Subject: The Force
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 17:57:35 -0800
From: "Michael D. Berger"
To: Birds Of A Feather
NOTE: Private responses to this communication will be made public at my discretion, notwithstanding requests to keep them private.
A long time ago, during the honeymoon, at a coffee hour, I said to Jim Nelson that I thought that fifteen percent of people are evil. He seemed concerned about this so I offered that for Unitarian Universalists, it was only ten percent.
Alex Machina, Sun, 25 Jul 1999 00:14:18 -0400 presented some interesting thoughts on evil. While Alex and I appear to agree on a number of ethical and political issues, our views on ontology differ. In this document I discuss my views on evil, and apply them to problems at UUCF.
[Alex's original posting, as well as some responses to it, can be seen in Evil and Belief.]
Alex:
> If evil exists, then what is it? It certainly is not like matter.
> Is it then a force, like gravity? Why then does it appear not to
> be there unless I judge an event?
>
> I claim that evil exists only because we exist and we judge it to
> exist; we declare its existence. There is no such intrinsic event
> or effect or corporeal entity that we can call evil, apart from
> what one or more of us (sentient, conscious) creatures decides.
> Without a sentient creature judging, there is no such thing as
> evil.
The above sections appear to limit the attribution of existence to two categories of things: 1. things that are described by concepts in physics (force, etc.); 2. things that are the consequence of the activity of sentient creatures (judging, etc.). I would attribute existence to numerous other things. For example, tables and rocks. Now tables and rocks are not basic physical things (force, atom), but are things that exist by virtue of the >arrangement< of basic physical things into higher order structures that have both individuality and stability. I have heard it said that: "The table does not exist, it is the atoms that exist." I consider this a misuse of language. I could perhaps say that it the table exists, and that the atom is merely part of some new theory to account for its existence. To those that insist that it is the atom, I might say that it is really electrons, protons, and neutrons. Or is it now quarks? Actually, I attribute existence to all of these things, each in its way, but, prima fascia, with no difference in the degree or quality of the existence.
I believe in the existence of "evolutionary forces". Here, "force" is not used as it is in physics, but shares with physics the intuitive idea of a tendency. In evolution, the force is the tendency of species to develop from other species according to complex natural laws. The fact that this force cannot be measured using the methods of physics does not detract from its claim to existence. This force exists whether or not there are sentient beings to marvel at it, and has the same degree and quality of existence as the tables and atoms of the previous paragraphs.
The difference between evil and the things discussed above is that there appears to be a value judgement intrinsic in the idea of evil. At least, however, it seems reasonable to divide evil into two parts: 1. the tendency for things to happen in a certain way (a "force of evil"); 2. the value judgement applied to this tendency. At least for the first part, there is no theoretical difficulty in attributing reality to the force of evil provided objective "individuality and stability" can be attributed to the tendency under consideration. While the force of evil has yet to be understood and characterized well enough >for us< to make this attribution, the existence of the force of evil does not depend upon our understanding it, any more then the existence of evolution depends upon our understanding it. For now, my belief in the existence of the force of evil may not be as strong as certain of my other beliefs (such as the belief that God does not exist), but I find explanatory power of the idea is compelling. The second part, the value judgement, is more difficult. If the issue is considered to be "making the value judgement" (where this is defined as something that only sentient beings do), then it is obvious that if there are no sentient beings, then there is no value. However, the existence of a force of evil is not challenged by this. Taking the value issue further, there is still a question of whether it is possible in some sense to attribute value in a way that is more objective. My present view is yes, but I am not ready to argue this point.
In summery, I believe that evil exists. So does good. (But God does not exist.)
Alex:
> But given that sentient creatures such as us exist, the existence
> of evil is still problematic.
>
> Consider McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City.
>
> Consider the US/NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
>
> Consider the bombing of US embassies in Yemen and elsewhere.
>
> How is one to judge which of these events is evil? Why isn't
> there universal agreement? The end result of each of the above
> actions is pretty much the same. Why then are they judged
> differently by different people?
>
At this point, I will distinguish "universal evil" and "human evil". The
things I discussed above are universal evil. This comment by Alex refers
to the details of human evil. Human evil is a subset of, or a
manifestation of universal evil. In the human context I am quite convinced
that there is a clear concept of good and evil that is absolute in the
sense that it is not a matter of opinion. From the limited human
perspective many determinations are difficult, and our efforts will be
imperfect. This does not, however, compromise arguments about the
existence of evil.
Alex:
[...]
