Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H



Peck says "all sins are reparable except the sin of believing one is without sin."  For Peck sins do not make you evil.  They are failures to reach a high moral standard.  A good person can fall several times a day.  What makes you evil is attempting to hide your sins and your evil from yourself.  "Evil originates not the absence of guilt but in the effort to escape it."  The book says pride which is the failure to see the evil you do and the sins you commit makes you evil so you need to see the truth. 

My reply to that is you can use forgiveness to think and/or feel God has removed your sin and justified you - made you the same as if you never sinned.  Christianity then by teaching justification, the doctrine that God forgets your past so that you are acquitted of sin and declared good and righteous.  Anything can be a means of being proud or hiding pride and forgiveness is the perfect cover!  Feelings do not tell you what is true or false so feeling justified is enough to render Christianity a force for preaching against evil while in fact making sure it happens.

We are forced to treat moral principles as facts.  If you say morality is just opinion and we should accept that we are calling that a fact.  So we cannot get away from treating moral principles as truths and facts - as objectively right.  Relativism which treats morality as mere opinion is just evil then under a fancy name hiding itself as tolerance and philosophy.

"Strangely, enough, evil people are often destructive because they are attempting to destroy evil."  Peck says this happens because they worry about the evil around them not the evil in themselves.  He says they must start to "hate the sinful part of themselves".

If we get people to do that we won't have to worry about hating them for we can get them to hate themselves for us!  That is an interesting way of hurting sinners while pretending to love them.

Why do we do evil if it is so boring and stupid and self-defeating?  The answer has to be that it is because you know you are acting like any evil or sin you commit is seen as part of a good purpose.  Instead of God having the mysterious ways you have them. Magical thinking happens when we are about to do harm for we think it will benefit us and is us taking what somebody else will get if we don't act.  Magical thinking about our own good deeds and our bad ones - eg fate or some purpose makes them right and for the best - is what we do first and foremost and only then can we extend that dubious magic to divine agency.  We see God as magic for we see ourselves as magic - its not the other way round.

Peck speaks of Fromm who thought evil in people was a developmental matter.  They are not created evil or compelled to be.  They just turn evil bit by bit over many many bad choices.  Peck says his only problem with this view is that it fails to note just how powerful and overpowering the forces are that shape a young child before it has the chance to make its own choices.  Peck thinks that Fromm is not giving the will enough credit - it can break the pattern, the series of bad choices that make you evil better than he thinks.

Peck writes, "I have seen cases in which an individual made an evil choice for no apparent reason other than the pure desire to exercise the freedom of his or her will."  It is doing bad just because you can.

My reply to that is an exaggerated doctrine of free will can lead to that.  We don't have much freedom or free will at all.  We accept a lot in our lives that we cannot control much.  Any control we get is really because something bigger - eg the social machinery is letting us have the control and this letting is just it controlling us again.  A dog that is on a leash is controlled whether she can ramble for twenty yards or two. Control is just control no matter how it feels.  It is even more control when you are led to think you are not controlled.

We want a religion and a philosophy that tells us suicide is wrong and thus keeps lives safe.  That cannot happen for suicide is a social and health issue not a moral one.  So free will is not useful when it cannot help us here.  We sense how limited we are and how limited it seems to be and it is no wonder we rebel and do things that we feel free to do just because we can and even if they hurt others.

Peck says evil is revolting because it is dangerous and says that it contaminates you if you stay too long in the presence of evil - evil people.  He advises walking away if it starts to spread to you and starts to get a hold on you.  My point is that if Jesus was a false prophet and a fraud then you are in the presence of evil by being Christian.  Same if you are something else that revolves around the presence of a dodgy saviour or deity.  If there is no God there could still be some way the likes of Jesus gets the hold they have over people.  It is frightening how some religions when they get to a certain size by default become virtually immune to any assault from the truth. (Parents are to blame for letting the religion get to that stage!)  Islam is unharmed by Muhammad's abuse of Aisha a child.  Christianity's bloodthirsty scriptures are respected and made sacred and God is insulted by being told the Bible is his word.  So where does the sinister "hold" come from?  It can be seen as some kind of natural force that cannot be detected or is not detected or that hides itself.  Or it can be seen as a deceiving or perhaps malign spiritual or paranormal force.  Maybe that is what baptism of babies is REALLY for!

