Habemus Papam!

[amateur51]

I fail to see how, if you can understand the first part of the above, that you cannot understand the second.

Can you explain the how/why of your failure, so that a discussion might take place?

[Pabmusic]

I understand the concept of ' a good person ' , ' an evil person ' , ' a good intention ', ' an evil intention '.

I don't think I understand what is meant by the abstract nouns 'good' or 'evil' as I think you use them.

I agree with you entirely. Individuals do things that are good or bad (or evil, if you like) for a huge variety of reasons, often not thought through, but they are responsible for those actions. One danger of treating good and evil as abstracts is that individuals are absolved from taking such responsibility, because there is something else to blame. If "Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or the Norwegian mass murderer" (to borrow Scotty's useful phrase) were really acting under the influence of an abstract "evil", then their main fault is in failing to resist the evil. That surely must be a wrong way of viewing things.

[amateur51]

I agree with you entirely. Individuals do things that are good or bad (or evil, if you like) for a huge variety of reasons, often not thought through, but they are responsible for those actions. One danger of treating good and evil as abstracts is that individuals are absolved from taking such responsibility, because there is something else to blame. If "Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or the Norwegian mass murderer" (to borrow Scotty's useful phrase) were really acting under the influence of an abstract "evil", then their main fault is in failing to resist the evil. That surely must be a wrong way of viewing things.

[scottycelt]

If "Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin or the Norwegian mass murderer" (to borrow Scotty's useful phrase) were really acting under the influence of an abstract "evil", then their main fault is in failing to resist the evil. That surely must be a wrong way of viewing things.

.

You are abolutely right on your first point and it appears to completely contradict what went before, Pab! Therefore, the last point doesn't make much sense.

The recognition of evil does not absolve anyone from a failure to resist it ... quite the contrary!

We have free will and therefore chose Evil over Good.

It is entirely the individuals responsibility for the choice. It is rather those who claim that there is no such thing as 'evil' and then suggest that some people are just made that way or suffered some sort of abuse in childhood who most obviously absolve the individual from responsibility to combat evil!

[amateur51]

.

You are abolutely right on your first point and it appears to completely contradict what went before, Pab! Therefore, the last point doesn't make much sense.

The recognition of evil does not absolve anyone from a failure to resist it ... quite the contrary!

We have free will and therefore chose Evil over Good.

It is entirely the individuals responsibility for the choice. It is rather those who claim that there is no such thing as 'evil' and then suggest that some people are just made that way or suffered some sort of abuse in childhood who most obviously absolve the individual from responsibility to combat evil!

So Mother Teresa chose to leave the people of Calcutta and elsewhere to suffer and die for the want of basic medication and medical attention that she could afford through the generosity if others so that her progress to sainthood might proceed unimpaired? Glad we've cleared that up, scotty

[Pabmusic]

.

You are abolutely right on your first point and it appears to completely contradict what went before, Pab! Therefore, the last point doesn't make much sense.

The recognition of evil does not absolve anyone from a failure to resist it ... quite the contrary!

We have free will and therefore chose Evil over Good.

It is entirely the individuals responsibility for the choice. It is rather those who claim that there is no such thing as 'evil' and then suggest that some people are just made that way or suffered some sort of abuse in childhood who most obviously absolve the individual from responsibility to combat evil!

There's no contradiction. In the beginning I was talking about individual acts that might be good or evil in themselves. Later I talked about an abstract evil - something beyond the individual act. Religion has sometimes called this "the Devil" or "Satan".

There is good evidence that we may not possess free will at all (at least not in the sense we think we do). We know that the relevant parts of the brain become stimulated before we comprehend a thought, suggesting that much happens at a subconscious level.

[amateur51]

There's no contradiction. In the beginning I was talking about individual acts that might be good or evil in themselves. Later I talked about an abstract evil - something beyond the individual act. Religion has sometimes called this "the Devil" or "Satan".

