Keyser Söze and the Universal Contrarian

Carrying over from Moral Darwinism...I often question the existence of God, yet I rarely doubt the existence of Satan.  According to most religious and/or moral rationalizations of the fundamental nature of the universe is that the universe is good and man is bad.  The religions I am most familiar with imply a benevolent, or at worst, indifferent Creator/Tender versus an in-Adam's-fall-we-sinned-all-lower-case-m man.  But what if that is the big fraud?  What if the universe itself is a manifestation of evil?  Consider the reality that in respect to all we can possibly know, every living thing that has ever existed has died or will die.  This is a fundamental law of the universe.  Death being universally acknowledged by all sentient beings as a bad thing, to be avoided by cockroaches, meth addicts, and BP CEOs.  As far as we know, the only creature to make any serious proactive attempt to stop death and the only creature to have had any success at postponing death is man.  Perhaps it was a mistake/oversight/flaw made by the evil universe that unintentionally allowed humans to develop this skill.  Man has been pushing back against the universe his entire existence.  Perhaps man-good fighting universe-bad.

There are times when evil is done, but you can make some sense out of it.  It works to the advantage of the perpetrator, either to satisfy the perp's desire or because evil was the path of least resistance.  But then there are those instances where evil is done for little to no gain for the evil doer, like simple vandalism, or where the effort involved far exceeds the payoff, like stealing copper tubing from an AC unit on a miserably hot rooftop.  Seems to me it would be easier to flip burgers in a much cooler kitchen.  Of course the argument goes that such people can't think that far ahead.  OK, evil is a stretch in these instances, but these things are certainly on the liabilities side of the Great Ledger.

I suppose the argument goes that the BTK Killer got enough of a thrill out of his actions to justify the considerable efforts he went through to carry them off.  But it's really a rather recursive argument and there's no way to know for sure except by the fact that it happened.  Ipso facto.  On the other hand, maybe he didn't get much of a thrill.  Maybe his evil was just a bubble of the evil universe leaking through the generally better fabric of man.

Tongue in cheek or not...

Comments

[Amy]

Dang, just stuff it all in there one time, DubyahTeePea. I gotta ask: Do you feel God is the source of good and Satan the source of bad? That is, without either, we'd have neither good or bad? Are you anthropomorphizing Satan into a being with power to make man do evil things? Can't be. We have the power of choice. It is you who controls the good and the bad that you do. The universe is what we should be worshiping if you ask me. 'She' kills more humans than all the wars put together and gives life to all humans, and she was here first. It's only fair if we take from the universe that we give back, so we die and if it weren't for modern burial, we might come back as a rose. Or some corn for the Aztec Corn Goddess to sprinkle on her minions before she rips their hearts out with her obsidian knife in obeisance to the Sun God, giver of life.

I wonder if it isn't a flaw in man that he constantly seeks to 'create' purpose for himself - as most philosophers like to ponder. I'm not complaining as I love the discussion, but in the end, the only answer we have is to live the life we have and change it at will if it doesn't suit us. Lucky we are, I think, to have that option. What I think bothers me so much is our relationship with fear. Fear is a dynamic emotion: We have to feed it. Why not ignore it and get on with what's in front of us and tell the next person who hands us an "if" "then" to take a hike. I fear accidents in the real world, but of the incorporeal realm, I fear nothing. Easier that way. Smoother, too.

This made me pause and ponder: What do I fear the most? Homesickness and all its manifestations like loss. There is nothing, nothing to fill that empty, hollow yearning....... I fear that.

[WTP]

To discuss good and evil, we must always keep in mind that they are very likely simply manifestations of man's mind and the universe just is. But that wouldn't be much fun. Plus it would pin both concepts on originating from man, and well...QED.