Peck quotes Simone Weil who says evil looks glamorous and powerful and clever but the real thing is gloomy and barren and boring.  He agrees with her. 

How true is it that evil is boring?  Many bad people disagree maybe totally, largely or slightly or whatever.  It is very variable.  Religion conditions you to see evil and sin (the evil it makes up such as missing Mass on Sundays being a mortal sin) as boring.  If it is boring and if you are conditioned to find it boring then you will do more evil and worse ones to deal with the boredom and the emptiness.  It is like a person who drinks vodka and gets no inner glow and who keeps drinking more and more in search of this elusive drunken bliss.

It helps illustrate Peck's contention that evil people suffer horribly despite how happy they think they are - so they are gloomy inside, bare inside and bored senseless.  This doctrine suggests that if Christianity answers the question of the meaning of life and gives true meaning to people then any other religion must be evil - especially Buddhism which contradicts Christians about the meaning of life on every point. Buddhism comes close to saying there is no real life!

Christians say they do not promise a faith that will ever make you feel better but one that gives you a reason to exist and to love God no matter how terrible things get for you.  If so, then it is vital for a religion to be true.  Otherwise you might get more meaning being a Mormon than a Hindu or you might think Catholicism gives you meaning and be wrong.  Meaning and truth go together so if you get meaning the wrong way it will prove very damaging.

Peck has a wish for the future, "Children will, in my dream, be taught that laziness and narcissism are at the very root of human evil, and why this is so."

The laziness of parents turning their children into members of the parental religion should be mentioned here!  Only truth and loving it and being willing to face it root out laziness and narcissism.

Narcissists blind themselves to their self-love by telling themselves that they feel a presence in themselves guiding them and protecting them - God!  If a narcissist can have an idol of stone he can have a better one of his own psychology.


Peck notes that "one of the characteristics of evil is its desire to confuse."  He argues that if you are evil you will avoid psychotherapy like the plague.  Evil people don't want help for they think they are great the way they are.  He softens that a bit by saying a person can be ambivalently evil so that some part of them will allow a therapist to help.

[I would suggest that maybe the person is using a therapist who she or he senses will not be able to change things.  The person then goes to therapy like it was scratching an itch that is prolonged by the scratching.]

Naturally then Peck asks if evil is a psychiatric illness.  He quotes Martin Buber as pointing out that evil people demand, "affirmation independent of all findings."  They expect then you to say nothing about their sin and to condone it and even reward it.  Sin then is not just the sinner's business - it reflects on how the sinner thinks of you and society.  Thought leads to action so the sinner is not an island.

So is evil a psychiatric illness? 

One objection to that he says is how evil people have no overt suffering just from being evil.  But he says you could see them as diseased but asymptomatic.  You don't have to be in pain to be ill.  He says the evil hide their pain for evil causes fear.  "The evil live their lives in fear."  And he goes, "The evil are to be pitied - not hated - because they live their lives in sheer terror."

My response to that is if their fear is that bad and they don't see it, imagine what they would be capable of thinking they are defending themselves. 

Christianity teaches that sin does harm the sinner though the sinner may be blind to that and everybody else thinks the sinner is happy and grounded.  Such a doctrine virtually tells sinners to do harm in self-defence.  Fear is the root of all violence.  It warns that an asymptomatic fear in a sinner will explode.  The symptom has to come.

A sensible person would say that so-called sinners not suffering is proof that there is no God or no God who cares about sin.  Peck is engaging in vindictive wishful thinking that makes him look for ways to imagine sinners are suffering!

