• In total there are 41 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 41 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

OK, now my thoughts on Page 2 of this thread.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:The tree of knowledge of good and evil would encompass the knowledge of just about everything as everything is subject to good and evil.
I'm not following you here. Good and evil are objective terms if a God exists and that God labeled acts as good or evil. Good and evil are subjective if no creator exists and sentient beings created these terms to define acts they either individually or collectively deem acceptable or not acceptable. I think. :shock:
Flann 5 wrote:Is everything subject to good and evil Bishop? Is it evil for a lioness to kill an antelope and good for the lioness to feed her cubs? On your naturalistic worldview where everything comes from mindless random processes how can anything be subject to either good or evil? How can mindless, purposeless chemical and material processes have moral properties?
As Gnostic Bishop pointed out to you you injected the word "morality" when we were talking about good and evil. But I see why you did and I'm more in agreement with you than with Gnostic Bishop. Then again...I'm a bit confused by this topic.

A boulder falling down the side of a hill and crushing to death a baby at the bottom is not evil or good or moral or immoral. It just happened. Wait...one second. If there is actually a God and the God knew the boulder was going to crush and kill the baby, could have prevented it, yet opted not to...well that is pretty damn evil in my book. And it is evil (to me) even if that deity says it is not evil. Screw his morality.

But as of right now I am in agreement with Flann 5. How can everything be subject to good and evil? A lot of random stuff happens and there isn't a living creature around to experience the so-called good or evil. All that stuff can still be labeled as good or evil? How so? Gnostic, that question is for you. I recognize I could be missing your point. So enlighten me please.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Try to name anything that is not subject to the adjectives of good and evil.
Snow falling on a mailbox.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17016
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

My comments on Page 3 of this thread...
Gnostic Bishop wrote:You did my work on hair and show how good and evil applies to it.
Hair behaving is good. Hair misbehaving is evil.
Hair misbehaving is evil? How about a teenager with a crazy hair cut? Evil to you? Good to him?
Gnostic Bishop wrote:A rock on the ground may be good but if it is falling towards your head from a hight, it will kill you and that makes that rock evil to you.
You're now adding "to you" at the end. This changes things. So good and evil are subjective terms.

But still...I'm not comfy with your definition of these words and I doubt most people would be comfortable with them. Labeling everything that annoys you, such as a weed in your lawn, as "evil," sure seems to dilute the meaning of the word.
Interbane wrote:I don't agree that everything is either good or evil. Many things are unjudged, neutral. Some things affect us positively, some negatively, and only then do we judge them. But when we do judge them, I don't apply moral qualifiers. I only apply them to the behaviors of people, or people themselves. Sometimes animals, when they're like cujo.

There are many connotations of the word "good". That sunset is good. This Oregon Hazelnut and Salted Caramel ice cream is good(great). But the word "good" in this usage denotes not a moral quality, but an aesthetic quality. When different connotations are intended, it's the same as using a different word entirely; the meaning is different.
Embarrassingly, I usually agree with every word you type. Today I won't be breaking that tradition. Well said.
Gnostic wrote:Hair does not have morality, people do.
Who said it did?

Hair is just subject to the adjectives of good and evil like everything else you can think of.
So you say. But you've not sold us on this idea.
Gnostic wrote:My little challenge that all is subject to good and evil has yet to be refuted.
Yes, but you haven't actually made a valid argument that all is subject to good and evil. I have yet to hear you explain how this is possible. But I recognize that this is merely a matter of how we're defining the terms "good" and "evil."
Interbane wrote:But moral good and moral evil are qualities possessed by agents capable of committing deeds.
:yeahthat:

And sometimes there aren't agents involved. So evil and good don't apply. Even when agents are involved those two terms just sometimes don't apply.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Using your rock analogy. The good or evil aspect is determined by the observer.
So if there isn't an observer there is no good or evil? Then "all" is not subject to good or evil because "all" is not observed.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:OK, now my thoughts on Page 2 of this thread.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:The tree of knowledge of good and evil would encompass the knowledge of just about everything as everything is subject to good and evil.
I'm not following you here. Good and evil are objective terms if a God exists and that God labeled acts as good or evil. Good and evil are subjective if no creator exists and sentient beings created these terms to define acts they either individually or collectively deem acceptable or not acceptable. I think. :shock:
Flann 5 wrote:Is everything subject to good and evil Bishop? Is it evil for a lioness to kill an antelope and good for the lioness to feed her cubs? On your naturalistic worldview where everything comes from mindless random processes how can anything be subject to either good or evil? How can mindless, purposeless chemical and material processes have moral properties?
As Gnostic Bishop pointed out to you you injected the word "morality" when we were talking about good and evil. But I see why you did and I'm more in agreement with you than with Gnostic Bishop. Then again...I'm a bit confused by this topic.

