The New Atheists and the Age Old Problem of Evil

_{Donald McLaughlin

August 13, 2009

Atheism, Culture, Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution, Philosophy, Religion}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

By now, most readers here are familiar with Richard Dawkins’s view of God as expressed in The God Delusion where Dawkins writes that God is “the most unpleasant character in all fiction … a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” The last time a literary character was described in such despicable terms was probably Charles Dickens’s description of Ebeneezer Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. “Oh! But he was a tight-fisted hand at the grindstone, Scrooge!” writes Dickens, “a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous old sinner! Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.” I’ll let you decide which character is worse.

Let’s lay aside for the moment that Dawkins considers God fictional, that is to say (in Dawkins’s words) “almost certainly does not exist.” (even that betrays some slight doubt on Dawkins’s part). The real issue for Dawkins and many of his fellow ‘New Atheists’ (NA’s) such as Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and the like, is that humans have had a nasty tendancy to commit many acts of evil over the centuries in the name of this fictional God. As the NA’s see it, if we could only rid the world of this fiction called God and its handmaiden, Religion, then the the Golden Age of Atheism will lead the world to a Scientific Utopia, where Science and Reason rule the Mind and all humanity is rid of these childhood fantasies about God, Church, Religion and the like. In short we’ll grow up. At least, that is the upshot of most of the lectures, books, articles and blog posts coming from the NA’s and their ilk.

Unfortunately for the NA’s, there’s a huge hitch in their thinking, and it just isn’t going to go away no matter how much clever rhetoric they toss at it. That hitch is the age old Problem of Evil (PoE). According to the NA’s, if only we could rid humans of the false beliefs in this or that god or gods and/or this or that religion, then all the evils committed by humans in the name of those gods and/or religions would go away, too. Thus, Dawkins, Harris and the other NA’s mince no words in describing their disdain for anything that smacks of the supernatural. What the NA’s don’t seem to realize is that they are admitting that real evil exists, even if the God or gods in whose name(s) the evil is committed does not.

The upshot of taking evil to be real, even if the God(s) behind aren’t, is that evil still needs to be explained. For the NA’s, the only possible explanation for any behavior, evil or otherwise is evolution. Thus, for all their ranting against religion(s) and god(s), they really ought to be ranting against evolution itself. But appealing to evolution doesn’t help their case much.

On the NA’s worldview, all events in time and space are the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. That’s it. There simply are no other causal forces at work. That means that all human behaviors, good or evil, are also the end result of this same chain of evolution. We might claim we were motivated to do good or evil by our belief in some diety or religion, but the truth of the matter (on the NA’s worldview), is that evolution made us do it.

For all their complaints against religion(s) and dieties, the NA’s have no basis, rooted in evolution, to judge any act as good or evil, simply because evolution has not produced any objective standard by which to measure such things. Sure, humans might do things that NA’s (or others) don’t like, may even hate, but that doesn’t really make them evil (or good…depending on your point of view). Dawkins judgement that if the God of the Old Testament Scripture were real He’d be evil is thus not based on any objective standard, but is itself the result of the same evolutionary processes. For all the caterwauling from the NA’s against religion, they really ought to be complaining about evolution itself!

Comments

Oramus @ 19
Are you suggesting the large part of humanity is rational? That doesn’t appear to be the case.
I agree the evidence isn't encouraging.
You are correct that God was apparently rational in His design of the Ten Commandments. What reason is there for Man to work out his own rules? That would contradict the rationality of the TCs. Or is it that the TCs not rational ‘enough’?
They were written rather a long time ago. My neighbors have no asses - in the animal sense, at least - for me to covet. Mercedes, however, are different matter...Seversky_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