In the context of this post, I tend to think of good and evil as just existing. God and/or Satan would not so much be originators, but more like conduits. And to the spirit of my post, the question is more to the idea that either one or the other of good or evil actually exist. Whichever the other one is isn't "real" it's just a vacuum of good or a vacuum of evil and we attach that name to the vacuum. I'm thinking that before man came along, was there any "good"? I see the earth just existing, animals evolving to do neither good nor evil since they operate purely on instinct, they just be. Born/eat/die zero-sum game. Everything is ok until it takes an asteroid in the yucatan and most everything dies. Asteroid got nothing out of the deal. Net loss for earth, thus evil. Of course I'm being earth-centric here, but that's all I have to work with. Along comes man and after observing this nonsense for a million years or so (must admit, he's kind of slow) he stops living like the rest of the animals and starts pushing back against nature. Grows his own crops, builds his own shelter, makes a wheel or two to speed things along a bit. Sure, in the process some animal, i.e. natural, behavior stays with him, but his entire existence has been more to purge the natural from himself rather than to surrender to it. Man adopts the dog and horse and a few other creatures into his world. Maybe the creatures don't all understand it, but it must work for them (they sense some good) since given the choice they tend to stick around. Well, pig and cow have issues to consider, but most of them wouldn’t exist in the first place were it not for man. Plus wolves gotta eat too. Man good, nature bad. Does the universe ever make his degree of effort? Not that I've seen. Nature is mostly asteroids, tornados, and skin cancer. Evil.

As to fear, I agree. But in our defense, it is only us who look far enough down the timeline and have the capacity to analyze the possibilities in such a way that we can see so much of it. If a dog had any idea about parvo, oil spills, or Korean cuisine he'd be a nervous wreck. One thunderstorm and most of them are scurrying under the bed, cowering in fear. And this is the creature that’s learned the most from us.

One thing I wished I’d stated differently in the post…I should have referenced those who make computer viruses instead of vandalism. Would have been more to the point of abstract evil for evil’s sake and was also what I originally meant to reference when I conceived of this post. Just couldn't remember it when I wrote it...

[Amy]

I love the way your mind works. So very linear and sequential. You personify nature and make man a thing. The earth is not aware of itself. Animals are not aware of themselves. The only living creature aware of its existence is man. Because of that, it is our nature to continually utilize what is around us to head 'em up, move 'em out to progress. That's what our self-awareness does. It evolves relentlessly, and most of the time, it evolves faster than we comprehend it. We are all Red Queens running, running to keep up with it, and it will always keep us running. You don't give credit to our progress to fight some of the "evils" you mention. I would never use the word 'evil' for those things because it implies purpose. Skin cancer does not do its thing with purpose. Just for an example, I had a cardio stress test today. I thought I had a heart attack Christmas morning though had only the severe pain and nothing else. I aced the test, and as I was the last to leave had time to talk with the tech who ran the unit. She said 50%, and then backed off a little to between 45% - 50% of the tests they run for heart attacks turn out to be stress events. I couldn't believe it. I might have guessed 20%, but she said nope... stress. Now. Try to put that into a good vs. bad scenario. You didn't have a heart attack, but.................. Wouldn't it be interesting to measure early man's stress levels with modern man?

Read Matt Ridley. I've read 'Genome', 'The Red Queen', and 'Nature vs. Nurture'. He has a new one out I want. He's ***great***. Former journalist, and because of that, writes in a manner that breaks down the scientifica to peoplespeak, and the thrill is undeniable. Brilliant man.

Your example of evil as pure via the virus is dead-on.

[WTP]

I don't see where I make man a thing. I did give the animals some self-awareness, as you say. But dogs' got personality. Personality goes a long way. Now if a pig had a better personality...but that's a whole other story...with property rights.

As I see your position, you say man creates evil. I'm not saying that's not the case, but if so does that mean there was no evil before man? Maybe. But what I'm suggesting is that bad things happened before man showed up. Did all the dinosaurs have perfect babies? No spina bifida or such? I think possibly evil was "created" with the universe and is as much a part of it as dark matter or anything else we think we, umm, see. Man absorbs evil when he fails at resisting it. Isn't temptation still there even if you don't cave in to it?