A boulder falling down the side of a hill and crushing to death a baby at the bottom is not evil or good or moral or immoral. It just happened. Wait...one second. If there is actually a God and the God knew the boulder was going to crush and kill the baby, could have prevented it, yet opted not to...well that is pretty damn evil in my book. And it is evil (to me) even if that deity says it is not evil. Screw his morality.

But as of right now I am in agreement with Flann 5. How can everything be subject to good and evil? A lot of random stuff happens and there isn't a living creature around to experience the so-called good or evil. All that stuff can still be labeled as good or evil? How so? Gnostic, that question is for you. I recognize I could be missing your point. So enlighten me please.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Try to name anything that is not subject to the adjectives of good and evil.
Snow falling on a mailbox.
If it is December then that is good. If in June and it melts and wets all your mail then that is evil.

There are of course subjective renderings as will be most judgements of good and evil.

I do not think good and evil can be objective. For instance, I cannot say that an A bomb is either objectively good or objectively evil.

If I say it is always evil, then if used to end a war that would kill many more than the bomb used, then that would make it good.

If I say it is always good, and a new war starts and uses them, then they become evil.

That conundrum is why I say that things like good and evil and morals are subjective as their status is more fluid that objective would allow.

But as indicated, good and evil are not necessarily moral or immoral.

It is not always easy to explain such things. Going slow is sometimes better.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Chris OConnor wrote:My comments on Page 3 of this thread...
Gnostic Bishop wrote:You did my work on hair and show how good and evil applies to it.
Hair behaving is good. Hair misbehaving is evil.
Hair misbehaving is evil? How about a teenager with a crazy hair cut? Evil to you? Good to him?
Gnostic Bishop wrote:A rock on the ground may be good but if it is falling towards your head from a hight, it will kill you and that makes that rock evil to you.
You're now adding "to you" at the end. This changes things. So good and evil are subjective terms.

But still...I'm not comfy with your definition of these words and I doubt most people would be comfortable with them. Labeling everything that annoys you, such as a weed in your lawn, as "evil," sure seems to dilute the meaning of the word.
Interbane wrote:I don't agree that everything is either good or evil. Many things are unjudged, neutral. Some things affect us positively, some negatively, and only then do we judge them. But when we do judge them, I don't apply moral qualifiers. I only apply them to the behaviors of people, or people themselves. Sometimes animals, when they're like cujo.

There are many connotations of the word "good". That sunset is good. This Oregon Hazelnut and Salted Caramel ice cream is good(great). But the word "good" in this usage denotes not a moral quality, but an aesthetic quality. When different connotations are intended, it's the same as using a different word entirely; the meaning is different.
Embarrassingly, I usually agree with every word you type. Today I won't be breaking that tradition. Well said.
Gnostic wrote:Hair does not have morality, people do.
Who said it did?

Hair is just subject to the adjectives of good and evil like everything else you can think of.
So you say. But you've not sold us on this idea.
Gnostic wrote:My little challenge that all is subject to good and evil has yet to be refuted.
Yes, but you haven't actually made a valid argument that all is subject to good and evil. I have yet to hear you explain how this is possible. But I recognize that this is merely a matter of how we're defining the terms "good" and "evil."
Interbane wrote:But moral good and moral evil are qualities possessed by agents capable of committing deeds.
:yeahthat:

And sometimes there aren't agents involved. So evil and good don't apply. Even when agents are involved those two terms just sometimes don't apply.
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Using your rock analogy. The good or evil aspect is determined by the observer.
So if there isn't an observer there is no good or evil? Then "all" is not subject to good or evil because "all" is not observed.
Basically, true you sneaky thinker.

But I do not think you have beaten my challenge because if there is no observer, we have nothing to define so there is nothing to label good or evil.

I can understand to a small degree the confusion in terms with good and evil and I use them because the biblical script does. Interbane used, effect us positively and effects negatively.

I see that as semantics but can still work with it. If you wish to offer other synonyms that is also fine.

I will just take them and place them on my good and evil graph just as I can put Interbanes suggestions at each end of the same graph.

The point is that anything all of you can name, I should be able to put somewhere between good and evil and whatever other conditions come with what you name. I should be able to create a scenario showing them as good or evil or effects us positively or negatively. Or whatever synonyms you would want to substitute.

