Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Let’s See If Graham2 Sticks To His Nihilist Guns

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The commenter who goes by “jerry” writes:

‘What does the term evil mean?’ If we are going to use it, then we should define it . . . I have asked this question several times over the years on this site and so far no one has been able to answer it . . . no one will offer up a definition.

I responded:

OK, why don’t you offer up a definition? Your choices now are: 1. Dodge the question (which is what I predict you will do); 2. Offer up a definition; 3. Say the word has no meaning.

Graham2 jumped in uninvited and responded:

I would pick 3.

Let’s test this. Consider the following truth claim: Torturing an infant for pleasure is evil.

Given Graham2’s statement, he must respond that the truth claim is false. He says the word “evil” has no meaning. He says that the statement is akin to saying “torturing infants for pleasure is mudnelsday, where “mudnelsday” is a made up word without any meaning.

BTW, for those who are curious, jerry fulfilled my prediction by offering a “definition” of evil that is absurd on its face. Under jerry’s definition, torturing infants for pleasure would not be considered evil. Thus, he essentially dodged the question.

I am thankful for both Graham2’s and jerry’s willingness to express their nihilism so candidly on these pages so that we can examine it. (Truly, I sometimes wonder if they are not fundamentalist Christians shilling for rhetorical effect.) We are back where we started. A self-evident proposition is one that can be denied only on pain of descent into absurdity. Both Graham2 and jerry appear more than willing to descend into such absurdity. They do not need an argument. Again, one cannot argue for self-evident propositions. Graham2 and jerry need simple correction, and I will correct them once again.

Graham2: The term “evil” does have meaning, which I am sure you would be the first to admit if you were kidnapped, robbed, raped, shot and left for dead. You would not say of your assailant that in your fallible subjective estimation you believe he might possibly have done evil if only that word had meaning. You would say he did evil, and the word you used to describe your assailant’s actions would have meaning, and the meaning would apply to the evil done to you, and you would be absolutely certain of your conclusion (and correct BTW).

Jerry, torturing infants for pleasure is evil. You are a fool (and a liar) if you say otherwise.

Of people like jerry and Graham2, I believe KF has had the best word.

Those who choose to cling to absurdity after correction, we can only expose, ring-fence and seek to protect ourselves from. And, we can look at the systems that lead people into such confusion and ring fence them too as utterly destructive.

