I was at the local Socrates Cafe meeting in Montclair a few evenings ago (yes, after 4 years I’m back with them). That night, the group seemed to lack its usual enthusiasm for coming up with a multitude of topics for discussion, and then weaning them down through a balloting process. So I threw out an idea that had been rattling around in my head, about the nature of morality and ethical behavior in humans. I.e., is it more social or innate? Does morality originate within each of us (or many of us, or at least some of us) and then somehow get co-opted by the human collective (as laws, ethical notions, shared moral values)? Or does it somehow emerge from the group, and is then assumed by the individual through osmosis (at least in the better of us)? Given the lack of inspiration on anyone else’s part that night, my idea was quickly accepted.

Well, this turned out to be a good topic, as it inspired about 90 minutes of intense and wide-ranging discussion. I can’t say that I left the room with a conclusion; a lot of the discussion frankly veered off from the intended subject. But that’s OK, Socrates Cafe is all the more charming for its lack of academic discipline. What did interest me was the reaction that one of the men in the group had. This fellow, who I respect greatly, is in his late 50’s or early 60’s, and is employed as a bio scientist. I would describe him as “logical positivist” in outlook. He appears to believe that science is the best answer to humankind’s dilemma. He feels that notions of God or gods or spirits or inner spiritualities are hardly necessary. Science explains more and more of our reality, in a very definitive and useful fashion. There’s hardly anything left to the realm of mystery anymore.

So in response to my question, he made it clear that whatever the answer was, it had nothing to do with anything God-like, not even Kantian. No need for moral absolutes imposed from without; no revelations, no sacred scriptures, not even deontology or moral imperatives. It was all a question of nature and genetics, i.e. human behaviors determined via scientifically describable processes. He was very comfortable about this. Case closed. (With all due respect to him, a thoughtful and gentle person.)

But then he considered the inverse to morality and goodness. I.e., the concept of evil. He pondered the presence of suffering in our world, especially pain imposed needlessly by another, suffering caused merely for the sake of seeing another suffer. There was a certain look on his face, a bewilderment, an awe of something uncanny. He didn’t simply classify such behavior as mental dysfunction, as many others do (including many who don’t have much interest in science). In the face of evil, this good man seemed alone. I’ll not forget that far-away look on his face anytime soon.

Evil. I could write 10 paragraphs on it, on whether it is an inverse reflection of goodness or more a lack of goodness, an ultimate void in reality. I could ponder here whether it is just a side-effect, an artifact of the human mind, or does it have ontological reality. And if it is “really real”, is it an inverse mirror image of God, akin to what the Zoroastrians and Gnostics believed in? Or is it God’s shadow, the place where God isn’t?

(Of course, it’s hard to understand how God, the source of all light, could have a shadow. But then again, God would not be bound by our science and logic. Or you could try loopy logic; God could cause the light to loop around, as it would do around a black hole, and then come back upon some part of “his” being. Hmmm, interesting — the black hole as a metaphor for evil. Indeed, the black hole is powerful and voracious, and mercilessly devours all matter and energy that get close to it. Just like evil. But black holes don’t last forever; they eventually “evaporate”. Let’s hope that also applies to the phenomenon of evil.)

But I’ll leave the concept of evil alone for now. Tonight, I just want to ponder what the thought of evil did to my respected discussion partner a few nights ago at Socrates Cafe. To a person (like myself) who relates his experience of awe in the world to the (hoped for) presence of God, evil is a neutralizer, something that eviscerates that awe. So we do what little we can to understand evil and help prevent it, and to fight it when it infects others (and ourselves!). But for a man (again, a very good man) who has tried to reign in the “awe and mystery of it all” via the mental discipline of science and positive logic, the presence of evil seemed to bring back something of the inexplicable and uncontrollable. Evil brings the mystery back and keeps it real.

At such a price, however.