This is one of those mind exercises that is hard to fathom but so far this one has yet to be refuted even by my lists.

I also have this one that has been argued quite a bit and I have been able to refuted either.

It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.

I gave this last for reference. Not to distract from the good and evil challenge.

Regards
DL
Last edited by Gnostic Bishop on Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

DL wrote:The point is that anything all of you can name, I should be able to put somewhere between good and evil and whatever other conditions come with what you name.
My point was that even if you can do this figuratively, you can't do so literally. If by literal we mean good and evil as moral characteristics. Morality doesn't apply to things like rocks, even if the word "good" does. Because when we call a rock "good", we're not using the word with the moral connotation. It's essentially a different word entirely. We're talking about a different type of good, not moral good.

A good test is to change the word good with it's connotation in a way that can't be confused with other connotations. Can a rock act in harmful ways? Perhaps figuratively, but not literally. Rocks don't act, they are inanimate. This isn't merely a game of semantics. These are necessary distinctions.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Evolution explains why we have evil quite well. I recall you running from debate on that.
O.k Bishop, since you claim that I ran from debate on this,explain to me how evolution explains why we have evil, quite well.
I'll respond to your explanation of this when you do this.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Interbane wrote:
DL wrote:The point is that anything all of you can name, I should be able to put somewhere between good and evil and whatever other conditions come with what you name.
My point was that even if you can do this figuratively, you can't do so literally. If by literal we mean good and evil as moral characteristics. Morality doesn't apply to things like rocks, even if the word "good" does. Because when we call a rock "good", we're not using the word with the moral connotation. It's essentially a different word entirely. We're talking about a different type of good, not moral good.

A good test is to change the word good with it's connotation in a way that can't be confused with other connotations. Can a rock act in harmful ways? Perhaps figuratively, but not literally. Rocks don't act, they are inanimate. This isn't merely a game of semantics. These are necessary distinctions.
As I said, I am not even looking at morality. I am only looking at knowledge that lets me place issues on my good and evil graph.

Any morality is what I subjectively add to it depending on the situation. In that judgement is where any wisdom would be found if I judge well.

"A good test is to change the word good with it's connotation in a way that can't be confused with other connotations."

I already agreed that one could and showed/accepted your choice. I see it as semantics and the distinction you want I guess would depend on the word or words you decide to use to replace good and evil.

Regards
DL
Last edited by Gnostic Bishop on Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
Gnostic Bishop wrote:Evolution explains why we have evil quite well. I recall you running from debate on that.
O.k Bishop, since you claim that I ran from debate on this,explain to me how evolution explains why we have evil, quite well.
I'll respond to your explanation of this when you do this.
Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all do evil/sin by nature then, the evil/sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not do evil/sin. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil and sin is all human generated and in this sense, I agree with Christians, but for completely different reasons. Evil is mankind’s responsibility and not some imaginary God’s. Free will is something that can only be taken. Free will cannot be given not even by a God unless it has been forcibly withheld.

Much has been written to explain evil and sin but I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created. Without intent to do evil, no act should be called evil.
In secular courts, this is called mens rea. Latin for an evil mind or intent and without it, the court will not find someone guilty even if they know that they are the perpetrator of the act.

Evil then is only human to human when they know they are doing evil and intend harm.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil, at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, you should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us. Wherever it came from, God or nature, without evolution we would go extinct. We must do good and evil.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

This link speak to theistic evolution.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 66/?no-ist

If theistic evolution is true, then the myth of Eden should be read as a myth and there is not really any original sin.

Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Doing evil then is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive. Our default position is to cooperate or to do good. I offer this clip as proof of this. You will note that we default to good as it is better for survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?
O.K. Bishop, here's your conclusion. Doing evil is actually forced on us by evolution and the need to survive.
Therefore since you cannot help but do evil, God has no good reason to punish you.
So it follows, that if you kill someone in a barroom brawl over a woman you can plead in court." Your Honour,I couldn't help it, as I was competing for this woman in order to pass on my genes. Evolution made me do it!"
Judge; "But of course it's only natural and entirely reasonable. Justifiable homicide.The accused may now leave the court without a stain on his good character, and carry on his lawful competing. Case dismissed!" Bangs gavel.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Is it a sin to seek knowledge?

Unread post

Why are you transposing what I said of your mythical God in heaven to the real world?

Is deflection and idiocy all you have buddy?

Regards
DL
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”