Thomas Aquinas, for example,  had  a weakness for misused logic.[/quote]
philosophers, on both sides of this issue and throughout history, have honored aquinas as a thinker of note... i feel safe in saying neither you nor i will ever approach his reputation, nor the clarity of his "misused logic"

[Winstonm]

Quote

the purpose of 'without evil there can be no good' was aimed at those who deny that one or the other, or both, exist... if, as some here have said, evil does not exist then good does not exist... now for the ones who say neither exists, there is no problem... all acts are morally neutral, there are no "good" or "evil" acts, only those with which we agree or disagree

I see. The way you stated it initially read like a statement of fact. But I am still confused, as you follow the statement, "without evil there can be no good" with this:

Quote

imo this is the same misunderstanding winston has of the matter, that of a causative link... your contrapositive asserts that the existence of good forces the existence of evil... this is not necessarily so, i haven't claimed it to be so, and it is (imo) neither logical nor intuitive to believe it to be so...

This seems to imply that good or evil can exist without the other - but isn't that a validation of the same claim others' have made that one or the other or both do not exist?

If you are saying that both are real but have no causitive or correlative relationships, then the claim that "without evil there can be no good" is invalid, isn't it?

[kenberg]

Luke, what's your view on the point that I gave the most emphasis to: All this debate about "if there is no evil there is no good" and whether evil is a religious concept or not is pretty much beside the point. Let me clear about what I mean by "beside the point".

I have, over my life, changed my mind about many religious matters. I have changed my mind, a couple of times, about capital punishment. But I have never given a moment's thought to issues such as "if there is no evil there can be no good". I just don't find it useful at all, whether it is true or false. Actually I doubt that it is even meaningful. We can disagree about Aquinas, but even if I were to become convinced that he is brilliant it would not change my mind about capital punishment.

So I am interested in whether we have agreement or disagreement about some of these issues being a blind alley, no matter how they are resolved. For example, Aquinas has, as I recall, five proofs of the existence of God. How ever many there are, I read them once upon a time. I didn't think any of them had any merit at all. But that's a long way from saying that as a result of reading his flawed proofs I gave up on the existence of God. That's not at all the way it happened. Not for me, and I would strongly guess not for most people. Believers may find the proofs convincing, they already believe. No one else finds them convincing. No minds are changed.

On another thread, there is a discussion about a book called "The God Delusion". I stated there that I couldn't imagine reading it. Even if he has sound arguments, I don't care. He and Aquinas can spend eternity having a great philosophical debate. I'll have some wine. I would be willing to place a bet that it would be hard to impossible to find anyone who changed his mind about God as a result of reading this book.

Minds do change, but not that way.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Feb 25 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

But I have never given a moment's thought to issues such as "if there is no evil there can be no good". I just don't find it useful at all, whether it is true or false. Actually I doubt that it is even meaningful.

Meaningful or not: As it is discussed in this thread, it has little meaning to me. The problem is that we need to know what we discuss before we can discuss it.

As a child I would complain about the weather in november. Then my mother would say that it needs to be bad weather once in a while for us to appreciate the good weather.
Alternatively she might have said that some physical law dictated an average temperature of 13 degrees so for it to be 18 degrees in july it needs to be 8 in january, or that if it were five degrees hotter overall our physiology as well as the physiology of plants and animals would be adjusted accordingly so that we would still only be able to swim in the sea in july-august and still need warm socks in november, and birds would still fly to Africa in september.

If she had said either of later, she would need to refer to some scientific evidence (geophysical or biological, respectively) and her opinion might change in the face of new evidence. As it was, she was referring purely to the aesthetic aspect, it had nothing to do with geophysics or biology.

[Winstonm]

I think Ken hit upon it - we all tend to find the logic in that which we already believe, and see the illogic in that which we do not accept. Logic can only change viewpoints if it is unassailable and encounters an open mind.

Solid wood is hard.
Tree trunks are solid wood.
Tree trunks are hard.

The Soft Tree-Trunk Society would have difficulty assailing this logic. If they are thinkers instead of believers, they may even morph into The Hard Tree-Trunk Society.

However, I have no knowledge of The Hard Tree-Trunk Society's views on capital punishment.

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 25 2008, 04:23 AM, said:

Solid wood is hard.
Tree trunks are solid wood.
Tree trunks are hard.

The Soft Tree-Trunk Society would have difficulty assailing this logic.

They would of course agree with the logic, but they would dismiss either of the premises.

Anyway, I don't care about arguments for the existence of gods since it's a personal thing, no reason to be bothered about other people thinking differently.