Comments
Mark Frank: "I admit the word [i.e., "evil"] has meaning." Then tell us what that meaning is Mark. Until you do, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. Prediction: You never will.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Mark Frank asks: “What absurdity results from denying that the holocaust is evil?” Mark asked the question in the context of my assertion that the holocaust was self-evidently evil. I said that “self-evident” means “that which may be denied only on pain of descent into absurdity.” Absurd means: adjective 1. utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation. noun 2. the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world. To deny that the holocaust was evil is the same as denying that good and evil exist. To deny the reality of good and evil is to deny that any event has any meaning or significance at all. Killing six million Jews; stepping on a bug – tom-a-tuh, tom-ah-ta. This is the very epitome of a senseless, meaningless, irrational world. Of course, Mark is a smart guy, and he knows all of this (and if he denies that he knows all of this he is a liar). I can only suppose that he wants to unpack this a little so that everyone is perfectly clear on it. So, there, it’s unpacked.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
#26 Barry You offered: 1. Dodge the matter. 2. Admit the word has meaning and provide a definition This is a false dichotomy. I admit the word has meaning and explain in some detail why it is not possible to give a useful explicit definition on the lines of KF's comment 8. Indeed once you decide which one of the 9 definitions he offers you think is correct I believe I can demonstrate why the definition you have chosen is either false or useless.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT
BA: I would supplement Websters at 8 with an insight from the Christian theology I was taught quite some summers ago now, in essence:
evil is that which is a privation, abuse or perversion of the good out of proper purpose, which therefore ends in harm, damage, chaos, confusion, deception, ruin, destruction and in the end shame. If unredeemed, eternal shame. This being particularly manifest in violation of duty, in violation or abuse of neighbours who are as we are, and in breakdown of stewardship through neglect or breach of trust.
You will see that his is based unabashedly on a theistic vision of our world as purposeful creation by an inherently good and competent Creator God, who is redeemer and also Judge. I could argue from all sorts of directions that will end back at the same point, e.g. start from our notion that we have rights, binding and proper expectations for how we should be treated rooted in our inherent dignity as human beings. This turns about by reciprocity, to we have duties of care and are under moral obligation to one another. Thence, we are under moral government, and so also a Moral Governor. One who is there and is not silent, speaking in the voice of Creation, conscience and more. I would argue that morality points to the only serious candidate to be the IS who can ground OUGHT, the inherently good creator God, the root of being, value and purpose in the cosmos. In this context, pivotal first principles or morality are evident from creation and/or are self evident, also speaking from within by voice of conscience. I would further argue that worldviews that end in moral chaos and confusion, thereby show themselves fatally cracked at the foundation. Whose name, sadly, is legion. Last, but not least, I draw our attention, respectfully, to a key historical precedent, how Locke set out to ground liberty and what would become modern democracy in his second essay on Government ch 2 sect 5, by citing "the judicious Hooker":
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80.]
I find in this an instantly recognisable ring of truth that draws me like a magnet draws a bit of iron. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
F/N: Is this the definition proffered by Jerry that BA is so stringent on?
[Jerry, 59 in principles thread:] I believe there is only one truly evil outcome. That is the lack of salvation. Everything else is trivial and a distraction
If this is not his definition, what is? KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Jerry: “When has anything I have ever said could be construed as a materialist.” Re-read the OP. It does not contain the word “materialist.” I called you a nihilist, because you gave a definition of evil that excludes almost all acts of evil. And in your comment you provide further evidence of your nihilism: “This is what has led me to believe that all our instances of evil are relative in nature.” Saying that everything is relative is the same as saying there is no standard by which to judge anything, which is what nihilism is. Then you assert that you are a theist (presumably a Christian), and I have to admit that “Christian nihilist” is something of an oxymoron. Then you provide a different definition of evil: “Let me say that evil is the absence of good as a definition.” In conclusion, I never called you a materialist. I did not call you a nihilist, but it turns out that you are probably not. You are probably just confused.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
