Pure evil is the notion that evil is a power or energy. It is the claim that evil is a noun and is as real as electricity. It says it is not just something falling short of its good potential - a lack of good or absence. It is a power in its own right just like good is.

One may say, "Science knows when you are trying to hurt somebody. Hurting is a matter for science. While morality is said to be different from hurting, hurting is an ingredient of it. So science has something to say about that part of morality. Morality works with what is there so if that is all the far you can get that makes causing pain as good as the same as immorality."  So science if it could give you morality would give an irreligious pragmatic one.

Religion says that atheists by saying that suffering and evil refute God are saying that evil and suffering are purely bad.  They are not good that is missing something.  They are just bad.
Science says you are trying to hurt atheists by saying their approach to pure evil is evil.  Religion must think it is not immoral to hurt atheists.

For science, evil and immoral are not useful concepts. Science can only think about how we find certain actions and behaviours undesirable.

The reason is science is about the physical and there is no test for showing that pride is a bad thing or that everybody should be humble and see their flaws.

But science has been lured by religion to regard pure evil as nonsense and to think of evil as more abstract. Real science has to assume that it can test evil if evil is a power. It has to assume that it might find pure evil tomorrow?

If pure evil is real that does not mean science can find it. But it does mean that science has to assume that evil may not be abstract but pure so that there may be something that in theory can be tested.

Suppose pure evil clearly can be found in nature.

Then it becomes subject to science.

A killer infection that is pure evil can be tested. And also the person of pure evil who murders.

If pure evil exists then you cannot say, "Evil as in what should be condemned only exists in people. You cannot call bacteria criminal or sinful or evil in the way you can people." Moral evil and natural evil are just different forms of one evil, pure evil.

What if science ignores pure evil? Science then is evil for anything that does not recognise that evil is real is evil itself. Christianity is evil for it says evil is just a failed good and is not a thing or power. It claims that all things came from the good God so God did not make evil. If evil always existed then God is not really a God for he has no power against it.

Evil is danger so the worst form of pure evil is the person who does not see it as real. They are its best friends.

So pure evil can look good and its disciples can probably look even better!

To conclude, science has no right to assume evil is a mere abstract. It has to assume that pure evil may be real so that it can test it. This shows that science and God are indeed in conflict. To serve one is to oppose the other even if you do not realise it.  Science cannot be asked to define evil as a lack of good. Science has to test not assume even if it were obvious that evil were just a lack. It cannot test pure evil so it has to be agnostic for pure evil proves there is no God.

No Copyright