http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25032305

Does God exist? Does the Devil exist? The Catholic church believes they both do - and some priests say they are currently having an immense battle in Mexico.

To some it may seem extraordinary, but priests say the country is under attack by Satan, and that more exorcists are needed to fight him.

This attack, they say, is showing itself in the gruesome drug-related violence, including human sacrifice, that has engulfed the country since 2006.

According to the latest official figures available, at least 70,000 people have died in this period, including gunmen, members of the security forces, and many innocent civilians.

In a Catholic country, as Mexico was, it is God and the Devil. If you don't believe in God, as many members of this forum do not, you still have the question of where good and evil come from. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of what exactly is meant by good and evil, and on this I think Christians and non-Christians agree in a fair amount of detail.

Then, what exactly s going wrong in Mexico? because it's pretty clear something fairly drastic IS going wrong. And who or what is responsible?

Yes, but revealing his Earthly form would take this thread off topic.

Well Mexico isn't the only country where bad things are happening, some pretty dreadful things going down all over the world. In Mexico it is a power struggle for control of the drugs trade, where billions of dollars are at stake. People will do all sorts of bestial things for that sort of money. The same everywhere, power and the love of money is the driving force. It is not a case of good v evil, God v Satan, in your example of Mexico all the protagonists are probably as bad as each other, it's just that one lot are more powerful than the rest. Likewise the political wars in countries like Syria and Iraq, some naive people really do believe it is a case of good v evil, God v Satan. This is clearly fundamentalist nonsense, possibly understandable in biblical times or the medieval crusades when people didn't know any better, but pretty much inexcusable in the present day and age. IMHO. Whether it is one side who believe they will become martyrs and spend an eternity in Paradise with 72 virgins, or others from a western culture who believe they are doing Gods work by taking on "Evil", and sending other peoples sons and daughters to fight and die for their silly fundamentalist beliefs. Because that is what it is, fundamentalism. If anything i probably have less time for the Western leaders who participate in this, simply because they almost certainly have the far superior education, and therefore really should know better. Also of course, whether i like it or not, they are representing me. I am not anti religion, indeed my mother was a church going Christian and she got a lot of comfort from her faith. But i am afraid that many of our leaders and "betters", although pronouncing their Christianity from the rooftops at every opportunity, in reality by their actions clearly don't know the meaning of the word. Whether the Imam in the Mosque spouting his dangerous nonsense to brainwash gullible young followers, or the most powerful leader in the West who believes the same fundamentalist crap, none of it has any relevance to the average person in today's world. And yes the two sides are equitable, in essence, two cheeks of the same arse!

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/19/why-bush-invaded-iraq-the-war-on-gog-and-magog/

It's easy to blame the failings of men on some supernatural nonsense.The problems in Mexico (as in other such similar situations) are due to human greed and human poverty. Sky Fairies are not relevant although they are often used as excuses.

If you don't believe in God, as many members of this forum do not, you still have the question of where good and evil come from. Ultimately, it comes down to a question of what exactly is meant by good and evil, and on this I think Christians and non-Christians agree in a fair amount of detail.

Not sure fair amount of detail is true mate.

"Does God exist? Does the Devil exist?"

Of course they do, if you want them to exist.

That's the essence of almost all religions if you believe they are human projections of what we wish to see, hear or experience.

Religion is an act of faith, a suspension of disbelief, not requiring proof or evidence in support. You cannot disprove something that needs no proof in the first place to exist....

"Does God exist? Does the Devil exist?"

Of course they do, if you want them to exist.

That's the essence of almost all religions if you believe they are human projections of what we wish to see, hear or experience.

Religion is an act of faith, a suspension of disbelief, not requiring proof or evidence in support. You cannot disprove something that needs no proof in the first place to exist....

IB's question is more nuanced.

More along the line of where do good and evil come from.

"Does God exist? Does the Devil exist?"

Of course they do, if you want them to exist.

That's the essence of almost all religions if you believe they are human projections of what we wish to see, hear or experience.

Religion is an act of faith, a suspension of disbelief, not requiring proof or evidence in support. You cannot disprove something that needs no proof in the first place to exist....