I do care about arguments for and against death penalty since that is an issue that must be resolved at the level of society so it does matter what other people think.

And here your/Ken's point holds as well, I'm afraid. People often refuse to accept arguments that go against the desired conclusion. It becomes black-white: either all valid arguments are in favor of death penalty (or abortion or nuclear power or ACBL system regulations or whatever) or all valid arguments are against.

Of course, in a heated debate there is no reason to help the opposition by putting forward arguments in their support. But if this leads to one dismissing their arguments for one's own thought process, not only for the purpose of the debate, then it can be difficult to adjust one's opinion in face of new evidence.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 24 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

Quote

imo this is the same misunderstanding winston has of the matter, that of a causative link... your contrapositive asserts that the existence of good forces the existence of evil... this is not necessarily so, i haven't claimed it to be so, and it is (imo) neither logical nor intuitive to believe it to be so...

This seems to imply that good or evil can exist without the other - but isn't that a validation of the same claim others' have made that one or the other or both do not exist?

If you are saying that both are real but have no causitive or correlative relationships, then the claim that "without evil there can be no good" is invalid, isn't it?

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

kenberg said:

what's your view on the point that I gave the most emphasis to: All this debate about "if there is no evil there is no good" and whether evil is a religious concept or not is pretty much beside the point. Let me clear about what I mean by "beside the point".

i agree with it to the extent that such discussions are more important, or at least fun, to some than to others

fwiw, aquinas was brilliant (and i hope you agree that the fact that you disagree with him doesn't make him less so), and i respect even more the earlier thinkers... the earlier, the closer to originality... time for work

[jtfanclub]

onoway, on Feb 24 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

The person who suggested that anyone who thinks capital punishment must also be in favor of torture etc. is insulting . I cannot imagine anything more repugnant as then indeed you are lowering yourself to the very lowest level of humanity, if indeed you can still claim to the term, imo.

However, examp;es such as have been given should not be allowed the right to be a societal burden ...we have others in society who are needy and who are not being looked after. When the hungry, the old, the crippled, the children, the mentally, physically and emotionally infirm who do NOT commit horrific crimes are all being taken care of, then put the resources left over into trying to rehabilitate these people.

Until then, I think when there is NO question re their guilt, to put them in jail for the rest of their lives is stealing resources from people who are suffering and imo much more deserving of society's help than people who DELIBERATELY act in such extremely antisocial ways.

So talking about torture of those people who are indisputably 'pure evil' is insulting and repugnant.

On the other hand, talking about killing people because it saves money, nothing repugnant about that.

My point was that there are two reasons given to be in favor of the death penalty. One argument (deterrence and punishment) works just as well for torture as for death. The other (killing the undesirable to save resources for the desirable) is in my opinion far more repugnant.

If you kill people who are 'pure evil' to spare resources for children, then why should the line be drawn there? There's lots of people who aren't useful to society, why shouldn't we kill them too? How about the mentally ill who are unable to survive on their own and have no real hope over ever living outside of an asylum? They spend far more resources than the prison for life cases, they're a danger to their guards, and they're of no use to society. Should we kill them too? How about child molesters? Should we off them, rather than risk putting them back into society? People in persistant vegetative states? People living in nursing homes who will never get out of bed again?

Killing people for the sake of an efficiency, even when we're talking about murderers, is still a horrible, horrible concept.

[Winstonm]

Quote

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

I don't follow this reasoning, but that's O.K. Regardless, it doesn't affect the man-made decision to enforce capital punishment or abolish it.

Another basic problem I have with capital punishment is that it is the ultimate power granted to the state - and history shows that whatever power is granted to the state is ultimately misused. It could be argued that even now capital punishment is being misused due to the imbalance in executions between whites and non-whites.

And you can't undo death.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 25 2008, 12:19 PM, said:

Quote

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

I don't follow this reasoning, but that's O.K. Regardless, it doesn't affect the man-made decision to enforce capital punishment or abolish it.

that's true, but remember that some were offering up 'evil' as a reason for CP... now from within the christian worldview i can somewhat understand that as a reason (though i disagree with CP itself)... from a naturalist POV i can't understand 'evil' as justification at all, in's nonsensical to me

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 25 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

This post illustrates what I think a number of other posters have missed: that for people such as Lukewarm, the concepts of good and evil are, it seems to me, concepts that have an existence beyond being merely descriptive terms. 'Evil' lives... it can possess people and cause them to do terrible things. It represents the antithesis to good... it smacks of Satan while 'good' smacks of God.

