There is objective evil in the world.
All you need to know such a thing is to sense it.
Can you define what evil is?
Also, take a look at this comment: https://poal.co/s/AskPoal/133266/ccf70422-6335-4598-94b0-a1172d937390#cmnts
I particularly honed in on this:
it is actually pseudo-science to fish data into a system and define something based on the correlations of that system
I'm not sure whether the claim is correct that any definition resulting purely from observed correlations is psuedo-scientific (I could be persuaded, but at this time I have no certainty either way). Perhaps an observed correlation alerts you to something, which you can then craft a testable definition from.
But it is worth questioning ourselves: have we defined as evil the patterns we don't like? Or is there something more to it. Maybe what we see as evil is that which violates certain natural orders -- in other words, reproducing and caring for children as we typically see in nature, heterosexuality, sexual dimorphism. (Taking some liberties there because we'd only count the animals similar to us -- certain species will eat their own young in certain cases but they are dissimilar from us so we ignore them.) Maybe this is why the gays are so eager to highlight the presence of gay animals (I think this is fairly rare to the point of being basically non-existent, but any anecdote they can get their hands on seems to promote their cause).
On the other hand, are other human patterns we can't observe in nature evil? Is having tech such as AC in your house evil? Is a vegetarian diet evil since we have shortened gut tracts and certain meat-adapted teeth? Is the knowledge of good and evil... evil (Genesis would seem to suggest that it is)?
Thank you for your response. I am going to shamefully use Wikipedia for the basic definition:
Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.
From Encyclopedia Britannica:
Scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.
Regarding evil: there is nothing wrong with the concept per se. But one must first (if they are scientific, and you asked for "evidence") define what evil is. Often when people hit cognitive dissonance, they stop the cognitive burn and rush to compartmentalize their senses and conclude the other party is either "evil" or "crazy." (this is discussed a little in "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt)
What I attempted to argue, in short, is that such a concept (that there is an external entity or force) is not necessary when you scientifically consider the human nature of interactions between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Now, I want to make sure I'm not making you think I'm advocating for moral relativism, just that the simpler idea covers the result and correlates quite nicely.
The real sin for us humans is the complacency in dealing with our feelings of understanding this difference in morality. I've seen this idea of good/evil lock people into paradigms of irreconcilability. So, I just try to look for something as simple as it can be and add the complications in layers as the theory is challenged. I don't go to a far off paradigm rather let the ideas grow naturally.
That said, I don't really know what good and evil is, which is all I know for certain.
Deus Deceptor.
Demiurge.
Prima Facia.
Fag who controls the universe.
All names synonymous with some queer who created existence.
I ain't some edgy atheist who hates God.
But fuck, all this shit is really confusing.
(post is archived)