As to the stress thing, I don't think early man lived long enough to have the sort of stress situations we deal with today. When we have stress in our youth, we either stick our heads down and plow through it or we escape through drugs, etc. or just give up and become bums. When younger people speak of stress we write it off to "growing up". We only regard it as literal "stress" when we get old enough that we run out of productive places to channel it. Back yonder in primitive times, they either got eaten, killed, or built within themselves a false sense of superiority until they ulitmately got eaten or killed. Most didn't live past 30. Of course the universe had more evil in it then...

[Amy]

This is where I see you making man a thing. ".... his entire existence has been more to purge the natural...". Also, you speak as if man dropped in and met 'good' and 'evil' and dealt with it as he might rain or snow.

Agree about the personality of animals, but we ascribe those human qualities to them as they adapt from their own lack of self-awareness to being the object of attention and love and cuddles. Forget Ahnold Ziffle. peeuu. :) Learned behavior is not the same as thinking.

Evil is dynamic and it is manmade. Same with good. To serve either is your choice. You empower evil by choice.

People so blithely use the word evil to describe things that are not with purpose, evil. Nothing in nature is evil. Temptation, lust, greed, coveting your neighbor - all primal parts of human nature. In order for temptation to BE there, you have to be there wanting it. If you don't want it, it's not temptation. If you do want it and don't give in, good for you. You have character. I see evil in a very different category: It is meant to harm.

ha. ha. Good damn thing you're not a counselor. "So, let me see, Twitly... you're...ah,.... fifteen and you say you are feeling stressed? I see on your chart from Kindergarten that your parents get drunk every night and beat each other up and your mother forgets to pack your lunch? That right, Twit? That still goin' on, eh? ..... ah... I see. Yer pa run off an hits jus you an yer ma? Look, come by after gym and I'll give ya some cocaine. Next!"

Early man: grunt... kill bufulow.
Eary wife: snort ... get big un. 11 chirrens ta feed.

Early neighbor.... scratch...itch... hellow? yer man kilt by stampede. So sorry.

[WTP]

Well that sentence was supposed to say "...his entire existence HE has been PERSISTENTLY WORKING (nix the "more") to purge the natural...". Not sure if that makes him less a thing in your view, but that's what I was trying to say. A major problem I have with writing is that I can't type fast enough to get one full thought out of my head before the next one piles up behind, then stuff gets truncated in transit.

Note that for the sake of this argument I was putting aside the far likelier probability that evil is just a manifestation of man's mind. ..as perhaps are God and Satan. But once man conceives of some sort of Creator, if he is not dumping responsibility he is at least constructing an external framework for what "is". In the context of that framework, the most common theme is the universe was just fine ("...and God saw that it was good…") until he started tracking mud all over it. I'm suggesting a different framework whereby creation was mighty damn muddy before he showed up and it has been his effort to create a barrier between the mud of creation and a clean space where he can sit and think and create and live. Google “All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat”…

As for me being a counselor, I wasn’t prescribing…except maybe to put your head down and plow through…the poor schmucks would be less likely (i.e. zero) to get their drugs from me than the worthless SOBs that currently do the job.

[Amy]

DubyaTeePee, you are full of little red ants. Wait.... no. You are full of Mr. Belvedere. I see you posting over at the farm.... hahahahaha. I know it's you, and I have to post beneath you or just post because you're doing it. :) Lordy, brings back the good old days when I took on anyone and everyone. Anyways, Mr. O'Blivion, frameworks are changed weekly by whoever decides to sit down and write something about history. The framework is what his mind sees. It might be fairly accurate, or it might have an agenda, but it is still his. We're playing with language here more'n solving the world's problems: Think a small gang of bored Neanderthals coming up with batting the elderly as far as they can. Scores consist of 10's for a perfect punt where the elderly not only reaches the 10 Line but dies, too. A boomer Neanderthal comes along and sees and for just an instance really wants to play because he hates his cranky mother-in-law, but his mind taps his conscience and whispers: BAD.

What is up with **needing** a god or a devil to make one think? - To make one observe the consequences of choice and from them make determinations of what works and what does not. Impaling old farts on trees with arrows is not good because it takes the impaled a long time to stop hollering and puts the tribe in a bad mood so the sun festival and virgins' sacrifices are clouded by the noise.