> I am claiming that it is time to let go of the concept of evil.
> It exists only in our minds, and then only because we judge a
> particular event from our point of view (I know, that's the only
> point of view we can judge it from). I will say here that I agree
> with the bumper sticker (not seen much anymore) that encourages
> justice if one's goal is peace. My point is that "evil" happens
> because one or more of us has, after repeated attempts to coexist
> with others in a just environment, finds that we are powerless to
> influence or ameliorate conditions that are unjust, and in an
> attempt to rectify the (perceived) injustice, take actions that
> those who are then affected by that action, then judge to be
> evil.
The concept of "justice" has an interesting history. I quote Anaxamander of Miletus, circa 550 BC:
"The beginning of all things was the Apeiron [the unlimited, unbounded,
"undefined] ... from which coming-to-be was for all things, and their
"destruction was of necessity into the same. For they suffer punishment
"and make reparation to each other for injustice according to the order
"of time.
There is a relationship between justice and evil in both human and universal realms. This is not the time to "let go of the concept of evil", but rather to improve our understanding of it, and to fine tune our responses to it. I would construe most of Alex's comment as a step in that direction.
-----
Are there evil people? In the introduction to his book "People of the Lie, The Hope for Healing Human Evil", M. Scott Peck does not ask this question, but assumes there are evil people. Peck uses the "medical model" to describe evil as a syndrome, and he hopes to use the medical approach to deal with it. If you know this author, I am sure that you will be confident that he is not without compassion in dealing with the matter. This is an outstanding book, and I am at a loss to find anything concise to say about it that does it justice. I comment that people are evil by degrees. There is evil in all of us, and therefore we are all to some extent evil. We hesitate to judge others, and with regard to any ultimate judgement of a person, I support this. On the other hand, we must not be blind to the effects that the evil in people has on us, and we must be ready to take action where appropriate.
In the writings of C.S. Lewis, this idea can be found: The distinction between good and evil is more clear now then it was in earlier periods of human history, and as time passes, the distinction continues to become more clear. This is not to say that judgements are more easily made. In mundane terms, this trend of sharpening the distinction between good and evil is manifest in that as time passes, humanity learns more and more about the >mechanisms< by which good and evil operate. It becomes increasingly possible to predict the consequence of the influence of increasingly subtle aspects of societies and individuals. It is "good" to make use of this capability to prevent bad outcomes in society and individuals; and it is "evil" to avoid doing this, or to use the capability to achieve the opposite result.
It is my opinion that the mechanisms of human evil are few. Time and time again these mechanisms are manifest in different combinations and with myriad varieties in detail. But there are only a few human motivations. In the large, there are not many ways in which humans can abuse one another. The gravity of the results differ only in the degrees that these elements present, the ways in which they combine, and the circumstances in which individuals find themselves.
Some particulars will be mentioned. Where I talk of evil, my examples are not meant to describe well formulated mechanisms of evil, but merely to point the way.
Nan Johnson, Tue, 07 Sep 1999 21:00:53 -0400 wrote: [reformatted]
> I still believe that e-mail is the straw man. Nelson acted to stop
> public dissent at every opportunity. After the announcements were
> curtailed and "Joys and Concerns" were derailed and letters to the
> newsletter were eliminated as
the minister took over editorial control;
> e-mail was the only means of communicating
with the congregation at large
> that remained. If our dysfunctional congregation were healthier, we
> might have been discussing more
substantial issues. e-mail was the one
> form of communication that Nelson was unable to get under his complete
> control.
I take the First Amendment to have religious status. Free expression in various venues is an essential aspect of Unitarian Universalism. There is no difficulty in finding evil here.
Marcia Helme, Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:41:29 EST writes: [reformatted]
> Love of whom? Love for the people who have been profoundly hurt by
> uucf? I don't see the uucf power structure showing much love for them.
> I hear a lot of, "Shut up and go away."
>
> Love for those who did nothing while the leadership ostracized their
> fellow congregants? And, even if I
were to love everyone, I would still
> not love all of everyones behavior. The truth is not always pleasant.
> ...
Indeed it is not pleasant. We do not like to talk of Nazis. But the structural similarity of neglect of, or disbelief in the existence of problems that other people are experiencing is unmistakable. This is a pervading manifestation of evil in the human condition, and again, differs only in context and degree. Do I believe that UUCF congregants would stand by while the trouble makers were gassed? The context makes it unlikely, but transport them back fifty years, across the world, and to another background and the matter is not so clear. But then they would not be the same people, would they?