"Your turn – which of the three are you going to take?" I choose 2 and adopt KF's comment at 8.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Barry, This thread is absurd. I have a long history of commenting on this site. My views are well known to any who have been here for more than a few years. I tend to stay away from religion but focus on the science and logic of ID. There is no one on this site in the last 8 years who is a bigger defender of ID than me. Dembski banned me once because I told him he was doing a bad job defending ID. When has anything I have ever said could be construed as a materialist. Yet you and others have said that I am with no evidence at all and a history of commenting that says the contrary. It sounds like it is not just the materialist who don't like criticism or open discussion on some topics. How does defining the only true evil thing as lack of salvation, makes me a materialist? Maybe I have thought this out before and have come to that conclusion. I first got interested in the theodicy issue about 20 years ago long before I knew there was an issue over evolution. I had never heard the term so was curious what it was and why it was considered such a major issue with Christianity. So I have been thinking and reading about it ever since. Not continually but occasionally would see what people said on it to see the dimensions of the argument. This is what has led me to believe that all our instances of evil are relative in nature and there is only one true evil, namely lack of salvation. All other instances including the Holocaust are insignificant compared to this. This is not saying that the Holocaust is ok or an insignificant event but it tends to cloud our thinking. We are obliged to prevent such events and our failure to do so may be an even greater malfeasance than the actual event. It also focuses on earthly events only. That is why I asked the question, why is killing millions more evil than killing one person not because I think it is hunky dory to kill millions but because it tends to divert us from what is really important. Also yours and other's use of the term evil focuses on deranged human beings' actions where the theodicy issue is that God permits evil by all the horrors that have been unleashed on humans from disease to natural disasters. Ayala's book on evolution pointed out that the Lisbon earthquake was the turning point in thinking as it tended to focus on earthly issues and the death, injury and impoverishment of humans on earth. It tended to ask how could a God be good and allow this suffering. He must either be an evil God or inadequate God. It is a major argument for naturalistic evolution. My point is that we tend not to focus on what is truly evil in an absolute measure and substitute various ranges of undesirable events for humans on earth instead. Let me say that evil is the absence of good as a definition. But telling a lie is often an absence of good but is it evil. But if there is an absolute Good, then the absence of that is the ultimate evil or really only evil to focus on. All else pales in significance and as I said is trivial and diverts. How we do that is what drives a lot of us. And if we do it right then these other things which one wants to call evil will be taken cared of. Humans have a poor track record of doing that though but it should not distract one from the ultimate objective. Now, do you think that I should be lumped into all these negative comments you have made about me? I could go on but haven't the time at the moment.jerry
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
Mark, You don’t disappoint. You say you choose “2” and point me to your essay. But your essay contains no definition of evil. So you really chose “1”.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
#20 Barry I go for 2. Defining a moral word (except in terms of other moral words) is rather difficult which is why I refer you to my short essay here. Your turn - which of the three are you going to take?Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Oops, 5 million Poles.kairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
F/N: The above has made me have a deeper appreciation of learning inductively from key case studies and how we respond to them. In the case of the holocaust: 1 --> Some 20 million Russian non-combatants, six million Poles (half of these Jews), and altogether six million Jews . . . then we get into the "mere" hundreds of thousands, ten thousands and thousands and hundreds then dozens, were murdered or caused to die simply because they were in the way of their imagined betters. 2 --> And yet, this is misleading in a profound way, for we are looking back, we are not seeing it the way it was lived. 3 --> Hitler at the beginning would never have been seen as a man who could lead one of the most cultured, most civilised, most intellectual nations down a road to such crimes almost without parallel. No, he looked like the pol who could rescue his nation, maybe a bit ruthless and shady, but no way did it look c 1933 that c 1945 we would face what we faced. 4 --> So, he magnetised a despairing nation and gave it hope of being back up on its feet. And out from under what looked like unfair treaty impositions. 5 --> The fatal bargain was struck: power to the ruthless, surrender of liberties, excusing early wrongs, tolerating tactics of intimidation and the police state in hopes of a brighter future. 6 --> Then, step by step Germany followed this demonic demagogue down a road that ended in rivers of innocent blood. 7 --> and, bit by bit, we see how compromises, devil's bargains, shutting the eye to evident wrong and other enabling behaviour unleashed an almost unstoppable tide of murderous destruction. All of this is giving us insights that help us understand evil, evils, and the ways of being enmeshed in evil, leading to the result of evil: destruction, ruin and shame. No, I refuse to be pulled away from the point that a key yardstick example is a most powerful means of giving us the understanding of what evil is (and so of shaping precising definitions or at least attempts, and of shaping taxonomies of evil that allow us to see lesser and greater, broader and more specific), and why the attempted denial, distraction or dismissal that such a thing is evil consistently ends in absurdity. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, You think all of KF’s efforts to define evil are lacking. Well, I will give you the same challenge I gave jerry. You provide us with a definition of evil. Your options are threefold, the same as his: 1. Dodge the matter. 2. Admit the word has meaning and provide a definition 3. Assert that the word has no meaning As with jerry, I predict “1.” BTW, I note that you disagree with me when I say that jerry effectively dodged the question. Well, spewing inane drivel and calling it a “definition” is dodging the question, and I will let the readers judge for themselves whether jerry’s blithering in response to the question was a good faith attempt to provide a definition. Your turn.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