In other words, yes God and Satan are manifestations of man. John Calvin was eight before he was potty trained, so he invented Calvinism where your life was predestined. Everything you did, God had predestined for you. Wow. That sure takes a load off. Pass me another unwilling virgin and some Twinkies. I'm doin' just what I'm 'sposed to be doing so shut up.

Jeebus. I feel I have to say something good about religion. It organizes groups and gives solace in community and it helps the poor. Lots of good in religion, but then it splits into sects and it besmirches the very ideals of worship for the common good and love of God. Like I want to dance around rattlesnakes to get closer to God whilst I have me some 'shine. Right.

Here's the thing: There can be ONLY ONE GOD.

Why people do not acknowledge that is so far beyond me, I wonder if maybe I'm on the wrong planet. We live in a world where hundreds of religions exist, and everyone has their own God. That does not compute. There can be only one God. Which one is it? I sure don't care because if there IS a god, it's your conscience telling you to do the right thing, and your conscience will tell you to do the right thing. Thank God.

[WTP]

I was not full of Mr. B...I was working when I wrote that, so sue me if I went too fast. And no, I haven't been over to the farm except for following a link Mr. Thompson put up. I certainly didn't post, l'lmissyno'tall. Harrumph.

And now you made me Google "John Calvin" and "Potty training", whereby the first hit on an Ask.com link lists a "similar question" of "Is John Wayne and Vin Diesel gay". Tell me you don't see God's hand in that. Full of red ants my eye.

OK, so here's the three principles of kurtism, with apologies to one Mr. Fanky-Mary Arouet....
1) If God did not exist he would have to be invented.
2) Man created God in his image and not the other way 'round.
2) Every man worships his own unique and personal God.

So yes, it's ONE God...per customer.

As for your Neanderthal (whose persistence is a whole other can-o-worms), I think horse first then cart. I think conscience came later as a means of perpetuating what by darwinian (ooh, see how it all comes back 'round) morality proved to be successful. One who's knuckles didn't drag so low (and probably something else that did) observed the value in keeping the old geezers around, etc. etc. and when he couldn't reason with the knuckleheads used shame on them. Actually, if recent studies are to be believed (dangerous territory, I know) monkeys, rats, and such have some sense of "fair". So there.

[Amy]

Gud lawd. I think I need to be potty trained cos I jus wet my pants. Why in thee hell did you have to look up 'potty trained'? Is you not? It's easy. Usually. But when people say unexpected funny things sometimes you laff and have to cross your legs. By the way, I made that up about John Calvin. I do have ESTP that comes in handy upon occasion. It's Extra-Sensory-Turd-Perception, and if anyone in the history of religion was a turd, it was John Calvin.

I never particularly swooned over John Wayne. I was too young for one thing, but he always talked like Ernest Hemingway wrote, so I was turned off. When a lawman of the evil west needs him a horse real fast and laconically mumbles tonelessly and without moving his lips while he's leaning against the saloon door that's swinging but he isn't, "R e x. B r i n g me a h o r s e di rec tl y." J.W. was probably too lazy to boink women, and fer shure going brokeback would really be a hassle. Or maybe not. He probably wouldn't have to do any sweet talkin'. Vin Diesel. pffft. My friend, Michael Kaluta knows him and did the artwork for a t-shirt for Mistre Diesel. I thought he was a car. VIN - vehicle inspection number. DIESEL - pump all the way to the right.

Check on # 1.
Check on # 2.
Minus 10 # 2.

Where's # 3?

As a rationalist, empiricist, realist with poison ivy on her left cheek, I have to say #1 is pushing it. Not everyone accepts the fear banquet that comes with a God. Just think how fast the church would empty during Sunday sermon if people were told that there is no hell. And this,.. perhaps the thing about Christianity that disgusts me so I almost loathe the religion after it got out of Jesus's hands: In hospitals lurk preachers of every stripe wandering around waiting for the dying to get pretty close. They keep checking because they don't want to lose a damn sinner for god's sake. So, they get in and ask whoever is dying if they want to accept Christ and then they'll get to go to Heaven. They don't care who you are or what you've done in your life. They don't know. Chances are the lurker is 96% successful because right time for dying people start wondering. So, a drop of water on the forehead and all is swell and sweet. Just so happens the guy dying was a serial murderer and never did a good thing in his life except die. They'll probably try that crap with Charles Manson. The point: Why fear and worry and worship and have to talk to people you don't want to talk to at the meet 'n greet after church all your life when you can sleep in and watch some TV? If all it takes to avoid the burning fires of hell is a "Yes" and a drop of water on your noggin...... well, what good is it?