Thus believers can tie their recognition of these concepts to the existence of the god. They can argue, sincerely, that a refusal to recognize this inchoate but real 'evil' as some kind of force in the universe, is a denial of god.

And so it is. I do deny recognition of 'evil' as some spirit or force that will pervert the mind of any human. Lukewarm's logic depends upon an unproven and unprovable major premise: that god exists. Deny that illogical and (nowadays) irrational premise, and the argument falls away.

Is this relevant to the notion of capital punishment?

I think it is.

When we approach abhorrent behaviours from the belief that such behaviours represent the presence of a malign force, we will respond in an irrational manner. In particular, we may stop (or never begin) trying to understand, from a scientific perspective, why that individual or group of individuals acted in that manner.

Take the guards at the concentration camps in WWII. Who can doubt that much of the behaviour of those guards was 'evil'? Who can doubt that the 'Final Solution' was not 'evil'?

But if history, including recent history, teaches us anything it is that ordinary people can do horrific acts if the scene is appropriately set.

If we simply say that Himmler and Hitler were 'evil', we foreclose a proper understanding of how people like that come to behave as they do and how an entire civilized nation can become obedient to their socio-political theories.

In a similar, altho lesser, vein, if we take the child-raping killer of infants and call him evil, how does that help to prevent the next child-raping killer? How does it help psychologists and psychiatrists, called in to examine or treat a young boy identify the factors in his makeup or environment that will perhaps later cause him to perpetrate such acts?

I suspect that we, as a society, are a long way from an adequate understanding of what goes 'wrong' in such people, and when, if at all, we can intervene in someone's life so as to divert these people from committing such acts.

But we are never going to get there at all, if we merely label such aberrant behaviour as 'evil' in a religious sense.

And the killing of a person because of he is 'evil' in a religious sense allows us to justify killing anyone our religion deems evil no matter what act or acts the person did. It was not too long ago that witches were killed. Doctors have been murdered by religious people convinced that the doctors were evil.. why? Because they carried out legal abortions.

When we allow the irrational superstitions of religion to control our behaviour towards non-conformists, how and where can we draw the line?

BTW, in the foregoing I recognize that many religionists are against the death penalty on religious grounds, so I don't want to leave the impression that I think most religious believers are blood-thirsty retributionists nor do I think that many today would countenance killing suspected witches My point is that we shouldn't consider religious concepts AT ALL in the way in which we treat criminals.

[mike777]

As I said I am one of those fundamental religious believers that think evil is incarnate so with that said.....I am also against capital punishment on religious grounds.

I think taking religion or retribution out of the the criminal justice system is really pie in the sky utopian thinking(impossible in any real earth world) but ok lets do it because you say it is the right or best thing to do.


What now, all the really really bad guys are just sick with bad genes or wiring so make them take gene or brain operations? OTher? Spend our limited resouces on understanding them and much less on retribution.

By the way with all of this said I am a big booster of brain imagery. I am biased towards much more money being spent on basic brain research, so maybe we agree on this point.

If so I wish you good luck on running on that. As heartless and ugly as it sounds people vote local money for education, police, roads not more jails or judges or social workers but good luck on your plan.

Americans are really bad at this. After 9/11 we said retribution and bomb Afganistan we did not say hold on.......... hold on, we need to understand why people are mad at us, what are we doing wrong, how we the USA can stop getting people mad at us, we need to talk with them and really understand what is going on.

From what I have seen Europe and Asia and South America can be pretty bad at this also, in other words they are for retribution. See the other day in Belgrade.

We say kill Richard Speck, or whoever fill in the blank or let them rot in jail and we will forget them or not care if inmates attack them.....

In the next election maybe it seems we may have a choice, the Democrats who will talk and work along side the UN and use diplomacy, talk with our enemies and not bomb them or McCain who will Bomb first and ask questions later.

[mikeh]

mike777, on Feb 25 2008, 04:45 PM, said:

I think taking religion or retribution out of the the criminal justice system is really pie in the sky utopian thinking(impossible in any real earth world)  but ok lets do it because you say it is the right or best thing to do.


What now, all the really really bad guys are just sick with bad genes or wiring so make them take gene or brain operations? OTher? Spend our limited resouces on understanding them and much less on retribution.

Why do we need to conflate retribution with religion?

There is certainly ample support, in the field of evolutionary psychology, for the idea that the ability to harbour a desire for retribution carries with it a reproductive advantage... bearing in mind the social environment in which our ancestors lived.