DonaldM @ 45: Thank you for your response. You said (in part):
Well, let’s grant for the moment that all of this is exactly right and represents the way things really are — the true state of affairs in the world...The problem is, there’s no way to answer the question individually or collectively because there’s no “ought” to which they can appeal...
I don't think you are fully entering into the assumptions you have granted (for the sake of discussion) in your response. If one does grant that human beings arose from and are extensions of the natural world, and that all ethical systems have cultural origins (nothing about what I have said compels that, btw), then one really only has two options: 1) understand that fact and operate from that understanding, or, 2) deny or fail to grasp those facts (which nevertheless still stand, as granted) and embrace a moral system you believe (incorrectly) to be absolute. The latter is obviously the inferior choice given the framework you have granted, in that it is premised upon either ignorance or denial and necessitates that one confer upon an ethical system of human contrivance a mistaken status as "absolute truth," which sounds rather dangerous to me.
The logical outcome of this choice is that you can never justify any action as good or evil in a moral context beyond your own personal preference.
The repeated emphasis upon personal preference ignores my first point, above, namely that ethical and moral systems originate, in large measure, with peoples, communities, and cultures - within which we are each immersed from birth - not individuals and their preferences. This is not to deny that individuals make decisions, but there is nothing unique about that (i.e. many individuals who accept that there are moral absolutes nevertheless behave in violation of those absolutes). Second, what you want to say in the quote above is "you can never justify any action as ABSOLUTELY good or evil in a moral context," a statement with which I agree. It doesn't follow that persons and communities cannot do their best to make moral decisions - rather it follows that the imprimatur "ABSOLUTELY MORAL" necessarily eludes us - even those who declare that their morality is indeed absolute. This should be obvious, in that many ethical systems claim status as ABSOLUTE, yet conflict, and there is no place to stand outside of those systems from which we can adjudicate which is correct. Ultimately, the fact that the reality of the human condition is dismaying in some respects doesn't change those facts, however much we may wish that they did. Again, this is granting my assumption above. You took correct note of my opening statement: "Routinely omitted from this discussion is the fact that, from the perspective of the agnostic/atheist, one is not confronted with a choice between a received moral code on one hand and other codes of human devising on the other. The actual choice at hand [for the agnostic/atheist] is..." Of course none of this compels agnosticism or atheism. Rather it is descriptive of the landscape as viewed from that particular vantage, which does not include the choice "accept an ABSOLUTE moral system."Diffaxial_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Matteo: When I want to learn about a particular topic (in Science), say extra-galactic astronomy, which is a great interest of mine, I don't rush out and buy a popularised book mass-produced for the public. I buy a textbook, with diagrams, mathematics, thorough treatments of each concept in something of a sequence along with presentations of evidence for each assertion. I have never come across a rigorous ID textbook. Pandas and People is for high-school students. Signature in the Cell, or indeed any of the books I've come across from the ID authors clearly aren't textbooks, and I doubt they're thorough and rigorous enough for what I'm looking for. So, if you know of a good, rigorous ID textbook, I'd be geniunely pleased, and I would rush out and buy it immediately. Otherwise, please see my original query.JamesBond_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