If sin did come with fear it would not prove that sin is an illness.  Falling in love brings fear but we do not consider love an illness for the fear is separate from the love. 

Another objection is that to be ill or sick is to be a victim and evil is based on choice so you are not a victim.  Peck says you can put yourself in a bad situation by choice and still be a victim.  A child is hit by a car is a victim despite being told not to go out on the road.

He claims that the sinner is both actor and victim.  If you say you must hate the malevolent actor side of the person and love and pity the victim side of the person.

I see that he wants you to love the sinner and patronise him as a victim!  This patronising love will only fuel sinners.  They will sense how superior and fake and condescending you are.

He says that if evil is untreatable that does not prove it is not a disease. He says that our failure to know how to treat evil is the best reason of all for seeing it as a disease.  He quotes a priest with approval who said evil was the ultimate disease.  Peck reasons from that that "despite their pretence of sanity, the evil are the most insane of all."

The interesting thing about that is the person needs to be very sane and clever indeed in order to fake sanity!  How can we trust anybody?  How can we trust those who tell us about the paranormal and the supernatural for it is easier to lie about them than anything else?  The best way to fake sanity is to get people to think the supernatural or paranormal are real and yet elusive and you can tell people about them for you have special access to information.  Perhaps you are a prophet or Messiah or just divinely inspired.

I wish to note that one advantage of this approach is that it urges us to meet the evil with compassion for that alone allows the solution to come.  But compassion based on the assumption that you are insane when you are a very functional person and good in society will not be compassion to you.  It will be patronising.

It is very judgemental to say that sinners are lying to us and taking us for fools by pretending to be sane.  If the pretending is evil or a sin then if it is a symptom of insanity that is not pretending.  Only a sane person can pretend.

Peck thinks science is not about the problem of evil or the nature of evil at all while religion is.  Science does not test moral values.  It is about the physical. 

My response that science can test the part of moral values that is about avoiding harm.  The harm part is the important bit.  The rule part is less important.  Any decent person will worry more about a baby's pain when he is attacked than about what any God has to say about it.  History is not about morality but its method is to discern truth as far as possible so though science does not equate to morality that does not mean there is no connection.  In fact there has to be. 

Peck says that it is only because there is good in the world that we even consider the problem of evil.  That makes good and bad two sides of the one coin and you are stuck with both forever.  One needs the other, one goes with the other.

My response is that if that is true then God has to be a coin with a good side and an evil side.  We have to accept that we will be good or evil and keep changing forever.  Many us feel that this is so and that is why they do evil when they get the chance.  They think there is no point in trying to avoid being evil forever.

Peck says you can do evil things and not be evil.  He say sin and evil are not exactly the same.  He suggests that being evil is not easy which does not fit the coin image.

If evil is a power and good is a power then God made the coin - that is he made good and evil and made one need the other. 

If evil is a loss of good or an absence of good then there is no coin.  If pink is one side of the coin and the absence of pink is the other that gives you a non-coin for it has only one side.  Good in Christianity is not made but is just a default. 

Believers probably all, deep down in some way at least, use the coin methodology and approach.  The danger of holy people being secretly happy that people are suffering and dying so that they can help them must be astronomical. 


Here is what Peck says about judging:

"Evil people are easy to hate. But remember Saint Augustine’s advice to hate the sin but love the sinner.  Remember when you recognize an evil person that truly, ‘There but for the grace of God go I.’ In labelling certain human beings as evil, I am making an obviously severely critical value judgment. My Lord said, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.’ By this statement—so often quoted out of context—Jesus did not mean we should never judge our neighbour. For he went on to say, ‘Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’  What he meant was that we should judge others only with great care, and that such carefulness begins with self-judgment."