IB's question is more nuanced.

More along the line of where do good and evil come from.

Well, like most things they are a human construct, and what often what constitutes an element of "good" or "evil" changes over time.

"Does God exist? Does the Devil exist?"

Of course they do, if you want them to exist.

That's the essence of almost all religions if you believe they are human projections of what we wish to see, hear or experience.

Religion is an act of faith, a suspension of disbelief, not requiring proof or evidence in support. You cannot disprove something that needs no proof in the first place to exist....

Sounds like half the posts of ThaiVisa!

IB's question is more nuanced.

More along the line of where do good and evil come from.

For once I agree with something you say, notmyself!

Yes, you may believe in the old fellow with horns, cloven hooves and a tail if you like, but that was not my question.

Picking up some of the things posters have said..... human greed, selfishness, lust for power, pleasure in hurting others.... where do these things come from? At least in their extreme forms, we call them evil, and it doesn't seem that they do the human race any good at all.

As a zoologist, I see some animals killing others as part of the whole system of nature, but generally they kill only to eat, and they don't deliberately inflict pain. There are exceptions, the domestic cat being an obvious one... but I wonder what natural function playing with its victims has. But some human beings enjoy inflicting pain; why?

IB's question is more nuanced.

More along the line of where do good and evil come from.

For once I agree with something you say, notmyself!

Yes, you may believe in the old fellow with horns, cloven hooves and a tail if you like, but that was not my question.

Picking up some of the things posters have said..... human greed, selfishness, lust for power, pleasure in hurting others.... where do these things come from? At least in their extreme forms, we call them evil, and it doesn't seem that they do the human race any good at all.

As a zoologist, I see some animals killing others as part of the whole system of nature, but generally they kill only to eat, and they don't deliberately inflict pain. There are exceptions, the domestic cat being an obvious one... but I wonder what natural function playing with its victims has. But some human beings enjoy inflicting pain; why?

IB's question is more nuanced.

More along the line of where do good and evil come from.

For once I agree with something you say, notmyself!

Yes, you may believe in the old fellow with horns, cloven hooves and a tail if you like, but that was not my question.

Picking up some of the things posters have said..... human greed, selfishness, lust for power, pleasure in hurting others.... where do these things come from? At least in their extreme forms, we call them evil, and it doesn't seem that they do the human race any good at all.

As a zoologist, I see some animals killing others as part of the whole system of nature, but generally they kill only to eat, and they don't deliberately inflict pain. There are exceptions, the domestic cat being an obvious one... but I wonder what natural function playing with its victims has. But some human beings enjoy inflicting pain; why?

If you accept the posit that humans are a step above other animal species there comes with this elevated status the ying & yang that goes with this exalted position. Namely not only are humans capable of the most extraordinary altruistic, artistic and amazing acts and achievements, but humans are also capable of the most debased, vile and beyond reproach acts such as mass murder, child abuse and wanton cruelty. All these "attributes" are part of the human psyche, and like Pandora's Box the trick is to manage the downside and keep it within the box whist letting the positive aspects have free rein.

If you accept the posit that humans are a step above other animal species there comes with this elevated status the ying & yang that goes with this exalted position. Namely not only are humans capable of the most extraordinary altruistic, artistic and amazing acts and achievements, but humans are also capable of the most debased, vile and beyond reproach acts such as mass murder, child abuse and wanton cruelty. All these "attributes" are part of the human psyche, and like Pandora's Box the trick is to manage the downside and keep it within the box whist letting the positive aspects have free rein.

I don't see that at all. Why should our 'elevated status' give us a propensity to evil? You have simply said "This is what happens", not why.

Going back to my days studying Zoology I would offer the following thoughts. An animal will always act in a manner consistent with furtherance of it's DNA. This can result in altruism, as demonstrated in prairie Marmots when an individual on watch makes an alarm call warning of danger, which benefits others at the expense of it's own individual safety. The case with social insects is even more extreme where individuals sacrifice their own lives to protect their queen. This is readily understandable with infertile workers, who cannot themselves pass on their genes.

The converse of altruism in animals can also be seen to have a genetic justification. Cannibalism or for example killing individuals belonging to rival groups can also be explained though the passing on of DNA.

