Among the many arguments I wrote and I still have in mind to write about what is wrong with Christianity and other religions (including ideas also widespread outside organized religions themselves) here is a radical one I just newly wrote (not yet finished but maybe 3/4 done at this moment) : even if it was true (which I doubt but this is another issue) that religion actively promotes goodness (altruism) and makes it more widespread than would happen without it, then, well, I still do not see it as a good point of religion, but rather a negative one, as I have moral objections against it. Namely I do not think that goodness positively contributes to civilization.
My new text is here: Why Goodness is Evil.
I previously wrote such claims, explained in diverse details: moral philosophy - the spiritual ego.
Also connected with this topic, is Greta Christina's "Atheists and anger" article and video, which I liked a lot (I did not read the book).
Why Goodness is Evil
Moderator: Moderators
Post #3
Of course it is paradoxical (=surprising). As a mathematician interested in logical foundations I generally love exploring paradoxes, though I wish so much I had not been so badly victim of this one in my personal life. Just follow the links where I developed the explanations. In the first one (last written and still unfinished), after a long development of the abstract generalities, I gave a short account of the main examples I have in mind at the end of the page.
Post #4
OK
So, since you won't present any examples here, we can't really discuss your Op unless we first go and read the link.
I see nothing but claims along the lines of....
"x" is called good by some people but "x" is actually bad because you don't like "x".
I dislike special processed american meat.
Others like it. But thats just a nil-all-draw, personally subjective disagreement.
That isn't a paradox or logical contradiction equivalent to "good is evil".
So, since you won't present any examples here, we can't really discuss your Op unless we first go and read the link.
I see nothing but claims along the lines of....
"x" is called good by some people but "x" is actually bad because you don't like "x".
I dislike special processed american meat.
Others like it. But thats just a nil-all-draw, personally subjective disagreement.
That isn't a paradox or logical contradiction equivalent to "good is evil".
Last edited by Lion IRC on Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #5
And why can't you first go and read the link ?
I'm not after light discussions satisfied with short explanations, which I would see as futile and thus not even worth discussing. Life is a hard stuff so I needed to develop long explanations, for what took me a long time to learn. Do you need a very big copy-paste ?
I'm not after light discussions satisfied with short explanations, which I would see as futile and thus not even worth discussing. Life is a hard stuff so I needed to develop long explanations, for what took me a long time to learn. Do you need a very big copy-paste ?
Post #6
[Replying to post 5 by spoirier]
I did read the text.
But in order to discuss it in more detail I would need to do that which you are so far
unwilling to do - provide examples from the text.
I did read the text.
But in order to discuss it in more detail I would need to do that which you are so far
unwilling to do - provide examples from the text.
Last edited by Lion IRC on Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post #7
Do you agree with and accept the logical law of the "excluded middle" - the law of non-contradiction?
It would be a logical paradox for something "good" to be "evil".
Perhaps you mean to say "x" is NOT good. Altruism is NOT good. Religion is NOT good. The Soviet Union is NOT good - then make your supporting argument(s).
But to say "goodness is evil" violates basic epistemology.
It would be a logical paradox for something "good" to be "evil".
Perhaps you mean to say "x" is NOT good. Altruism is NOT good. Religion is NOT good. The Soviet Union is NOT good - then make your supporting argument(s).
But to say "goodness is evil" violates basic epistemology.
Post #8
I defined the sense in which I use words and the articulation between both aspects which superficially look like a contradiction but are not, in section "So, what will it be about". Namely:
The examples I gave are phenomena not good (as phenomena, effects) but made of goodness (as concerns the personality of their actors). Retrospectively we are tempted to only see the bad effects and forget how good were the people who made them, so that we ignore the paradox and have the illusion that they only were examples of badness without contradiction. As for the people who made them, they only saw the pure goodness of their intention with no way to guess the badness of results it would bring, so they saw that as pure goodness without contradiction. The paradox comes when comparing both viewpoints on the same thing (intentions and real effects).
The examples I gave are phenomena not good (as phenomena, effects) but made of goodness (as concerns the personality of their actors). Retrospectively we are tempted to only see the bad effects and forget how good were the people who made them, so that we ignore the paradox and have the illusion that they only were examples of badness without contradiction. As for the people who made them, they only saw the pure goodness of their intention with no way to guess the badness of results it would bring, so they saw that as pure goodness without contradiction. The paradox comes when comparing both viewpoints on the same thing (intentions and real effects).