Unpacking this then we should be automatically suspicious of Christian love for sinners   If all that is stopping you hurting and hating sinners is that you could end up the same without praying for God's grace that is a flimsy and thin barrier.  It is not going to work.  And the doctrine just leaves you pretending that it does work.  How can it work when you always think others are worse than you?  When you do wrong you are confident of staying in control of your character.  Nobody really thinks they will be a Nazi style scientist or warmonger even if they could be.  And if you think you are totally evil but the grace of God is curbing it, that means you will have no real trust for anybody else.  You are not saying the grace is changing you but curbing you.  The difference is important.

Peck quotes the following with approval in the book.  It is from Aldous Huxley’s The Devils of Loudon, page 192:

The effects which follow too constant and intense a concentration upon evil are always disastrous. Those who crusade not for God in themselves, but against the devil in others, never succeed in making the world better, but leave it either as it was, or sometimes even perceptibly worse than it was, before the crusade began. By thinking primarily of evil we tend, however excellent our intentions, to create occasions for evil to manifest itself.

My comment is that it can't expect anybody to be completely about God.  All it can ask for is for a person to be more about crusading for God than against evil.  But for our own protection and because we have fears, we will stress battling evil more than doing good.  It remains true that doing something about evil matters more than doing good as important as doing good is.

Suppose Peck is right.  It will be impossible to tell if a person is 51% for God or 51% for battling Satan.  You will only know by the end result and by then the damage will be done.  A bad person will centre on battling evil for that is the best and craftiest way to do harm.

Peck is pitting "hate or battle the evil or sin (sin for him is a subset of evil)" against "love the sinner and do good deeds for her or him."  We can be sure that when people say they love sinners and hate the sins the hate bit is the bit they really do.

Here is another quote from The Devils of Loudon (page 260) that Peck cites for us:

No man can concentrate his attention upon evil, or even upon the idea of evil, and remain unaffected. To be more against the devil than for God is exceedingly dangerous. Every crusader is apt to go mad. He is haunted by the wickedness which he attributes to his enemies; it becomes in some sort of a part of him.

Comment: You are in some way partly responsible when you know of somebody's sin.  The other person's responsibility for his evil reflects yours for your evil.  There is a link and in that way you share responsibility.  The evil of the enemy becomes you.  Imagine then how your own evil becomes you!

Being the same species as the evil leads to solidarity in the sense that the evil done by others reflects on us for in terms of species there is no us or them.  It is us not them.  Plus there are evils in human nature or nature in general that we are happy about so that is our yes to evil.  Evil is evil so there is no this evil or that evil.  Its just evil.  You are glad that your mother suffered to give birth to you and risked her life.  See the point?

Back to the quote.  It claims that thinking about evil as a reality or an idea contaminates you.  And if the contamination is not as damaging as it might be it still potentially is very dangerous.  It is still like playing with a bomb.  Not only do you have to worry about loving x and hating his sin you have to worry about how x's sin becomes part of you as well.  This is a new thing: to love x the sinner and hate his sin is to love the group he is in and hate their absorption of his sin and how they are somehow in it too.  If love the sinner and hate the sin is a hoax or a futile enterprise then that explains why we tend to love our group and nation and hate other ones.


The book says that therapy is not about helping the client get rid of guilt feelings if the guilt is appropriate for there are things you should feel guilty about.  It is like there is no such thing as a bad feeling or bad wish or bad thought for it is only the action that can be bad.  He says that it is fine to judge as long as it is about helping and healing and not just you trying to show you are better or know better. 

Those who say faith in God is needed for affirming morality or at least is recommended cannot judge the sin of another without claiming to know better.  The atheist can judge without that problem.  God and the alleged morality the idea brings come to you through your experience that there is something there that you interpret as God.  So you are necessarily claiming to know better than the atheist.  And you know that not all who say they experience God really do so you can really only speak for yourself.  Again you are clearly asserting you know better.  This may explain why holy critics of anybody's morality get such hostility in return.  People sense that there is a little condescending going on.  Or a lot!