With humans things are more complicated in the sense that we have self-awareness as to what constitutes 'good' or 'evil', however humans divide themselves up in many ways. For example, family, geographic location, tribal or cultural, religion, and ideology. Some human groupings may be based on genetic relationships, but many are not, let's refer to these as memes. A meme or to be more accurate meme complexes may compete with one another in the manner that genes do, capitalism versus communism for example. Some memes select for behaviour which could be regarded as evil.

There is the question of whether humans are still evolving (in the sense of through DNA), but one thing is for certain, memes both evolve and compete, this competition can lead to evil behavior carried out by humans in support of their adopted memes.

Dan, your approach seems to be that evil is caused by people working for the furtherance of the interests, even wrongly perceived interests, of their group. For example, the holocaust was justified by the Nazis as being in the interests of Aryan purity (let's not go any further into that one! because of course it is far more complicated).

But take a much simpler example. The torture of individuals was carried out in many societies as a means of gaining information. Understood so far. But the really rather nasty subhuman being who carried out the torture, and who simply loved every scream of pain he extracted..... I think we would agree he was evil, but where did that evil come from?

Dan, your approach seems to be that evil is caused by people working for the furtherance of the interests, even wrongly perceived interests, of their group. For example, the holocaust was justified by the Nazis as being in the interests of Aryan purity (let's not go any further into that one! because of course it is far more complicated).

But take a much simpler example. The torture of individuals was carried out in many societies as a means of gaining information. Understood so far. But the really rather nasty subhuman being who carried out the torture, and who simply loved every scream of pain he extracted..... I think we would agree he was evil, but where did that evil come from?

I see. Uncomfortable though it may be to send my mind down such a dark path, I could I'm sure devise some pretty horrific means of torture, if the payoff was large enough. Such a payoff may be pleasing one's master, avoiding a similar fate oneself, or perhaps an irrational belief that the victim somehow deserved it. Human ingenuity can be used for good or evil, but the attribute of ingenuity is amoral. I am of course presupposing that some payoff, however unfathomable to most is the driving force. Would you consider Albert Pierrepoint, the last UK executioner to be evil? It would appear he took a pride in his job, and made a pretty penny by way of publishing his memoirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint

I gain self actualization from art, not inflicting death or suffering, but this actualization is an unfathomable thing meshed into the ego, I suspect in a way Mr Pierrepoint got some satisfaction from his work.

But take a much simpler example. The torture of individuals was carried out in many societies as a means of gaining information. Understood so far. But the really rather nasty subhuman being who carried out the torture, and who simply loved every scream of pain he extracted..... I think we would agree he was evil, but where did that evil come from?

To some extent, good and evil are subjective. Anyway.

Such behaviour could have been of benefit during evolution could it not? Genetic throwbacks are well documented such as growing a tail and extreme body hair.

But take a much simpler example. The torture of individuals was carried out in many societies as a means of gaining information. Understood so far. But the really rather nasty subhuman being who carried out the torture, and who simply loved every scream of pain he extracted..... I think we would agree he was evil, but where did that evil come from?

To some extent, good and evil are subjective. Anyway.

Such behaviour could have been of benefit during evolution could it not? Genetic throwbacks are well documented such as growing a tail and extreme body hair.

I think you're beginning to scrabble for arguments, notmyself. I don't think any of us would deny that evil exists, though it is difficult to define.

Evil simply does not exist among animals (leave the cat example for a moment; I'm sure somebody has an answer). This seriously weakens any argument from evolution. That is why the Bible has the story of Adam and Eve; it's a myth, but a myth which was needed to explain why men sin (a word which you may also define in a variety of ways). Men are capable of doing things which are wrong; animals are not. Why?

Evil simply does not exist among animals (leave the cat example for a moment; I'm sure somebody has an answer). This seriously weakens any argument from evolution. That is why the Bible has the story of Adam and Eve; it's a myth, but a myth which was needed to explain why men sin (a word which you may also define in a variety of ways). Men are capable of doing things which are wrong; animals are not. Why?