Stephen C. Clapp, Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:05:49 -0500 writes: [reformatted]
> I can appreciate the desire of you
and others for Jim's critics to "get
> over it" and start the new Millennium afresh. However, this is easier
> said than done. I refer you to
today's Washington Post, which contains a
> review by Sissela Bok of Desmond Tutu's new book, "No Future Without
> Forgiveness." Bok herself is the author
of a book on "Lying: Moral Choice
> in Public and Private Life."
[...]
> "Unless we look the beast in the eye, we find that it has an uncanny
> habit of returning and holding us hostage," Archbishop Tutu declares.
>
> I don't mean to suggest in any way that Jim or his critics are war
> criminals. However, ...
Yes, "However". Again, the mechanisms of evil are few. While the details and severity differ, the common characteristic of the desire of the perpetrator to have victims forgive and forget cannot be denied as one of the mechanisms of evil.
Bruce Wheeler, Wed, 22 Dec 1999 12:34:19 -0500 writes:
> To the extent that anyone perceives
> there to be "sides", healing will be much slower in coming.
On the contrary, proceeding from Tutu above, until it is perfectly clear that there are sides, and what the sides are, there will be no resolution. There is evil in hiding from this fact.
(Please note that my criticism of this point is not meant to reflect badly on the overall quality and value of what Bruce Wheeler is doing.)
Shirley Gordon, Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:17:34 EST writes; [reformatted]
> Well, I believe that Jim has triggered hurts in a large number of
> members. I estimate the number of members
affected is now well over the
> 100 mark. I believe that Jim has been informed over and over again by
> many... Now many have just walked away.
Jim Nelson appears to have a clear (to him) view of what a church should be. It appears that he is "called by a higher power" to create a church as he sees it. He does not seem interested in other people's views on the matter. He appears to be concerned with personal power, which he utilizes to achieve his ends. He appears to be interested in other people only to the extent that they either support his view, or are willing to act out their parts as "proper" church members. He has a measure of charisma, and to people who fit in, he is very attractive. However, he appears to have little tolerance for "non-conforming" people who disagree with him or do not play the proper roles. Confronted with such "non-conforming" people, he will ignore them, try to bully them into conformance, or discredit them. People leave such interactions feeling that they have been treated badly, and in fact they have been. He does this easily, and such behavior is consistent with his personality structure.
I can speak of this with some authority concerning the personality issues because I share some of his less exemplary personality traits. "It takes one to know one." The difference is that I consider it my responsibility be aware of them, and to control them in the light of other ideals and influences. In this context, this is the difference between good and evil. (The obvious self-aggrandizement is not intended. I certainly have my own weaknesses and evil aspects, and those who know me well know what they are, although they might not analyze them in these terms. You may substitute "others" for "I" in this part of the discussion, except that I know >what it is like< to have these traits because I have them.)
As far as can be discerned, Jim sees no problem with his behavior. In some contexts, behavior such as Jim's might be appropriate. However, in UU churches, as most UUs understand it, such behavior is not appropriate. It is expected that all views will be heard and respected, and that these views will influence the functioning of the church. This mismatch is a manifestation of evil, and will have corresponding consequences. The summary point is that whatever his virtues might be, Jim is not qualified to be a UU minister. The evil lies not in a particular personality, in failure to recognize the mismatch.
There is much written about the UUCF and Jim on the e-mail lists. An analysis that I find especially interesting was sent to the UUCF Chat list by Chris and Nan Johnson on June 21, 1998. It can be seen at [Co-Dependent No More ]. In this analysis, UUCF is compared to a dysfunctional family led by "... an emotionally distant Father-figure who gets increasingly authoritarian when challenged, no matter how mildly or constructively." Point by point, the analogy is made. While I am not qualified to pass technical judgement on this analysis, the fit of the model described to the present situation is impressive. When I referred above to the ability to "predict the consequence of the influence of increasingly subtle aspects of societies and individuals", it is this sort of thing, among others, that I had in mind. Where is the evil? It is in the failure to apply available resources to resolve the problem.
Is Jim evil? I assume that the more we knew him, the harder it would be to make such an attribution. Nevertheless, there are clearly evil aspects that present a serious problem. Is UUCF evil? It certainly has problems in this direction. One wonders if this is a consequence of leadership, a problem inherent in the structure of large UU churches, or something else. I am sure that there is more to say about this -- and I have faith that it will be said.
Mike.
--
Michael D. Berger
Rosalie A. Clavez