MF: With all due respect, the issue is to correctly understand evil, that we may better avoid or avert it -- as we ought. And, linked to that, to understand that which is morally self-evident (here, especially the holocaust) as a yardstick and plumbline for cases that are harder. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
16 #KF I fear I have totally lost the thread of your argument. I thought we were discussing how to define moral words such as "good" and "evil"?Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Graham2:
Barry: I said a lot more than ‘I would pick 3?. Maybe you could display just a little honesty and quote my full reply.
Of course you said a lot more than "I would pick 3," but none of the other things you said was "I change my mind; I don't pick 3." Are you now backing off? Are you not sticking to your nihilist guns?Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
MF: Pardon me but quarrelling is a fairly common behaviour, and is quite consistently a matter of arguing that the other party is in the wrong. Almost as consistently, the response is to implicitly accept the underlying principles but to try to excuse, exculpate or turn around the matter. The suggestion that using yardstick examples of evil -- holocaust, the case of Anne Frank, the case of abduction, torture rape and murder of a child [in my case I know a still grieving father] or the like -- does not appeal to a case where there is a sufficient fund of in-common experience, fails the basic plausibility test. We find ourselves governed inescapably by a sense of ought, which we can exemplify and discuss in reasonable terms. We then face the issue of grounding ought in a sufficient foundational is in our worldviews. (And note, the sort of cases in view.) I submit that (i) evolutionary materialism has no such IS, and (ii) the only serious candidate is an inherently good creator-God. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
13 KF
To provide cases in point that amplify what that means in no wise fails to provide an adequate yardstick.
I think you underestimate the limitations of ostensive definitions. The early part of the Philosophical Investigations is very good on this. An ostensive definition only make sense if you already have a large common understanding. If I point at a ball and declare that is what I mean by "xxx"  - it is of no help unless we know what kind of thing "xxx" is. Should I be taking notice of the colour, the size, how the ball is being used? So pointing to an act and saying that is what I mean by “evil” is of use unless you already have a good common understanding of morality.  That is why I say moral vocabulary has to be defined in terms of the social activity, the form of life, which is moral behaviour. Part of that is a prescriptive element – when you call something good you are demanding/asking  people not to harm or destroy it and therefore you are indeed implying that you do not want it harmed or destroyed. However, it is not much help to say it implies that you ought not to harm or destroy it because “ought” is itself a moral word.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PDT
WJM poetically states the dogmatic atheist's position (which everyone, except for the dogmatic atheist himself, seems to be aware of)
To materialists, words are nothing more than monkey wrenches, an evolved form of feces the hairless apes use to fling at that which displeases them.
Quite a beautiful summary of the situation WJM even if the image it invokes is not. But alas what did we really expect from people who believe the quality of beauty itself to be illusory? Here is a somewhat humorous article detailing the futile attempt of two materialists who tried to reduce the subjective ‘sense of beauty’ to mere material mechanism.,,
Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t070321.html
Though the article was somewhat technical, it was almost comical to read how every approach, in which the materialists tried to reduce the subjective sense of beauty to a mere material mechanism, was thwarted. A finding to which the response "DUH!" comes to mind.
All Things Bright And Beautiful – poem http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4082996/ Autumn Leaf's Laughter - Video - inspirational poem http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4181846/ Autumn Leafs Laughter Oh please do tell us of your secret you majestic autumn leaves,of regal red ,and shimmering golden yellow, Brilliantly coloring the landscapes of trees. Do you dare pass away in a rush of beauty while you are slowly dying? Pay ye no heed to all the other deaths so solemnly attended with tears and crying? or Does the essence in you somehow yearn jealously for a glorious life to come? And you somehow know that death shouldn’t be sad but fun? For I truly wish I could die like you and that I knew the secret of your story, so that my countenance should light up and glow as my soul is delivered to behold God,s glory. So please autumn leaves which mock death with such defiant belly laughter, Do tell us your secret over death so that we may properly enter the hereafter. Argument from beauty http://www.conservapedia.com/Argument_from_beauty