Evil is a human construct, we are animals, ergo evil does exist in animals. Sounds like special pleading on your part IB. Lets just say evil does not exist in 'other' animals shall we? Also my old friend, not too happy about just putting to one side an example (cats) which directly contradicts the claim on the basis that there must be an answer and that unknown answer will back up your claim.

Included in good and exil would have to be SM

Sadomasochism

is the giving and/or receiving of pleasure—often sexual—from acts involving the infliction or reception of

pain

or

humiliation

. A subset of

BDSM

, practitioners of sadomasochism usually seek out sexual gratification from these acts, but often seek out other forms of pleasure as well. While the terms sadist and masochist specifically refer to one who either enjoys giving pain (sadist), or one who enjoys receiving pain (masochist), many practitioners of sadomasochism describe themselves as at least something of a

switch

, or someone who can receive pleasure from either inflicting or receiving pain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUX8yDwxwME

Evil simply does not exist among animals (leave the cat example for a moment; I'm sure somebody has an answer). This seriously weakens any argument from evolution. That is why the Bible has the story of Adam and Eve; it's a myth, but a myth which was needed to explain why men sin (a word which you may also define in a variety of ways). Men are capable of doing things which are wrong; animals are not. Why?

Evil is a human construct, we are animals, ergo evil does exist in animals. Sounds like special pleading on your part IB. Lets just say evil does not exist in 'other' animals shall we? Also my old friend, not too happy about just putting to one side an example (cats) which directly contradicts the claim on the basis that there must be an answer and that unknown answer will back up your claim.

Included in good and exil would have to be SM

Sadomasochism is the giving and/or receiving of pleasure—often sexual—from acts involving the infliction or reception of pain or humiliation. A subset of BDSM, practitioners of sadomasochism usually seek out sexual gratification from these acts, but often seek out other forms of pleasure as well. While the terms sadist and masochist specifically refer to one who either enjoys giving pain (sadist), or one who enjoys receiving pain (masochist), many practitioners of sadomasochism describe themselves as at least something of a switch, or someone who can receive pleasure from either inflicting or receiving pain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism

To say 'Evil is a human construct' simply dismisses the question of where it comes from, which was a question implied in my OP. While we are animals physically, we are as yet the only animal which can be proved to be rational (though sometimes one wonders!). Some others seem to be coming close. Apart from the cats (and I'm not going to spend my time delving into that one), can you come up with any example of evil in animals?

SM just confuses the question rather than adding to the answer.

To say 'Evil is a human construct' simply dismisses the question of where it comes from, which was a question implied in my OP. While we are animals physically, we are as yet the only animal which can be proved to be rational (though sometimes one wonders!). Some others seem to be coming close. Apart from the cats (and I'm not going to spend my time delving into that one), can you come up with any example of evil in animals?

SM just confuses the question rather than adding to the answer.

SM just confuses the question rather than adding to the answer.

No it does not, it highlights the nature of the question.

You seem quite happy to bandy about 'evil' without giving any real context or definition. I'm quite happy to accept that evil exists in an anthropomorphic sense but you seem to want more insofar as to being axiom like.

a self-evident truth

This thread is nosing toward the Kalām cosmological argument as I am sure you well know. One would only have to add where does love come from.... greed, awe or a sense of forgiveness toward others. Where does hate come from or a lack of hate? We don't know but many of these attributes can been seen in other species and even more so in our fellow primates. Every indication suggests that these emotions or urges come from the brain while nothing suggests they come from any place else.

The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of God. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.[1] Its historic proponents include John Philoponus,[2] Al-Kindi,[3] Saadia Gaon,[4] Al-Ghazali,[5] and St. Bonaventure.[6] William Lane Craig revived interest in the Kalām cosmological argument with his 1979 publication of a book of the same name.[7][8]

The argument postulates that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this first cause must be God.

The Kalām argument cannot be shown to be true not least because we only have one universe to test it with.

I know the argument but couldn't have put a name to it.

We're getting nowhere along this line of discussion, quite possibly because there's nowhere for it to go.

I know the argument but couldn't have put a name to it.

We're getting nowhere along this line of discussion, quite possibly because there's nowhere for it to go.

I agree. One of those times where you just shake hands and carry on with other things.