Peck writes: "Since I distinguish between evil people and ordinary criminals, I also obviously make the distinction between evil as a personality characteristic and evil deeds. In other words, evil deeds do not an evil person make. Otherwise we should all be evil, because we all do evil things. Sinning is most broadly defined as ‘missing the mark’. This means that we sin every time we fail to hit the bull’s-eye. Sin is nothing more and nothing less than a failure to be continually perfect. Because it is impossible for us to be continually perfect, we are all sinners. We routinely fail to do the very best of which we are capable, and with each failure we commit a crime of sorts—against God, our neighbours, or ourselves, if not frankly against the law. Of course there are crimes of greater and lesser magnitude. It is a mistake, however, to think of sin or evil as a matter of degree. It may seem less odious to cheat the rich than the poor, but it is still cheating. There are differences before the law between defrauding a business, claiming a false deduction on your income tax  ....

Comment: This text says that civil law is not truly just.  It treats minor cheating differently from major cheating.  It is about driving you to follow a certain social order and not about changing you inside.  And more importantly, we are left with no way of telling if somebody really is evil.  Hitler could have been good but just a sinner who we misjudge as evil.  If so, then by saying he is evil we are being evil.  We show our own evil and its really about our evil not his.

Peck asks if an evil person can feel revulsion for another evil person and their evil. 

My response to that is affirmative.  Religion says that you go back to God in steps.  Repentance involves a process.  So seeing this evil in another is the start of you maybe seeing your own and abandoning it.  It shows that hatred of evil is in you or growing in you despite the presence of evil in you.  Religion encourages that.  It says it is good to take the step even if no other step is taken.  Its better than nothing.  Peck would see that as dangerous if he thought about it a bit better.

Peck defines evil as "that force, residing either inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness.  And goodness is its opposite. Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness."  Peck sees anything that turns others into your "obedient automatons" as evil for that is killing their lives not by killing them physically but robbing them of their spirit.

My response is that literally there are no such things as human automatons.  What happens is the person works within limitations to their freedom that are imposed by another. An automaton if we listen to Peck is a person whose freedom is limited.  Life can impose that on you or people can or both can.  In this view who is not an automaton?  How does that affect God's gift of free will?  If free will does not take away your responsibility - and sinners by default want no responsibility - then are you an automaton?   If so then God is tricking us.  He is evil or is an invention worshipped by evil hearts.

Peck says the primary thing evil does to be evil is to disguise itself.  That is why evil people will be stuck in a church and even the ministry.  He declares, "One of the places evil people are most likely to be found is within the church.  What better way to conceal one's evil from oneself, as well as from others".

My response is that is that maybe the Christian religion is just about being a cover?  What if you join it in case you need a cover or because you simply need a cover?  What defines Christianity depends on what it is for.  Only the evidence can define so if that is how the religion is being used then that is what it is for! 

 How do evil people use covers such as religion to look reasonably good?  Evil can only do that by pretending to be good or at least to be a necessary evil.  Christians say that evil as an outright power cannot exist - it is just good in the wrong place and time.  If evil is a thing then God cannot make it any more than God be absolutely pro-red and make black.  If evil is a power it will pretend to be a misplaced good!  It is easy to cover if you define evil as a good that is misdirected.  The doctrine virtually forces that abuse to happen.


Peck says unlike animal killing "human killing is not instinctual."  He is referring to how animals hunt and kill or they do not while we can do either.

He says that some feel that war is neither side's fault and comments on how that turns it into virtually spontaneous combustion.  I see that it turns war into something that is to be just accepted and that trying to work for peace is a waste of time!

Peck says that evil is antilife but is a form of life itself which is why if you try to destroy evil by killing evil people you become evil yourself.  He says that trying to destroy it in yourself will not kill you but will kill you spiritually.

We must all be evil realistically we only care about not killing people and do not see killing them spiritually as as bad or even worse.  The doctrine is rubbish and is passive aggressive.  It amounts to making murder no big deal.  If you say it is for if you kill you kill your own soul then how narcissistic are you?