bornagain77
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
MF: The underlying implication is always that because of the value of something one ought not to harm or destroy it. To provide cases in point that amplify what that means in no wise fails to provide an adequate yardstick. And, morality is all the way down to worldview foundations, always. However, there is sufficient widespread understanding of what moral issues are in the general context that the yardstick examples are sufficient for purpose without going into formal elaboration of a worldview, why for instance we see the premise advanced by Hooker in light of the Judaeo-Christian tradition and cited by Locke to found modern liberty and democracy, that as one who wishes to be cherished by others, I owe to those who are such as I the like regard, from which basic principles of conduct follow quite clearly for a person of understanding who finds him or her self inescapably under moral government; just think about the appeals to fairness or duty etc we make while quarrelling. Of course, since you acknowledge adhering to materialism, a worldview that has in it no IS that can properly ground OUGHT (and often wishes to substitute a subjectivist or relativistic redefinition), you evidently wish to ring-fence off the term "moral" or "morality." That itself speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
To materialists, words are nothing more than monkey wrenches, an evolved form of feces the hairless apes use to fling at that which displeases them.William J Murray
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
KF #8 As I say in my little essay defining moral words in terms of other moral words doesn't help us understand what moral language means. So the first two highlighted items are of no help. Definition 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction is more useful, but surely wrong? It is essentially consequentalist. According to this definition Hurricane Katrina was evil and euthanasia is a way of avoiding evil. More importantly it does not make the logical link to action.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
KF #5 I agree ostensive definition is adequate for many cases (although it raises the problem of following the rule) but it won't do the job for moral language because it does not account for the prescriptive element. There is a logical relationship between words like "good" and "evil" and action. To describe something as evil is more than just noting that it has particular features it is also asking or demanding that people prevent it.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
PS: Re the holocaust, ask those who are concerned about rising holocaust denial what they would have to say about the consequences of asserting, arguing or believing that it was not an evil. The descent into absurdity is increasingly, sadly evident.kairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT
F/N: Let us look at a responsible dictionary, to see if this is a particularly mysterious or unfamiliar term: ______________ e·vil (vl) adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est 1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper. n. 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice. adv. Archaic In an evil manner. [Middle English, from Old English yfel; see wap- in Indo-European roots.] evil·ly adv. evil·ness n. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. ____________ Not exactly esoteric. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
I just noticed: * Jerry challenges Barry to define evil. * Barry responds not by attempting to define it, but by challenging Jerry to define it. * Jerry offers a definition. * Barry accuses Jerry of "effectively" dodging the question because he doesn't like the definition.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
wentzelitis, it would still be an evil act. Nothing would change that. The escape of fifty infants mitigates the circumstances,not the evil.News
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
MF: There is more than one way to skin a cat, and by pointing out key examples that serve as yardsticks [with the implication that material family resemblance would obtain for other cases], BA has provided sufficient definiteness for discussion. In short, as pointed out already, ostensive definition is legitimate definition. Indeed, I go so far as to say it gives context for precising definitions that attempt to give necessary and sufficient conditions, as these are tested on key examples and counter-examples. Similarly for genus-difference definitions we normally have type cases and key based on characteristic features of examples. KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
Example- If you torture this infant then I won't torture 50 other infants. There. Torturing an infant isn't evil anymore.wentzelitis
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
If they don't think those actions are evil then what's stopping them from doing those actions themselves? People like that shouldn't be on allowed the streets let alone be considered fit for debate. Lock up your babies everyone..Graham2 sees no problem with torturing them for pleasure. The only way torturing a child for pleasure wouldn't be an evil act is if somehow the torturer didn't comprehend that the torturing was causing pain or suffering to the victim or thought that the torturing would somehow lead to the greater good of many others.wentzelitis
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply