I suspect the downvotes are because this appears to be either a useless question (because it violates dogma of the most common Christian sect in the US) or because it's seen as a "cheap shot" at those beliefs, but it still seems like an important question we need to continually struggle with. It's not like we have proven the null hypothesis.
I suspect you're just trolling - but in case you're interested in /a/ perspective from within the broader Christian tradition...
What is evil? What would "evil in men's hearts" mean?
Evil as a concept can only exist if there is some kind of definition of Good, or Anti-Evil as well.
If Good and Evil are both just arbitary made-up definitions by some supreme being with a control-complex, then screw everything, it's all a meaningless shitshow.
Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing.
However, if there is some kind of absolute Good, and absolute Evil, and it's just figuring out what those are and mean that's the complex bit - now we have an interesting universe, and the potential for some kind of meaningful life.
We all argue about whether or not there is a God - or if there is, what He/She/It/They think is Good and Evil, both in our behaviour and in theirs.
But the concept of there being actions which are Good, or Right, and actions which are Evil or Wrong somehow seems baked into our outlook. We disagree about specifics, sure.
It could be that for there to be the potential for Good there is also the potential for Evil. Maybe it's impossible to have Good in our hearts if there is not also Evil.
So what would a supreme being want from us? To aim for good, and avoid evil, sure. We want that from each other too. And from ourselves.
But there are other things too. The bible trys to say God's desired interaction with us is closest understood by the analogy of a Father/Child relationship.
So as a Dad, sure, I want a bit of obedience, especially when they're young and learning... But I'd rather my kids choose Good themselves, and listen to me for advice, and decide for themselves whether or not what I say is Good. And if they disagree, but it's not going to hurt them (too much) or others, then I prefer them do something I think is wrong than them to blindly obey me. I can give them advice, direction, but the older they grow, the more what I really want from them is more and more towards a real friendship.
And I believe the same is true with our interaction with God. I believe God is more interested in a relationship with us, even if we're arguing and debating with Him/Her/It/Them, than in us blinding obeying. I believe there is the potential for a much more fulfilling life by pursuing meaning (and God) than by deliberately turning our backs on the idea.
Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you". Seems like a good advice to me.
(If you want some links, Luke's gospel is an interesting place to start. Or "The Case for Christ" (The book by Lee Strobel - ignore the preachy movie) might be interesting.)
> Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing.
This strikes me as extremely flawed reasoning, creating a false dichotomy between ${religion} and nihilism.
You don't need absolutes to exist in order for a concept to be meaningful. "Absolute Good" may be a contradiction in terms but that doesn't mean you can't judge whether something is good or bad (or make a more nuanced argument for why some aspects are good or bad in some ways). The same way as you don't need "absolute wet" to exist in order to judge whether something is wet or dry.
It's also a common parlor trick to talk about "evil" instead of "bad" as the antithesis of "good". Evil implies intent. But very few people would think of themselves as intentionally evil and take joy in that. Practically speaking "evil" is another way to say "sinful" and "sin" is a concept that only exists in religion because in most cases it describes genuinely "victimless crimes" as "crimes against God", specific religious codes of conduct that are imposed without a logical underpinning (e.g. "don't wear mixed fabrics" but also "don't kill people").
Religious morals generally don't care about good and bad, they care about adherence to a set of strict but arbitrary rules. Moderates in most religions pick and chose which rules are the "important" ones but they tend to base those decisions on social norms that have formed in the broader context their religion exists in, not some "inner truth" or unbiased intuition.
So in other words: "evil" is a distraction. It's how you perceive something but it says nothing about intent or cause. You can call someone an evil person, sure, but they don't get out of bed thinking "I'm so evil, I'm going to do a lot of evil things today", they just act in ways that actively harm people either out of disregard for other people's well-being or far more often out of a conflicting idea of what is or isn't harmful (or only empathising with a very narrow subset of the people they affect).
> This strikes me as extremely flawed reasoning, creating a false dichotomy between ${religion} and nihilism.
Possibly, sorry about that. I guess I've expressed it a bit extreme there - but even toned down, I still feel (yeah, feel. goodbye reason...) that there's some truth to the concept...
Defining "goodness" is difficult. There's a whole bunch of different attempts - logical positivism, utilitarianism, etc, but to me all of them eventually boiled down to some kind of "do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing...". At some point you have to decide which other non-you-beings you want to compromise with, and which physical/chemical urges you want to cultivate, and which balance between longer-term-goals and instant gratification you want to achieve. Keeping humanity alive, wiping ourselves out to allow other species to survive better for a few more thousand years until something cosmic wipes us all out... It doesn't really make any difference in the end.
> You don't need absolutes to exist in order for a concept to be meaningful. <snip> The same way as you don't need "absolute wet" to exist in order to judge whether something is wet or dry.
Absolutely.
But some kind of definition of wetness, or dryness is probably helpful. :-)
>It's also a common parlor trick to talk about "evil" instead of "bad" as the antithesis of "good". Evil implies intent.
Ah, yes. I guess I'm not really using the right terminology at the moment. Terminology is complicated.
I guess so there should be a scale of "good occurances" and "bad occurances", with evil being intention of bad occurances? But to whom? Is a prison guard commanded to hurt his prisoners intending bad occurances to his prisoners, but intending good for his family being provided for? Is there any way to define whether hurting someone is good or bad? You could argue surgery or chemotherapy is very specifically hurting people with the intention of good for them later... But genocide has been justified under the same argument - but on a societal level. Is there any way to define which things are good, or bad?
I believe there is Good, and anti-good. And I believe that there is a being beyond of our limited perspective, God, who cares about that, and wants us to aim for Good, and if we're willing, will help us in that direction.
> Religious morals generally don't care about good and bad, they care about adherence to a set of strict but arbitrary rules.
Sad, but true.
However, from how I've read the bible, I don't think that's how God (if there is a God) really wants it to be. And if there is a God, and if that's all they care about, they're really not worth caring about.
I wasn't intending to troll, but I admit to being snippy - it's one of my pet hates when anything good that happens is attributed to God and then in the same breath anything bad that happens is blamed on people.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll look into the book you mention.
Who put it there, hmm?