I think that all regulars at this site have come to understand that Diffaxial cannot say anything in which he does not assume his conclusion. It is, apparently, a pathological trait from which he has chosen not to allay himself. His post at #42 is a prime example. In this particular post he is concerned to offer two possibilities as to the ultimate question of origins, and then he will make a reasoned choice based upon his descriptions. Any rational person doing this same thing might say “Option A is that man arose by natural means and therefore…” and then “Option B is that man was created and therefore…” Observers of this will quickly note that the two descriptions actually offer a choice between two distinct possibilities – either we are a natural phenomenon or we were created. By setting up the question this way the answer gains some level of relevance. It gains its relevance because it represents an actual choice between two real and distinguishable possibilities. In other words, if the two options have nothing that distinguishes them at their core, then how could an answer be relevant to the choice between them? This is, in fact, the kind of question that anyone might pose to themselves in resolving any manner of issues throughout their lives – and therefore the concept is understood by ordinary human experience. Making choices between distinct outcomes is as common to men and women as breathing air. And then, there is Diffaxial. In his post he offers up the first option where the origin of man is simply a natural event. He then goes on the flesh out the description with errors of both recorded history and scientific fact. He begins his description with the words:
1) A state of affairs that includes the fact that human beings arose as part of, and are continuous with, the natural world.
In this first scenario the origins debate is settled and the entirety of mankind apparently knows this and grapples with the question of morality in light of knowing we (collectively) make it up as we go. Not surprisingly it is the second option where Diffaxial displays his inability to offer a second option. He begins his description of the second option by repeating the conclusion of the first:
A state of affairs that includes the fact that human beings arose as part of, and are continuous with, the natural world.
Having wasted the opportunity to actually offer a second option, he continues to offer nothing at all. In this second option he suggests that we know that we make it up (our morality) but we pretend that we don’t. He tells us “Ethical and moral decisions are taken absent an understanding of the socially constructed nature of the system of morality…” He then surprises all with his superior reasoning powers by choosing the first option over the second. From his standpoint he says “there is no other option” and he finds himself “unable to believe otherwise”. “Otherwise” of what? Both options were taken from the same conclusion. In his first option he clearly states a fact of the position (“full awareness of our natural origins”) yet in his second option he simply leaves out the corollary statement of fact, and instead assumes the position of the first option. This type of argument is certainly not new. Diffaxial comes here to argue for his position and his first argument (in every instance) is that no other position can even exist. He is a Popperian’s ethical nightmare. This is the same treatment he gave StephenB over the past days when he insisted that Stephen must first accept the man was the product of purely natural causes before the questions of volition or intelligence could even be addressed. As it becomes obvious, Diffaxial cannot allow himself the burden that he might be wrong - even to the extent of being able to have a reasoned conversation about the possibilities. He is a coward in this regard. Many ID proponents (including myself, and dare I say it, perhaps even most ID proponents) have allowed themselves that possibility. I think it is probably true that many ID proponents came to ID as a direct consequence of trying to honestly understand the options of “A” and “B”. And in our midst we have opponents who simply find it impossible to do the same. In their willfully induced Lewontinian spiral “there is no other option.”Upright BiPed_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

ScotAndrews (48), "No, and no. The ten commandments were ten laws out of several hundred. Many reflected or enforced a moral code – don’t murder, honor your parents. Others, such as the sabbath, were laws for that specific nation to obey. They had a purpose relevant to those people at that time, but did not reflect any particular moral principle. In a sense you could compare it to a traffic light. It’s not intrinsically immoral to drive beneath a red light. But the law serves a purpose and prevents accidents." My view aligns more with yours. But there seem to be some who believe otherwise, e.g. Oramus at (19): "You are correct that God was apparently rational in His design of the Ten Commandments. What reason is there for Man to work out his own rules? That would contradict the rationality of the TCs. Or is it that the TCs not rational ‘enough’?" That suggests its a basic moral code (having been given by God). And that is the trouble - there IS no set of objective moral codes, but some claim there are without any real evidence. I think it'sincumbent on those who say the Ten Commanments ARE a basic moral code to say whether violations of any one of the ten would be an "evil".Gaz_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

DonaldM (43), "First off, I really don’t think you’ve read Lewis correctly. Lewis was directing his comments at atheists of the time who really did express dismay at the apparent meaninglessness of the cosmos." I'm still not convinced. It's one thing to be dismayed at the meaninglessness of the universe, another thing entirely to claim that it's basically arraigning heaven in an unconscious homage to God. It strikes me as yet another bit of unjustified verbal gymnastics by Lewis, who is grossly overrated (Narnia excepted of course - you couldn't keep me out of a wardrobe when I was six) in order to bolster his own beliefs. "I’m not sure who exactly Lewis might have had in mind when he made the comment, but it may have someone like Jean Paul Satre." Maybe, but I suspect not. I've never met a single atheist who thought that way.Gaz_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

