Secular people use the word evil.  That is a force of habit.  The word comes from religion which makes evil out to be some God-defying monstrous unknown that does grave harm and corrupts and kills and so on.  Evil is a word intended to provoke nausea and revulsion.  That is a hate spreading tactic for the revulsion does not fit what people say evil is.

The fact is that religion or not, people find certain actions and non-actions disgusting. The wife hates her husband lying to her.  She may say she hates what he does but she won't admit to hating how personal that is.  The problem is the man not what he does.  Religion pounces on how we use language that depersonalises actions to construct its foundational lie, "Like God you must and can love the sinner and hate the sin."  That stupid teaching is part of the "God's ways are mysterious."  There is no real mystery.  You cannot hate a sin when the sinner is the problem so strictly speaking the target is the sinner.

People disapprove of how you may hurt others for doing evil to you but they claim to understand it.  You will get something akin to support on some level.  They show that the problem is not evil for them but what kind of evil is done!

Religion says that atheists if they say there is no God cannot account for good or what good means. We atheists supposedly end up with a problem of good. So evil is evidence or proof for God. This is a bigger claim than saying evil does not rule out God. It is demonising evil and then using what you demonise to make a case for God. If God needs you to do that then he is not so good after all!

They say evil is evidence for God for evil is a falling short of what God wants and is an abused good.

If you say it is not evidence and evil just allows for God then what? You are denying that evil is what the God doctrine implies it is. Calling it a lack implies it is a lack of God so that is calling it evidence for God. You are calling evil real and not just a lack so how you can you say there is a God when he must have made evil?

We see that the problem of evil and the problem of good are two sides of the same coin for the believer in God.

We see that the notion that evil allows for God but is not evidence, makes evil and good two sides of the same coin. That makes God useless as a morality inducing concept and being. To be ineffectual in such a big thing is to do harm.

Most seem to argue that evil is evidence for God for there can be no real evil unless there is a loving creator.  The argument is not an argument at all but a statement of faith.  Only a God could judge if evil is evidence for him.  In fact all of us might think it is too much too look at something terrible and find God in it.  It hurts people who are depressed to tell them that they are imagining how beset they are by evil and how there has to be good somewhere. 

Religion always talks about good and then about evil the lack as if the latter is less common.  But if good is real and evil is just an absence of good that does not mean that good has to be common.  You can imagine iron all covered in rust.  This corresponds to the religious image of iron being the thing and the rust being the parasite, the distortion.

We conclude that the real mystery of evil is in the language.  We find what religion says about it to be profound.  We tend to think of something talked about in vague complicated confusing language that way.  The talk of mystery is a cover for how evil is a hate term and religion does not want to admit that it has this violent urge, this wish to hurt.  It beats around the bush.


No Copyright