I'm with Thomas, the disciple: If I believe, I carry that belief inside and feel it. I don't need religion.

Monkeys, rats, and all animals except cows have a pecking order. If you want to call it "fair play", that's fine with me. But it's Darwinian. Alpha male produces the babies that are most likely to survive. Many species of animals will eat the runt of the litter, or if not eat it, leave it out to die. Too bad man can't do that. Half the tyrants in history were runts with a banty rooster complex.

Indians left their old to die. If the elderly was too ill to travel in the constant movement of the tribe in search for warmer climates and plentiful food, he and the tribe understood that he would stay behind.

ooh. Shame is the worst. Another active emotion. You have to think about it to feel it, and usually someone sticks it to you so you have to think about it. Bad, really, bad parents use it as discipline. I think I wrote this at MF once: A child may forget what he did, but he will never forget how you made him feel about it. It's manipulative like guilt, and people who use either.... losers.

I am not saying we should ever be without shame or guilt, but it should be self-imposed by our conscience, not persistently used by someone to manipulate and demean someone - especially a kid. I'm also not saying Elderly Bunting wouldn't be fun, but you should not engage in EB unless you are able to score a quick 10 because anything less causes prolonged moaning and whining and that might make you feel shameful in front of the other players, and rules state you are not allowed to go whack the fallen to shut them up because they didn't kick the bucket at the 10 line. To avoid this, practice on squirrels and raccoons and baboons if you can catch one. Best time to catch a baboon is during fermented berry week when they're all drunk and can't run well.

[Amy]

Dragging this up from the next post below: The universe is neutral. It does not think.

[Sleuth]

It seems to me that because the universe cannot choose what it does (if indeed it can do anything other than exist) and neither choose what happens within its boundaries, it is not inherently good or evil. So yes it should probably be described as neutral, in my view. Of course, individual thought is key to everything: it is why we are having this debate and it is why there are so many religions with so many members of each religion having different concepts of god etc. The universe certainly does not appear to have the power of thought, only its inhabitants have that. In nature, entities do what they must to survive or are forced into something by some natural force or other. Occurances just occur, they do not think or choose so cannot be good or evil.

WTP, when you began this discussion you wrote: 'Consider the reality that in respect to all we can possibly know, every living thing that has ever existed has died or will die. This is a fundamental law of the universe.' I wonder, how can we make assumptions about an unforeseen future. Also how do we know that this world which we inhabit is even real? Perhaps it's just a video game and when you die - it ends. The 'real' world could be completely different.

If we transform the universe into a thinking body that can be evil, then it is a living thing and as far as we know, it has always existed and always will because the whole thing can just expand then condense itself into a singularity, then expand again in an eternal cycle. Lastly, surely death can be and is a good thing to certain religious people - being released from this disgraceful world of sin and all that. Also, if we believe re-incarnation: when you die, if you have fared well, you recieve an upgrade.

With religion generally in this discussion, both of you seem to treat the word as being synonymous with Christianity, which it is not. As for the strength of any religion - philosophically speaking - they can be pretty excellent if they base beliefs on some form of evidence, not blind faith.

Elderly Bunting - I don't think the elderly are entirely useless. They can have a good bit of wisdom and at least be a good laugh. That could be why the Spartans had elements of gerontocracy in their government. We all age and become old. I doubt you would like to be battered by villanous youths on your 60th birthday.

It would take a while to comment on everything, so I'll stop here - time being so intent on ploughing forth, leaving us mere mortals to shout "oh God I'm late!". Just think I'll mention that I won't be anywhere near a computer for the next two weeks, so sorry if I don't contribute during that time.