I find the insistence on a definition of evil before it can be discussed to be wrongheaded. It is somewhat like insisting that we must define "alligator" with complete precision before we can discuss whether one should run from a particular elongated creature with large jaws. Rather, I would suggest that we simply accept (or deny as one wishes) that evil exists, and give an example. Thus I would suggest as a suitable starting point that "innocent suffering", as suggested by magnan (#46), is as good a place as any to start. And I agree that it is hard-wired into us (although insisting that evolution [presumably mechanistic evolution] did it is begging some important questions). We can then see what comes of the discussion. We may find that not all innocent suffering really belongs under evil (perhaps, for example, a certain minor amount of suffering is not actually evil), and that there are some evils besides innocent suffering, although I would be strongly suspicious of any formulation that precisely reversed our initial postulate. Magnan is right that we need to address the problem of unintentional evil, and that of natural evil. The former, it seems, can be addressed by the lingering effects of human evil, in that parents and other adults have power over children that they can use for good or evil, just as they do, and even greater than they do, for other adults. That is, people do evil unintentionally because they have not been trained rightly, and the lack of right training can be attributed to human sin. This seems to be part of the problem of late effects, in the same line as one who smokes excessively (therefore doing something evil) may later repent, but still get lung cancer. We apparently have the ability to make choices that have at least some irrevocable effects. The latter problem, that of natural evil, is the weak point of Paley's natural theology, as Darwin noted. It also has been a thorny problem for various theistic interpretations of nature, and a major argument used by atheists against theism. I would not prejudge the success of theist defenses, but would point out one interesting point. An adherence to the Biblical creation story interpreted relatively straightforwardly basically eliminates the problem. In the original account, there was no rain. The earth was watered by a mist, or by streams (the term has been translated both ways). Thus there were no floods or droughts, and presumably no hurricanes or tornadoes. If the earth was stable, and plate tectonics were initiated during the Flood, in the initial state there would not have been earthquakes, tsunamis, or volcanoes. Even childbirth was apparently not intended to be painful initially. So most, if not all, human suffering was not there originally, and in this view can be attributed directly to human sin. In fact, even the original animal diet, according to the record, appears to be plant food, making the problem of animal suffering less severe if not eliminating it. Now, of course, this kind of solution is not without its own problems. But it appears that, since every view has its problems, it might be worthwhile to look at this particular solution more carefully. ScottAndrews (#49), The Sabbath may have more moral relevance that you stated. First, there is the principle of rest. Perhaps we were not designed to work at full tilt day in and day out without stopping. The French during the revolution tried to lengthen the week to 10 days without apparent success. And perhaps it is a good thing to take advantage of that rest to remind ourselves that we are the product of a Creator Who has claims on us. But I agree with you that the 10 commandments are not the ultimate law. That, it seems comes from the Torah: Thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart . . ., and thy neighbor as thyself. The 10 commandments are just helpful reminders of what that love looks like in practice.Paul Giem_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

DonaldM: "The reason the NA position on evil is incoherent is because they have no basis whatsoever to label anything evil." They do, if as I contend they have the inherent but unspoken definition of evil which I explained. "The idea that evil is the “subjective” feeling of innocent sufferent is likewise incoherent, because even the term “innocent” has not real meaning. Innocent how?" ..."the entire notion of innocence is incoherent. All it really means is that some thing that someone didn’t want or desire to have happened did happen." You seem to have some private definition of "innocent". The dictionary definition of innocence (Wiki): "being not guilty of a particular wrongdoing, or being more generally in a state of blissful ignorance (in particular due to young age)". This is my definition, where following general usage I interpret "wrongdoing" more generally as simply some specified action that resulted in suffering. In other words, innocent is not having brought on the situation (in this case suffering) through deliberate knowing action. Certainly this definition has real meaning. If not, please explain. Human beings can be guilty or innocent of causing suffering - no morality considered. As I explained, my standard definition for badness is human suffering. If you want to define innocence and ultimate badness in a Christian theological and moral sense, we really can't communicate.magnan_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