As an individual, when I have suffered from criminal misconduct (my car being broken into, for example) I have felt the urge to inflict some serious physical pain on the culprits, and I can imagine but have never, fortunately, experienced the urge to violence that would come over me if a family member were brutalized or killed.

But retribution per se is an ugly thing. It demeans us, in my view. It lowers us to the level of the person who committed the act.

How many of us watched the video of Saddam's execution? I started to watch but, within a few seconds, mentally shuddered at what I was doing and exited the website.... and felt 'dirty' for having even logged on. I am sure that I would have felt differently had I had my family gassed to death on his orders.... at least, if that had happened shortly before his execution.

What is worse about retribution is that it becomes all too often a self-perpetuating cycle. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While there are broader underlying themes, all too often the cycle of rocket or suicide attacks by Palestinians provokes a missile strike or an armed incursion by the Israelis which in turn is used as a justification by the Palestinians for more rocker and suicide attacks... each side sincerely proclaiming that their response was retribution.

While this kind of vicious circle will not usually arise in cases of state-sanctioned retribution against individual criminals, the utility of the retributive principle, the moral validity of the principle, must surely be in question.

As for trying to understand what makes a criminal mind tick, why not spend money trying to address the causes of criminal behaviour? The US, in particular, seems obsessed with trying to deal with the consequences of behaviours rather than the causes. Obesity: generates the diet industry, while soft-drink and candy companies are allowed to place vending machines in schools and physical education classes are eliminated on cost reasons! Billions are spent by the (legal) drug companies promoting illnesses.... I mean, whoever even heard of 'restless leg syndrome' before a company developed a treatment for it? Unless you are exposed to US television, I doubt that many would imagine the advertising for anti-depressants that fill the airwaves.... suggesting that virtually every bad feeling warrants powerful medication! While virtually no attention is paid to prevention.

Why not try to understand the source(s) of the aberrant behaviour? I am not suggesting buying into the once-popular but now largely discredited notions that all problems are due to a poor environment. I am not suggesting tearing down prisons or firing police officers. But I am suggesting that spending a few millions or even billions on prevention may be a huge money-saver in the long run.

As for the idea of 'limited resources', it is tough to know whether to laugh or cry. The US imprisons more of its population, by a wide margin, than any other westernized country. It turns millions of recreational drug users into criminals, while at the same time making thousands of sociopaths rich due to the drug trade. It is a country where, in many places, it is possible to go to prison for life for 3 convictions for shop-lifting, if the DA decides to treat the crimes as felonies. It has countless billions to lavish on Haliburton and other private war profiteers. It favours the wealthiest upper class in the world with virtually no meaningful level of taxation while denying tens of millions access to basic health care. It can talk about planning a manned mission to Mars yet it can't 'afford' to improve the socio-economic status of its underclass.

The US is a wonderful country, and I do not mean to slag it.. but when an American claims that they should better use their limited financial resources to send people to prison for decades rather than divert ANY of the money spent on other matters to understanding WHY they have such huge murder rates, armed robbery rates, drug addictions, etc it makes me laugh and/or cry.

The US is a great country, whose main fault is that it could be even greater. Americans, on the whole (based on my limited personal knowledge) are generally wonderful people.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Feb 25 2008, 04:24 PM, said:

This post illustrates what I think a number of other posters have missed: that for people such as Lukewarm, the concepts of good and evil are, it seems to me, concepts that have an existence beyond being merely descriptive terms. 'Evil' lives... it can possess people and cause them to do terrible things. It represents the antithesis to good... it smacks of Satan while 'good' smacks of God.

luke warm, on Feb 25 2008, 06:25 AM, said:

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good

no, that isn't what i think at all... i believe that 'good' and 'evil' describe the nature of God and man, respectively... there is evil in the world because God created man and allowed man to have free will... man isn't possessed by some evil spirit or force, man's nature leans toward evil, he freely *chooses* evil... we all have this nature, we all make this choice, to varying degrees (do you agree?)

but if a person denies evil exists, in whatever form, how can that same person affirm that good exists? i don't see how he can... there must be some standard by which a thing can be called 'good' or 'evil'... josh and helene were closest to what i was trying (evidently not as well as i'd like) to say

Quote

And so it is. I do deny recognition of 'evil' as some spirit or force that will pervert the mind of any human. Lukewarm's logic depends upon an unproven and unprovable major premise: that god exists. Deny that illogical and (nowadays) irrational premise, and the argument falls away.

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

[mike777]

Well you did not quote where I am for more spending in one medical area. If knowing more about the brain helps what you advocate, good.