[WTP]

Well, hurry back Sleuth...

Whether or not the Universe chooses what it does leads, again, to a semantic (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) argument as to the existence and/or post-creation role of a Creator. I am not arguing one way or another on this. I suppose more to the point would have to be "what exactly is evil?". In its noun sense, paraphrased from Webster's it is suffering, misfortune, or wrongdoing or that which brings about sorrow, distress, or calamity. Putting aside the active sense of "wrongdoing", for which I will say falls entirely with man's domain, we still have suffering and misfortune which one could argue are a part of the nature of the universe.

I started to make parallels to entropy in one of the above posts, but it appears I chickened out, probably because I didn't have time to flush out some of the flaws, so let me be (ahem) bold and restate as I sit here in my new found ignorance...Let's assume order=good and disorder=bad. According to the laws of entropy the universe prefers/is moving toward disorder. Now I suppose you might say order is bad and disorder good, which of course is a whole other argument. I base my alignments on my observation that stuff just tends to work better when it is in order, thus order=good.

As for other worlds/universes we may be moving to, well OK. But that means leaving this one behind. If moving to the next world is good, then this one must be bad, or at the very least, less good. Not that we have a choice in leaving it…excepting, of course, the timing.

As to a predilection in thinking of Christianity when thinking of religion, that's definitely a point. Though perhaps it underlies the difficulty in discussing religion in general. Hard to criticize religion in the context of other religions one doesn't know well enough. It’s just easy to make parallels and draw assumptions that other religions are not that much different. I've read a very little Buddhism on occasion, and while it had its appeal, so does Christianity on the surface. When you think about how the Dali Lama gets chosen or whatever conflicts there are between the various subsets of Islam, etc. the arguments are different and may have substantial weight, but it still boils down to many of the same sorts of issues. And I don't mean to make too much light of religion, as it is important. Just like rain, even in a hurricane.

[Sleuth]

I've taken my time coming back and for that: je suis desole.

When one speaks of the nature of the universe: does that refer to the disposition of the universe itself (if we believe it to be a thinking being) or reoccuring themes within the universe, things which seem to be part of nature? I would not say that the uniiverse expresses an ability to think, from what little we know of the universe. As to whether or not evil is part of the natural order of things, I would say "yes, at least certain evils are" but this does not mean that the entire universe is evil. If one person in a group of ten people was evil, surely you would not condemn the others as being the same unless they were led by the one.

Perhaps you argue that there is so much evil that it bypasses all other elements of the universe. Well, here I think I'll mention that we probably only know about less than one billionth of the universe. We can talk about the nature of society and humanity--things that we know--but there's a lot of universe out there and we can only speculate as to what drives it forward (or backward if we believe the whole Big Crunch idea).

With order and disorder, one could argue that the universe is full of either. Evolution and the results of the Big Bang could seem pretty orderly but also fairly chaotic. Whether the universe is moving towards order or disorder is similarly debateable.

Moving to other worlds: depending on the motives of the controlling force, the new world does not have to be better (even though I suggested that it has to be in an earlier comment). Also, if this universe is less good - it is not necessarily evil.

I agree about religion, there are major similarities with certain details, but these can still be dealt with in different ways. Not all religions are the same. People who condemn religion as a whole should have a fair bit of knowledge under their belt, or just make the massive effort to refer to Christianity (for example) instead of religion if they want to have a dig at god.

With people and good and evil tendancies: most will probably act based on what they think will provide a benefit to them. Only a few will be absolutely good or absolutely evil. Actually, I'm not sure that anyone can be either omni-benevolent or omni-malevolent. However, I think people can be very good or very evil and not be dissuaded from it, not easily anyway. I do like to believe that one can be brilliantly good and not be changed but at the same time believe that every evil do-er can be turned into a good person, but this seems a little unreasonable.

[WTP]

Well, welcome back Mr. Sleuth....