magnan
I don’t think the NA belief system relative to “evil” as previously defined is incoherent or inconsistent with their strict materialist Darwinism. If human consciousness is the result totally of random genetic changes plus selection, so is the human capacity to innocently suffer – it is the inevitable emergent capacity of a complex self-aware entity closely tied to a physical body with innumerable modes of damage and failure. The identity suffering = physical/psychological pain is wired into the neurological system, an inherent, instinctual part of Man’s animal nature with deep evolutionary roots.
On the NA worldvidew there is no "if human consciousness..." is the result of evolutionary process: it is -- there's no other option. The reason the NA position on evil is incoherent is because they have no basis whatsoever to label anything evil. The idea that evil is the "subjective" feeling of innocent sufferent is likewise incoherent, because even the term "innocent" has not real meaning. Innocent how? They're only innocent in comparison with some other standard of goodness, and where does that come from? If its totally subjective...and on the NA worldview is HAS to be...then the entire notion of innocence is incoherent. All it really means is that some thing that someone didn't want or desire to have happened did happen. That's hardly the basis to make claims that someone is "innocent" in some moral sense. There's no objective guide to even tell the NA's what that might mean. THAT's the problem I've been pointing out here. I'll give you points, Magnan, for trying to explain the problem away, but at the end of the day, most of what you're saying here doesn't make any sense at all.DonaldM_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