He writes, "Treated badly by its parents, a child will usually assume that it is bad."  He says the child is not able to assess a parent correctly so he or she will naturally think he or she is to blame for the poor parental treatment.  He or she deserves it.  "When a child who is grossly confronted by significant evil in its parents, it will most likely misinterpret the situation and believe that the evil resides in itself."

Peck does not realise we are doing that with God especially when we are children.  We do it when we grow up as well for the scars never heal completely.  He virtually admits that if a child gets sick and sees that God must have made the sickness the child will blame herself.  That will happen in its most tragic form when the child is suffering sexual abuse.  Original sin teaches you are born estranged from God simply because that is what you would choose to be if you could.  That adds to the pain and guilt.


The line "mental health requires that the human will submit itself to something higher than itself." He goes to say this something for religious people is God.  He says those without religion or who are not interested in religion have truth or love or the need of others instead.  He defines mental health as "an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.  The utter failure to submit oneself to reality is called autism."  He sees autism as living inside your own head and being in a world of your own.  Its a world where "the self reigns supreme."  Later he writes, "autism is narcissism in its ultimate form.  For the complete narcissist, others have no psychologic reality than a piece of furniture."

This controversial material shows no knowledge of what autism really is and insults autistic people.  Autistic people can be narcissists but autism and narcissism are not the same thing.  Peck is inconsistent for he sees evil as narcissism so why is he not saying that evil and autism are just two different words for the same thing?


Peck's notes tell us,

Even civilians will commit evil with remarkable ease under obedience. As David Myers described in his excellent article ‘A Psychology of Evil’ (The Other Side [April 1982], p. 29): ‘The clearest example is Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Faced with an imposing, close-at-hand commander, sixty-five percent of his adult subjects fully obeyed instructions. On command, they would deliver what appeared to be traumatizing electric shocks to a screaming innocent victim in an adjacent room. These were regular people—a mix of blue-collar, white-collar and professional men. They despised their task. Yet obedience took precedence over their own moral sense.’

Comment: Obedience is intrinsically dangerous for you feel less responsible for evil when you are told to do it.  That is a fact of human psychology.  Then when you are told to do good you feel double good for you are doing good and being obedient as well.  So you will think you are good when you do good but you will think you are better when you do it obediently.  So obedience makes you smug.  It is fake humility. 

Obedience to God is inherently risky and harmful for the same reason.  Why can't you just love the beggar on the street and need there to be a God who wants you to do it?  Or worse commands it?  Human nature notoriously cannot do good unless it can find some bad in it.

If obedience to people is bad, obedience to the God they tell you is there (which is just obeying their image of God not God - it is obeying them for they are the ones telling you what they think God wants) is worse.

Peck writes that the demons are dumb for they are disproportionally obedient to other demons.  They are ultimately at Satan's beck and call.  The Church reasons that the infantile and ridiculous behaviour of demons is down to that immature obedience.  They are so used to Satan giving orders that they cannot do anything by themselves.

Why is Satan not as mindless as they are?  The Bible says even now he is very bright.  Reason says demons will not mess up if they have such a gifted mentor.

The real reason demons are stupid is because the victims are inventing them.  They are not real.

A smart demon who knows the lottery numbers is too hard to fake so believers want to put possession and exorcism beyond scrutiny.

Peck thinks demons are too narcissistic to possess a person and not show their presence though all it does is attract the exorcist.   This is rubbish for when their performance is dumb they would feel shame not pride at their efforts!  And the theology is that the demon does hide - no possessed person acts possessed 24/7. 


Peck warns about magical thinking.  By that he means that it is basically a belief that a thought can cause events to happen just by thinking of those events.  He shows how a child of five may wish his little sister would die and he blames himself if she actually does.  He thinks it happened because he wished for it.  Peck warns that this kind of thinking in adults is a neurosis or mental disorder.

My response to that is Peck needs to realise that adults do magical thinking too but are not as obvious as children.  For example, the car gets the blame for breaking down.  You feel that cancer happens to your friend not you.  Thinking your bad wish killed somebody is as destructive to you as actually killing them.