As for our friend the Universe...well, no, I would not say it's entirely evil. Otherwise there could be no good. My argument is that it's fundamental preference is evil. Not that it "thinks" in some anthropomorphic sense. Evil may just be a predominant force/vibe/nature that permeates it. Just as the reverse of what you say, if one in ten is good, are they all good? But I would put the analogy more along the lines of 3 good, 4 evil, 3 undecided.

And yes, the little we know of the big U is endemic of this discussion. However, it raises another question, is ignorance evil? I would say no, but it does feed evil. Perhaps it is ignorance that lurks more like dark matter (reusing my own analogy from above) than evil itself. So let me refine my hypothetical position as such.

As to order/entropy, well hence my prior predilection for caution in even mentioning it. More of a gut thought than anything I could comfortably argue.

Re "most will probably act based on what they think will provide a benefit to them", I would go further to say the people only act on what they think will benefit them. I'm a big fan of Twain's "What is Man?" and this idea recurs through the piece (iirc, it's been years since I read the whole thing). I would say that "good" is really the understanding that there are many ways one can benefit one's self by helping others. But "evil" often creeps into such efforts, such that the benefit is not always apparent, as there are instances where not "helping" others is better than helping. Whole other recursive can-o-worms, itself.

[Sleuth]

Thanks for the fine welcome. I should be more active on this really, but I'm enjoying myself using electronics less. Artistic crafts and pursuits are just as fine as contemplating the nature of the universe.

I'm sorry to say that I find myself siding with the traditional view that the universe is not evil but its inhabitants can be. I do not regularly observe any force that compels my fellow humans to be particularly evil. There may be some degree of evidence in nature which is against this idea: one could argue that the natural order of evolution and survival of the fittest has influenced man to fight his fellows, however, I am not convinced that the universe should be dubbed 'evil' because of this. I can see why such a proposition might be attractive, though. Animals can seem evil to some extent and cannot reason otherwise-suggesting that their nature is itself evil. Man can reason and man can choose good, although you seem to doubt this somewhat in your hypothetical position later on: 'people only act on what they think will benefit them'. So man could be the good in a bad universe; but as you later state, there can be good behind an evil act or evil behind a good act.

In my view the situation with good and evil within humanity is probably 2.5 good, 2.5 bad and 5 neutral. Thus neutral is dominant.

Surely ignorance can be used for good or evil? Not all people will benefit from certain knowledge or be able to handle certain secrets which it might seem best to reveal to them. This does however link to various other topics.

When considering religion I have often wondered if there will always be motives behind my morality which seem to challenge the prospect of being good for the sake of being good. I have recently concluded that one can choose to be good without considering personal gain. Doing so can appear a little painful at times and frequently, if not always, involves sacrifice. An example might be someone taking the blame for both his actions and the actions of another and by doing so invoking the death penalty upon himself only, rather than both he and the other.

I should be truthful and mention that I have written this between midnight and 1 A.M. Apologies if my comment is of lower quality.

By the way, as Amy would appear to be having a long holiday away from this site, perhaps we should consider searching for some new recruits on T.P.M. or similar? Just a thought.

[WTP]

Amy has been away experiencing technical difficulties. She's had some problems with people assuming her ID (elsewhere) and sockpuppeting her friends. Hopefully she will be back shortly.

No need to apologize for supporting a traditional view. It exists for a reason and deserves to be defended. But as to humans and evil, consider the evolution of the human creature. While other animals do exhibit behavior that benefits the group, pack animals, herds, etc., the human seems to have made the most effort to include larger and more diverse elements in its pack. Consider even the more oppressive human societies, do they not form alliances far beyond the tribal unit? Even within evil groups, there exist rules of behavior and in most cases a care and concern for that group's weaker elements. I know we can't say for sure, but I can't think of any mammalian species that has advanced its circle of concern as broadly as the human. I suppose one could make the case for insects, bacteria, and such, but that would be a whole other discussion of consciousness, etc.

Now I did say in regard to man, proportions of good/evil/undecided being 3/4/3, what I left unsaid (in all honesty, left unconsidered until you addressed the point) is that I feel we've moved from 2/6/2 to 3/4/3 and I think, in spite of the churn of current history, are moving to 4/4/2. This is the good that I see in man pushing out the evil of the universe.

