What is the Root of all evil ?

[graybear13]

What is the Root of all Evil???

Could it be arrogance and self importance rooted in the
soil of profound confussion?
This would certianly be a drawback to openmindedness
or any ability to see Timeless Truth more clearly.

Timeless Truth is like the iceburg that we can only see
the tip of.

[Dardedar]

What is the Root of all Evil???

DAR
Someone made this question famous by writing in the Bible that "the love of money" is the root of all evil. Maybe they were being poetic but at least they made a good point about greed. I don't see any reason to believe there would necessarily be any one thing we could look to that would be the "root" of "all" evil. Dawkins took a good swing at it with his documentary TV series "Religion: The Root of all Evil?" but he had the sense to put a question mark after it.

Could it be arrogance and self importance rooted in the
soil of profound confussion?

DAR
Again poetic, but without any good reason to believe it.

You know what strikes me as "self importance?" Thinking that of all of the trillions of living creatures that come and go on this planet (and have for hundreds of millions of years), we primates with our new fancy frontal lobes are so special and important that we are not going to die like everyone else but are going to live on. That seems to me to be arrogance, self-importance and confusion all in one.

This would certianly be a drawback to openmindedness
or any ability to see Timeless Truth more clearly.

DAR
A truth that exists outside of time? More poetry.

If you want to convince freethinkers of your ideas. Best to have good reasons.

Timeless Truth is like the iceburg that we can only see
the tip of.

DAR
And why should anyone believe that?

If you tell a timeless truth, in time, does it lose it's timelessness?

D.

[Doug]

Dawkins took a good swing at it with his documentary TV series "Religion: The Root of all Evil?" but he had the sense to put a question mark after it.

DOUG
If I recall correctly, Dawkins was not in favor of using that title. He, too, thought it was too broad a generalization.

[graybear13]

What is the Root of all Evil???

DAR
Someone made this question famous by writing in the Bible that "the love of money" is the root of all evil. Maybe they were being poetic but at least they made a good point about greed. I don't see any reason to believe there would necessarily be any one thing we could look to that would be the "root" of "all" evil. Dawkins took a good swing at it with his documentary TV series "Religion: The Root of all Evil?" but he had the sense to put a question mark after it.

Could it be arrogance and self importance rooted in the
soil of profound confussion?

DAR
Again poetic, but without any good reason to believe it.

You know what strikes me as "self importance?" Thinking that of all of the trillions of living creatures that come and go on this planet (and have for hundreds of millions of years), we primates with our new fancy frontal lobes are so special and important that we are not going to die like everyone else but are going to live on. That seems to me to be arrogance, self-importance and confusion all in one.

This would certianly be a drawback to openmindedness
or any ability to see Timeless Truth more clearly.

DAR
A truth that exists outside of time? More poetry.

If you want to convince freethinkers of your ideas. Best to have good reasons.

Timeless Truth is like the iceburg that we can only see
the tip of.

DAR
And why should anyone believe that?

If you tell a timeless truth, in time, does it lose it's timelessness?

D.

Could it be "The Lack of money" Rev. Ike

It's just a fun mind game. That's all. Where did evil come from?
There is a very logical answer I assure you.

As to what is Timeless Truth, it is merely Truth that doesn't change.
If you try to take truth and make it subject to time it will eventually
change and therefore not be absolute Truth. Timeless Truth is what
we know to be Truth. Facts!

[Dardedar]

Where did evil come from?

DAR
Why would it have to "come from" some where? "Evil" is an idea, a human construct. Aside from human interests I see no reason to think it has any objective existence outside of our area of human interest/opinion/observation.

There is a very logical answer I assure you.

DAR
Such as....

As to what is Timeless Truth, it is merely Truth that doesn't change.

DAR
And one of those would be?

If you try to take truth and make it subject to time it will eventually
change and therefore not be absolute Truth. Timeless Truth is what
we know to be Truth. Facts!

DAR
"Know to be true," unless we're wrong. Which has happened a lot. Especially in the area of metaphysical claims. Scientific claims tend to be tentative. I'm not big on absolutes. Too many exceptions usually.

So let's see:

a) You "assure" me there is a "very logical answer" to where "evil" came from

b) you say there are timeless truths, but you didn't mention any.

Got anything to fill in there for your blank "a" and "b"?

D.

[graybear13]

So let's see:

a) You "assure" me there is a "very logical answer" to where "evil" came from

b) you say there are timeless truths, but you didn't mention any.

Got anything to fill in there for your blank "a" and "b"?

D.

a. Trust me

b. Some are Law of physics i.e. Newtons Laws of Motion.

[Dardedar]

a) no surprise, you've got nothing

Anyway, why do you pretend to speak about something ("timeless truth") when you can only have knowledge of things that exist in time? This isn't even good poetry.

b) you've already demonstrated you don't understand Newton.

[graybear13]

a) no surprise, you've got nothing

Anyway, why do you pretend to speak about something ("timeless truth") when you can only have knowledge of things that exist in time? This isn't even good poetry.

b) you've already demonstrated you don't understand Newton.

a. Please don't tell me what I can have knowladge of.
I can see a part of Timeless Truth.

b. Maybe you don't see me. Maybe your judgement is not true.

c. I quess you don't want to play. That's O.K. Catch you on the rebound.

[Savonarola]

a. Trust me

Why would anyone do that? You haven't provided any reason for us to trust you about anything.

b. Some are Law of physics i.e. Newtons Laws of Motion.

Classical physics, built largely off of Newton's laws, is -- simply put -- incorrect. Sure, it's a useful model, but it isn't absolute truth.

But we should just stop thinking and trust you because you're always right, huh?