Peck gives us an example of magical thinking in the book where useless parents give their boy a gun, the gun his brother shot himself with.  He will take the gun as a message that he deserves to die and should go and do the same thing.

My response is that is a good warning about the dangers of magical thinking and treating things like omens.  Believers in God and prayer inevitably see things as signs of God's activity though there is no objective way to determine that.  Finding a loaf when you pray for bread is seen as a response to your prayer by God.  That is just the same process at work and it is arrogant for since when are you able to decide what God has done?  Who can know his own mind but God himself?


As a Christian, Peck seeks to bewitch us with the doctrine that if you die estranged from God you will face an inevitable and permanent imprisonment in Hell.

Peck says those in Hell can walk out this very minute but won't for they imagine the journey out is impossibly hard and painful.  This is very logical for many people who go to Hell would have chosen different had they lived a few seconds longer!!  It is just Peck trying to victim-blame!  Nobody has the power to delude themselves that fast that they can end up shut away forever!

God who knows all and can do all is a very bad therapist, and that is what you accuse him of Mr Peck if you would only admit it.  How could trying to get out be any worse than staying?  And how can you be happy in Heaven when your loved ones in Hell are trapped in it by their own stupidity?  If stupidity not deserving is the main or only reason you are in Hell then you need pity.  Deserve and stupid don't fit together well.  It amounts to saying you are being punished for a mistake.  If you deserve it because you are stupid that makes no sense. 

Clearly what we are seeing is an excuse for people being in Hell.  That is stooping low.   Peck knows its evil but he seeks for a way to present it as something that does not challenge God's goodness!


Peck thinks God did not destroy Satan for becoming the rebel who ultimately is the cause of all evil for God only helps never hurts and creates and never destroys.

It is not Satan existing that is the problem - it is Satan having the power to telepathically rule demons and tempt people.

Peck says that "genuine love is always ultimately sacrificial". 

Evil is sacrificial too if it is self-defeating!

Peck says that Satan's evil personality is not just an absence of love.  There is a presence of hate there.  To call evil unreal is a half-truth he says.  "The spirit of evil is one of unreality, but it itself is real.  It really exists." 

We see then that if it is true that God does not make evil as a thing, this does not matter for Satan manages to amount to being such a thing.  He is to evil what drugs are to a generic drug.  Its real for he makes it real.  It is not just Satan then that makes evil real.  We make it real too as persons and personalities.  Thus love the sinner and hate the sin is rubbish if sin or evil is real and is people.


God gives us free will.  We use it to make evil a reality so that we become real evil.  If evil is not real but just a lack of goodness then it is not serious and you cannot really reward a good person for if the difference between good and evil is just degree what is there to reward?  If you cannot punish you cannot reward - not really.  The motions are no substitute.  Peck says evil pollutes you even if you only observe it so what hope is there?

Obedience is bad and a necessary evil. And that is so even if it is God.  So God cannot really reward.

He cannot even reward us with a mere assessment: "You are a good person."  That reward is the biggest one of all for even if you get a billion dollars reward it is the assessment that is the real reward that makes the money a reward.  In reality the money expresses the reward and is not the reward.

God then has no real relationship to being a good person so the idea of God making us for he loves us is nonsense.  A God without love is not a God so there is no God.


Peck writes, "The fact of the matter is that the healthiest people - the most honest, whose patterns of thinking are least distorted-are the very ones easiest to treat with psychotherapy and most likely to benefit from it."

My point here is that it is important that we see reason and looking for evidence and reasonable verification are good thinking habits and will help us if we get into mental trouble.  Religions of blind faith or that ban investigation or obstruct it are intrinsically dangerous.

Peck needs psychotherapy but it will not work for religion has made him irrational.  Ultimately the book, The People of the Lie is just a rambling pack of tragic lunacy based on blind faith.