I'm not sure about the use of ignorance to good. Perhaps in a serendipitous way? Evil seems to have its way with ignorance like a cheap whore...sorry for the blunt analogy, but I just couldn't pull myself to delete it after I wrote it. Evil?

As for religion, I kind of see it this way...It's like a bank that society puts its fuzzier values into. Just as you can bury your valuables in a hole in the ground or stuff them into your mattress and they will be safe and secure, they won't earn interest or stimulate the local economy like they would in the bank. But they won't get embezzled either. Of course, I say this as one who does not partake in organized religion himself, but I attribute that to a certain moral banking crisis. Of course we all have our excuses.

And do keep in mind that much of my specifics are a little tongue-in-cheek and heavily influenced by current conditions, mood, perception of reality, recent alcohol consumption, and what side of the bed I got out on this morning etc. etc. etc. but they do reflect my predominating feeling...or so I think...

And please feel free to recruit whomever from where ever. I'm a little leery of hitting on TPM too much myself since I did ruffle the feathers there once (or more) already. I don't see that as an issue if you wish to do so. Thanks for the interest.

[Sleuth]

I might be inclined to say that the universe is a little evil, not in the sense that it chooses to torture its inhabitants, of course, but in that much of what it contains (including parts of humanity) exhibits evils such as war, killing, suffering etc. So much is generally, by its nature, meant to cause friction; for example, the desire in humans and animals to eat meat. Still, the universe appears just to be there as a massive framework. Humans and animals are the things that act and can be described as having a tendency towards good or evil (and perhaps plants can be included occasionally). A lot of things seem to be hostile in nature - I'm guessing this is what we're really referring to or at least part of it - but this hostility makes some degree of sense. One might call it evil, but without such hostilities, without frictions and contradictions, life would probably be pretty boring on Earth. Here the religious man, whomever he may be, says "God (or an equivalent) created this universe to test and teach our souls." There does appear to be some merit to this, as long as the religious man does not also claim that the creator is omni-benevolent and omni-potent at the same time.

Humans evolved all those years ago with a much improved ability to communicate. Hence we have been able to prove ourselves as being far superior to our animal brethren. Some of us still choose evil over good, which is clearly a bad thing. Yes, the oppressive regimes can look after the lower echelons, but only to further their own horrid ambitions.
Why does our position at the peak of evolution cause us to be the good fighting an evil universe?

I would need to study my fellow humans throughout the world a little more, but it seems to me that the majority are neutral in the grand scheme of things. The true good and evil, I would say, are likely isolated and often those holding positions of power.

Religion is something that in general (although I dislike generalising with religion) was probably a good philosophical explanation of some entities which appeared inexplicable, and has become corrupted by the unwise and uncaring public or people seeking to control the majority through easy scare-mongering. Religion can still have a good deal to do with philosophy, however.
The Bank analogy is pretty interesting though and certainly reflects certain elements of religion.

As for the situation with your specifics, I'm sure nine out of ten people are in the same boat. After all we are only human...

If I chance upon any roving sophists, I shall be sure to inform them of this fine website.

I hope that all goes well for Amy.

[WTP]

Thought I might have said it above, but can't find it...I'm not saying the U is pure or highly evil, just predominantly evil. And again, I agree that the U doesn't "think" for itself, unless, as some have suggested, its real purpose is an experiment for the Creator to figure out some riddle. In which case, I still wouldn't say it's "thinking" itself. My thoughts are more along what you state, that by its nature it is meant to cause friction/hostility. Almost like it wants to make something happen and the consequences be damned.

May be taking some time off through the weekend. If I can get my MacBook to Bluetooth properly with my iPhone (and these things are supposed to be easy...heh), I'll be online, otherwise, back on Tuesday (or so).

[Sleuth]

There's definitely a lot of bad out there...

So God's trying to answer a riddle; have you seen or heard Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy?

I have to say I'd probably side with the idea that things are like this to test us generally and help us to improve. A bit like a huge simulator or computer game that lets you practice dealing with certain real-life situations, perhaps.

Good luck with setting up the tech, it's always a pain.