There is good evidence that we may not possess free will at all (at least not in the sense we think we do). We know that the relevant parts of the brain become stimulated before we comprehend a thought, suggesting that much happens at a subconscious level.

Presumably scotty would condemn the terrors that are schizophrenics' lot as a failure to act on their free will?

[Quarky]

White smoke issuing forth from Vatican chimbley - announcement in 45 minutes according to BBC News at 6

What a relief

It seems to me that a weakness of any discussion such as this focusses on the intellectual and organisational aspects of religion, whereas surely the most important aspect is the value it has for the individual participant, in enabling a life which is less free from anxiety (roughly speaking), and enabling a more rational approach to the external world .

Not a catholic myself, nor fond of organised or state religion, but two significant events in this election as far as I was concerned was firstly the seagull on top of the Vatican Chimney, and secondly the new Pope spending most of his time engaged in prayer and religious ceremony.

[Pabmusic]

It seems to me that a weakness of any discussion such as this focusses on the intellectual and organisational aspects of religion, whereas surely the most important aspect is the value it has for the individual participant, in enabling a life which is less free from anxiety (roughly speaking), and enabling a more rational approach to the external world...

Religion does indeed help many people get through life. I would not agree that it usually allows a life free from anxiety, since many anxieties arise directly from the beliefs themselves - particularly those about the afterlife. But I don't understand at all your "enabling a more rational approach to the external world" - very difficult to accept when religion is based on the very opposite of rationality. A life based on religion is, by definition, a less rational approach to the external world.

[scottycelt]

There's no contradiction. In the beginning I was talking about individual acts that might be good or evil in themselves. Later I talked about an abstract evil - something beyond the individual act. Religion has sometimes called this "the Devil" or "Satan".

There is good evidence that we may not possess free will at all (at least not in the sense we think we do). We know that the relevant parts of the brain become stimulated before we comprehend a thought, suggesting that much happens at a subconscious level.

There certainly appeared to me to be a contradiction. If 'free will' is now to be doubted then surely we have no right to condemn and punish the 'Norwegian mass murderer' and child sex-abusers. We should simply feel sorry for them, instead?

Like Mr Pee I'm not altogether clear how the adjective is 'okay' but the noun is deemed not to exist.

If something is true there must be Truth. If something is false there must be Falsehood.

Same with 'evil' ...

[amateur51]

Like Mr Pee I'm not altogether clear how the adjective is 'okay' but the noun is deemed not to exist.

If something is true there must be Truth. If something is false there must be Falsehood.

Same with 'evil' ...

If you mean 'a truth' then I agree with you but not if you mean 'truth'

[scottycelt]

If you mean 'a truth' then I agree with you but not if you mean 'truth'

I mean Truth.

[Quarky]

Religion does indeed help many people get through life. I would not agree that it usually allows a life free from anxiety, since many anxieties arise directly from the beliefs themselves - particularly those about the afterlife. But I don't understand at all your "enabling a more rational approach to the external world" - very difficult to accept when religion is based on the very opposite of rationality. A life based on religion is, by definition, a less rational approach to the external world.

My reference to a more rational approach was intended to mean, within the confines of a short message, that a person participating in a religion and having his internal workings sorted on the basis of that religion, will be able to approach the world outside in a more self-confident manner, and will be enabled to make decisions, which for him have a sound basis.

[Pabmusic]

My reference to a more rational approach was intended to mean, within the confines of a short message, that a person participating in a religion and having his internal workings sorted on the basis of that religion, will be able to approach the world outside in a more self-confident manner, and will be enabled to make decisions, which for him have a sound basis.

Ah! I see. I think I'd agree with that, but it's more about rationalising the view that the person wants to accept, rather than providing a rational basis for a world-view.

[Pabmusic]

...If 'free will' is now to be doubted then surely we have no right to condemn and punish the 'Norwegian mass murderer' and child sex-abusers. We should simply feel sorry for them, instead? ...

Well, I suppose you could feel sorry for some of them, but the main purpose in condemning their actions will still be the minimising of harm - and that's not going to change.