OTOH you list countless countries where retribution runs rampant. I think hoping for a criminal justice system without retribution as a large part of it may take a different human race or at the very least I think having a criminal justice system that reflects utopio and not the real world is dangerous.

I think hoping for a justice system with zero impact on it from religion will take a different human race.
Note how many argue secularism is just another religion. A religion with Humans playing the role of God and deciding what genes are saved and how they are saved.

[Winstonm]

Quote

not if God *is* good, winston... it's obvious that he could have created any number of worlds, or none at all... assume none... he creates none yet he (good) still exists

and 'without evil there can be no good' was meant in the sense that if you, me, we, deny the existence of evil we also deny the existence of good



no, that isn't what i think at all...

You quote yourself and then claim that isn't what you think at all?
Jimmy, you drinking again?

[fifee]

Gerben42, on Feb 19 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

I do not think it should be ruled out completely, but much more care should be taken with this verdict than otherwise. It would not be something that I would leave just to a jury.

I'm thinking about cases where it is bleedingly obvious that you have the right person, combined with a statement that this person could NEVER function again in society. It should be an option for at least serial child abuse, serial killers and serial rape cases.

A very select group of people are just wired in some way that if they ever get out, the rest of us will not be safe because they WILL strike again.

A great majority of those on US death row would not qualify for this.

No capital punishment Period.

I am optimistically thinking that we have evolved beyond these barbaric customs, but I am still waiting for rehabilitation to be the main focus of the prison system and the courts.

We no sooner build a new prison than it is full and we are needing more. What's wrong with this picture?

I think we should use whatever we have in our arsenal and start asap to - educate, rehabilitate, de-program, re-program or whatever it takes. We had had many "leaders" who have shown us how easy this can be for a determined person.

Some may never make it back into society but unless we make a bigger effort to begin to rehabilitate criminals, we will just need to continue building more jails.

P

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Feb 25 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

but if a person denies evil exists, in whatever form, how can that same person affirm that good exists? i don't see how he can... there must be some standard by which a thing can be called 'good' or 'evil'... josh and helene were closest to what i was trying (evidently not as well as i'd like) to say

Quote

And so it is. I do deny recognition of 'evil' as some spirit or force that will pervert the mind of any human. Lukewarm's logic depends upon an unproven and unprovable major premise: that god exists. Deny that illogical and (nowadays) irrational premise, and the argument falls away.

Quote

no, that isn't what i think at all... i believe that 'good' and 'evil' describe the nature of God and man, respectively... there is evil in the world because God created man and allowed man to have free will... man isn't possessed by some evil spirit or force, man's nature leans toward evil, he freely *chooses* evil... we all have this nature, we all make this choice, to varying degrees (do you agree?)

No, I don't. In fact I regard this type of attitude as repugnant. A copout. An abandonment of reason. A denial of evolutionary psychology. A resort to superstition. I hope you get my point

Quote

illogical how? irrational how? i'd say that your very ability to have opinions on these things presupposes my God... for example, the mind you are using to discuss these things (your mind), is it concrete or abstract? is it extended in space or not extended in space?

I fail to understand the logic that connects my having (what passes for) a mind and the existence of your (or any other's) god.

I don't know why I have a mind, any more than I know why the universe exists. That admission of ignorance is far more honest, intellectually, than any attempt to 'explain' these mysteries by invocation of a god-entity. As I and others far more intelligent than I have said, the labelling of areas of human ignorance 'god' is no explanation at all. It begs the questions as to who created god, or how it created itself and why it bothered? God is a 'black box' solution. It tells us nothing of meaningful content, by way of explanation, but affords some of us an excuse to stop thinking.. the answer is the black box and we can't look inside... indeed, the very notion of looking inside (to be able to make our own, improved black box, for example) is heretical.

I do agree with one thing you wrote earlier, although I think that your usage was incorrect... I do think that my mind is an emergent property of my brain and the physical processes that occur therein. I think that once those processes cease, because I am dead (if only brain dead), then 'I' cease to exist. Which is one reason I don't think that we will ever upload our consciousness into computers or more advanced devices.. we may create copies indentical in behaviour to our minds, as best as an outside observer can detect, but the actual consciousness is inseparable from the meat. There ain't no soul, I'm afraid. That must scare the bejesus out of a lot of people, which is why there are so many death bed conversions, and why there is truth in the saying that there are no athiests in foxholes. Fear of personal extinction may explain religious belief, but it doesn't validate religious belief.