HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!

 

"Pure Evil"

Evil demands a response of total opposition so it risky to say it is not a thing or not real. It softens it.

Christians say that evil is not a power but a good that should be there and is not.  So suffering is not bad but the absence of happiness or wellbeing.  Death is not bad but the absence of life.  Sin is a good in the wrong place and time.  Manichaeism is a religion that says evil is a power.  Christians then are saying that evil has a good side.  Manichaeism says it cannot have.

Theologian Alvin Plantinga enunciates that God cannot guarantee evil won’t happen - in other words he cannot guarantee people will not become evil. If evil is not what describes a person but describes a power then God is the creator of evil.  But perhaps the only real evil power is only made by and in persons?  If a person cannot be evil but everything else can be then this denies free will can be blamed for evil.  Believers talk as if they regard evil as a defect or flaw but that is talk for they treat evil as a thing and a reality.  It is odd to say that acts can be truly evil and vile and amount to being evil powers and people cannot.  It smacks of hypocrisy for surely the whole point is not so much the action but the person that devises and implements the action.  No matter what evil is, it cannot be seen as something that accompanies the person as if there was no connection.

If evil is a power and if we create it then it follows that you are pure evil whether you steal apples or whether you are genocidal.  It is about what evil is not what it does. 

Evil being a falling short and not a thing or power means that when we do evil we try to make it real. That means that what we do is not so much bad as what we are. It is about us as shown by what we do - not what we do.  In a sense and in the only sense that counts, we make it real by becoming it.  Our good side does not undermine the bad.  It is what makes you bad for you can do better.

We can intend evil to be real even if it cannot be for intentions do not have to match reality. You can intend to kick the door down though you know you cannot. You can kick it anyway. We reinforce the attempt to be evil by saying it is God who condemns.  It is not bad enough by itself so we add to it by saying it insults and mocks such a good God.  Anyway, trying to make evil real makes you try to turn an evil that is necessarily unreal into one that is real. It makes you bad. It makes you worse than any evil such as death or suffering for they are unreal and you are trying to make a real one. It follows that the least sin is worse than everybody on earth dying in agony.

Such doctrines turn morality into a necessary evil to be cursed not a celebratory thing!  Those who adore God as a sign or "embodiment" of morality are doing wrong.

Those who say evil is not real but is just parasitic on good get carried away.  They think evil being parasitic proves it is not real.  Evil can be a real power and still parasitic.  When they call it a negation or falling short but nothing else it is the parasitism they are referring to.  Their hypocrisy is shown by how they say they love sinners which is thin when they mean parasites by sinners.  It would follow they degrade themselves and encourage parasitism in the sinners if they show them love.

Religion says it is good that evil is a mere falling short and not real. It is the greatest good of all. The attempt to make evil real is the worst sin for it violates this important good.  Religion tries to make you make your evil real by telling you it will bring you to everlasting Hell and breed evil that will bring much pain on earth. It makes evil that is “really” bad really bad.

When people gleefully cause grave suffering, we refer to it as an act of pure evil. Pure evil. We want to believe this deed is purely evil and nothing else. We need to believe it. You cannot define exactly what you mean by pure evil or what it is. So it is expressing a feeling. You think you sense that the deed is wholly evil.

The victims try to keep thinking about the terrible thing done to them in order to look for reasons or answers as to why somebody would hurt them.  Thus the pain directly caused has indirect consequences too.  It is like the person thinks that the more he or she relives the pain and the event the bigger the chance of a breakthrough where the light of understanding and the help it brings comes in.

The deed causes suffering to those not directly affected by the atrocity.  It is not just victims who are the victims.

The more you try to understand all the evil the more angry and frustrated you become because there is no way to understand it and evil is not about being understood.

If evil is pure evil then it is stupid to ask why it happened for by definition it would be happening ultimately for no reason. Thinking about the evil to try and understand it is futile.  Calling something evil is not about explaining why it happened but that it happened.

Religions efforts to understand evil only feed evil and it cannot complain if members get angry enough to resort to war against the perceived wicked.

So if you cannot try to understand evil then what do you do?

You cannot just put the evil out of your mind after it happens for you need to relive it and "repeat" it long enough to grasp how evil it was.  It would be monstrous to start living as if nothing happened seconds after somebody fires a gun at you or rapes you.  Nevertheless in time you must try to be not a victim but a survivor or even a coping person.  The worry with that suggestion is it says, "Okay you have hurt yourself by reliving what happened so you are as bad as the person who hurt you.  You cannot judge."  It blames the victim.  We may have to live with that for moving on is essential.  This idea is resigning yourself to the fact that evil happens and there is nothing you can do to stop people being evil but all you can do is stop it winning. 

Does it make sense to say that a person who commits an atrocity is insane and thus not pure evil but his action is pure evil?  No.  It would be as natural as an earthquake then and nobody resents an earthquake as pure evil.  To call the act pure evil is to blame the doer of the act.  Strictly speaking to try to understand an evil act is just a way of saying you are trying to understand the evil person.  There is no such thing as merely understanding an action.  It is people you have to understand.

Surely if there are acts of pure evil there are acts of pure goodness too?  Surely if there are acts of pure goodness there are acts of pure evil too? Nearly all people would answer yes.

To call something evil is to say it is the complete opposite of what you would do.  It is to say that the evil person is the opposite of the kind of person you are. Thus you divide yourself from the evil or supposedly evil person. If it is true that the “evil” person needs understanding and the causes of evil deeds are more complex than we will ever know then we are going to their level by excluding them and by implication treating them as less than human.

Fulfilling an intention to do something that you wrongly think is pure evil means you are still choosing to be pure evil.  Religion creates pure evil by condemning things that are not actually evil. That is extremely serious.

One thing that is supposed to show why evil is pure useless evil is that unconditional love is such a great good. The contrast and contradiction between the two is total.  But unconditional love for a person which is engaged in to please God or because God says so is not unconditional love.  God belief by default is pure evil.

The good versus evil brigade are hypocrites and they worship a God who is as bad as themselves because he is their reflection and they think they are his.  If you need God for morality, you won't have him for that for morality itself is full of grey and is not just good and evil.  The good has a sting.

We have to live with the problems though.

The last word on all this is three words.  YOU CAN'T WIN!