[Savonarola]

a. Please don't tell me what I can have knowladge [sic] of.

Okay. I'll just tell you what you don't understand. And that's a lot. I've been doing it since your first post here.

b. Maybe you don't see me. Maybe your judgement is not true.

Maybe. Or maybe yours is not. Or both. We address this issue by analyzing the judgements. Darrel and I have arguments that can be supported. You want us to just "trust you." Checkmate.

c. I quess you don't want to play.

Well, I do have better things to do that have time-consuming, extended conversations with kooks. Thus, bye.

[graybear13]

a. Trust me

Why would anyone do that? You haven't provided any reason for us to trust you about anything.

b. Some are Law of physics i.e. Newtons Laws of Motion.

Classical physics, built largely off of Newton's laws, is -- simply put -- incorrect. Sure, it's a useful model, but it isn't absolute truth.

But we should just stop thinking and trust you because you're always right, huh?

b. The game just asks for an opinion. It ain't about me.

a. Just for the fun of it. Maybe you will guess the answer.
If not you will always know which answer you liked the best.

c. I guess you don't want to play. That's O.K. Catch you on the rebound.

[Savonarola]

b. The game just asks for an opinion. It ain't about me.

It's about your claim. You were asked to provide an example of absolute truth. Your example is spurious at best.
But your request for us to trust you is about you. So you aren't faring well either way.

Maybe you will guess the answer.

Or maybe I've deduced it, as logic is much more reliable than guessing, wishful thinking, and fantasy.

[Dardedar]

c. I quess you don't want to play.

DAR
You shouldn't fold so fast. This forum is all about playing. But for it to amount to something, to learn or share something new, you have to bring something to the table beyond mere assertion.

When would you like to begin?

[Betsy]

regarding "evil" - as Darrel said, it's a human construct, and it's also relative. Whether or not you think something is evil depends upon your own views. Some people think that if I go to Dickson street and drink a martini, I'm participating in some kind of "evil." Some people think suicide bombers are heroes.

So my answer to graybear's question, where does evil "come from" ... is from our own perspective.

re: "Timeless truths" - sounds a little nonsensical. For example, eventually the North star will have moved and no longer be the North star years from now. Things are constantly changing. Perhaps e will always equal mc squared (I don't know? will it?) but I get the feeling that's not really what you're talking about...right, graybear? You're talking about woo-woo stuff and calling it a "timeless truth" makes you feel warm and fuzzy about it. I used to say things like that, too, until I realized how silly it was.

[graybear13]

"The concept of Good is the Root of all Concepts if Evil"

Clearly Truth exists without being expirimentally or mathematically
proven. There is Truth that is not yet a fact or else what are scientists
looking for? They are looking for Truth... The alternative is that
they are making it up as they go along. I don't think the scientific
community believes that when there is breakthrough, however small,
that they have created a piece of the universe. All they have done
is define another small piece of the Timeless Truth.

"I'm just a soul whose intintions are good
oh lord please don't let me be misunderstood" the Animals

Sincerely, The Kook

[Dardedar]

what are scientists
looking for? They are looking for Truth...

DAR
That's a small "t" there. All scientific claims are tentative and open to being revised or discarded. If only we could get the people who speak about the things for which they have no evidence to be so sensible.

The alternative is that
they are making it up as they go along.

DAR
Obviously they weren't making up that bit about computers working. Etc.

All they [scientific community] have done
is define another small piece of the Timeless Truth.

DAR
Scientists don't peddle "Timeless Truths." That's the favorite hobgoblin of religion and it always comes (when they're honest) with the fine print footnote...

*based upon faith.

D.
---------------------
"As Stephen Gould said, "In science, 'fact' can only
mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be
perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" Quite a
few things in science are like that. No one really
thinks that we have the ultimate answers about anything [except those peddling religion],
but that doesn't stop us from using the results."

[kwlyon]

"The concept of Good is the Root of all Concepts if Evil"

Clearly Truth exists without being expirimentally or mathematically
proven. There is Truth that is not yet a fact or else what are scientists
looking for? They are looking for Truth...

Ultimately yes...I would agree with this. However I would wager that a large majority of scientist view scientific inquiry more as a pursuit of practical understanding rather than truth. Though we do not create reality by an means, and we are seeking to ultimately understand the nature of it if possible, we are willing to settle for useful models that yield practical results. One must concede the possibility that the true nature of the universe cannot be uncovered by that which is a part of it.

Kevin

Oh...and I don't know that you have earned the status of Kook just yet Grey...

[Doug]

"There is Truth that is not yet a fact or else what are scientists looking for? They are looking for Truth...

DOUG
No. They are looking for facts. Truths are propositional. They occur in a language. When we find a fact we like, we describe it, and then the general description is a "truth."

If we later find out we were wrong, the "truth" is revised or discarded.

[graybear13]

"There is Truth that is not yet a fact or else what are scientists looking for? They are looking for Truth...

DOUG
No. They are looking for facts. .

Can you show me a fact that is not true?

You could say that the bible is a fact (its existence), but not
necessarily true...but I'm not sure if this is a legal difference.

Arithmetic says that, If one man could shear a sheep
in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute.
That is sound mathematics, but it is not true,
they would get in each others way so badly that the
work would be greatly delayed. But I don't think that
is a legal difference either.

[graybear13]

DAR
Scientists don't peddle "Timeless Truths." That's the favorite hobgoblin of religion and it always comes (when they're honest) with the fine print footnote...

*based upon faith.

D.

How can a scientist undertake an experiment
without having some measure of faith that it will
shed some light on the Truth (sorry about the capital T )
and possibly result in the descovery of a Fact.