Grassblade wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Grassblade wrote:
>>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>> Of course he can. Whether you believe in science and whether you believe
>>>> in God are orthogonal. Many scientists are rather devout. It's *because*
>>>> religion is illogical that this is possible.
>>> It is?
>> Yes. In my experience, it is.
>>
>> Take, DeCartes, for example. His first step, "I think, therefore I am"
>> is logical. His second (or so) step is "I know there is evil, hence
>> there must be good" isn't. There could be many kinds of evil, and no
>> good.
> Descartes was also a philosopher, apart from mathematician. Philosophers have
> this (annoying, IMHO) tendency to split everything in twain. However, if you
> know the word "good", and observe only degrees of evil, what do you think a
> philosopher living in such a world would call the less evil tier? His step is
> illogical only if you define an absolute concept of good, which could
> potentially not exist. But if you define relative concepts, I cannot imagine
> how observing (relative) evil could not lead to defining (relative) good.
> 

Personally, I think it would be easier to define good in strict terms
and define evil as either the lack, or opposite, of good. To do so
otherwise, as you suggest, leads good to be that lesser tier of evil. I
believe De Sade explored that in Justine. It does not present a very
pleasant picture of 'good' in such a situation.

Post a reply to this message