The only reason snobby, elite sci-peeps like Dawkins thrive today is better men than he or I went before and did all the terrible things he detest today in others around him. Good fought evil. Good destroyed fascist of the German Socialist Party and the Communist Marxist nations. Tyrants have expressed and marketed his tripe in the past. Dawkins would have us all return to the Marxist, Communist, Control freak standards he obsesses over daily. Whereby government tells parents how to raise children. Maybe Dawkins can set up a FLAG@Darwinian.gov website to report on your neighbors. How bout it Diffaxial? Seversky? Want to report and snitch like good little Hitler youth on your neighbors if they disagree? Obama's doing it, why not Dawkins and the Darwinist? They already kicked out Dr. Sternberg, a man with 2 PhDs simply for publishing a perceived threat to their special little society world. The worst destruction in history is at the hands of atheist. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Fidel, Pol Pot and so man others. What possibly could make Dawkins think atheism is the solution? Or that communities steeped in atheism again would not eventually revert backwards and destroy hundreds of millions of innocent people yet again in the future? Afterall, evolution has no direction. It could easily branch off again and destroy hundreds of millions as did its strict adherants. Gotta love those socialist gas chambers and socialist gulags. Who will save the people from people like Dawkins? From his own arrogance? This is what made men like Stalin and Mao so dangerous - their absolute surety of being correct in their beliefs of Darwin. Their arrogance in thinking that by rejecting a Creator, they could build utopia in their own image. Damned to hell be all others who stepped in their ways. Thankfully, over 50 signers of the American Constitution reasoned differently than the humanist and social marxist in Europe. They heeded the call of Judeo-Christian values. America soared past all other nations as a result. Dawkins is as blind and arrogant as the original blood red marxist. He just does not have the power today to implement his will. No Thanks Oz... I've seen behind the curtains of your hardened heart and I'd just as soon shut down your Kabuki theatre. And allow true liberty for all individuals to decide for themselves. That is the original vision of our founding fathers. I realize Mr. Dawkins is in love with the tyranny of olde England, but us yanks dumped you over 200yrs ago. Clean up your own mess of corruption of the Labor Party and stop the rationing of healthcare. Actually try to apply science instead of dictate from on high your false edicts of empty existentialist rhetoric. Albert Camus is calling Dawkins, to Algiers you must go. Watch a murder as a show and report back to no one what you know.DATCG_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Gaz:
Is it the position of those who state that there is an objective moral code that the Ten Commandments is the basic moral code? And Is it your position that an act breaching one of the Ten Commandments is an evil act?
No, and no. The ten commandments were ten laws out of several hundred. Many reflected or enforced a moral code - don't murder, honor your parents. Others, such as the sabbath, were laws for that specific nation to obey. They had a purpose relevant to those people at that time, but did not reflect any particular moral principle. In a sense you could compare it to a traffic light. It's not intrinsically immoral to drive beneath a red light. But the law serves a purpose and prevents accidents.ScottAndrews_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Sorry about the double post within a post @44.StephenB_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus #25): "Cf summary of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense..... (FYI, this was worked out and published in the 1960’s – 70’s.)" There has been no satisfactory definition of evil here in this thread. As a non-Christian I would define evil ultimately as truly innocent suffering, which can have several types of causes. Plantinga's defense mostly applies to willful human-caused evil in the above sense. Plantinga does not really address "ignorant evil" with human beings who have not been exposed to higher teachings (thereby enabling them to reject them) because of their time and place, and the other major category which is "natural evil", such as disease and natural disasters. The ancient Christian theological attempts to resolve the problem of evil rightly must address all kinds. I am no NA, but I must recognize that the New Atheists generally seem to define evil correctly, ultimately as the subjective experience of innocent suffering. People like Dawkins come down on the specific Christian belief system primarily it seems, because of rebelling against noxious childhood indoctrination in narrow Christian teachings, and perhaps fear of retaliation from other Judeo-Christian religious adherents who may not be as nonviolent. Secondly they rant against the Christian religious notion of God because it is in truth very difficult or impossible to reconcile with evil as so defined. I don't think the NA belief system relative to "evil" as previously defined is incoherent or inconsistent with their strict materialist Darwinism. If human consciousness is the result totally of random genetic changes plus selection, so is the human capacity to innocently suffer - it is the inevitable emergent capacity of a complex self-aware entity closely tied to a physical body with innumerable modes of damage and failure. The identity suffering = physical/psychological pain is wired into the neurological system, an inherent, instinctual part of Man's animal nature with deep evolutionary roots.magnan_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial writes:
1) A state of affairs that includes the fact that human beings arose as part of, and are continuous with, the natural world. Due to our phenomenal behavioral and social flexibility, ethical and moral questions arise, questions with which we grapple with full awareness of our natural origins. We therefore recognize that the behavioral and ethical norms of our cultures, rather than having been received, themselves have a history, and were shaped by cultural evolution. Ultimately, they are recognized as of our own invention, and therefore we may wish to examine and challenge those cultural artifacts in light of experience.
Well, let's grant for the moment that all of this is exactly right and represents the way things really are -- the true state of affairs in the world. Whatever the ethical norms of any culture or community might can not, by definition, conform to any objective standard of the way things ought to be, because under this worldview, there simply is no 'ought'. In the way you describe, ethics evolves in response to a larger political question of "how ought we order our lives together?" The problem is, there's no way to answer the question individually or collectively because there's no "ought" to which they can appeal. So whatever ethical system is contrived by the community or culture is arbitrary with no basis in an actual right or wrong. This is precisely why a Nazi Germany can justify redefining an entire class of people as less than human and treat them accordingly, or why the English and others could invade the African continent and treat the Africans as property. Until William Wilberforce came along, partnering with his friends, one has to wonder how so many otherwise good citizens could so easily accept slavery. But, and here's the important point, on the atheistic worldview, neither Nazi Germany nor the British slave trade could be called wrong or even evil by anyone. Nor could anyone say that those who opposed them were right to do so. It is, after all, just a cultural norm of the time, determined by that particular community in a particular time and place. How can we possibly say they were wrong or that what they did was evil? Further, if our current norms have "evolved" to the point where we think those things were wrong and are now wrong, we have no justification to criticize the actions of people in history, because, well, it was just the norm of the time.I
I choose option one. From where I sit there is no other option, because from within that framework “absolute,” received moral codes (including that of Christianity) are human inventions and reflect both human genius and human falibility. I find myself unable to believe otherwise.
I appreciate you honesty on this point. The logical outcome of this choice is that you can never justify any action as good or evil in a moral context beyond your own personal preference. Having said that, I wonder if you really do believe there are no moral absolutes and I doubt you live your life as if that were true. If someone raped and/or murdered one of your loved ones, I suspect you'd want justice because deep down you'd know that an absolute, not a relative, moral code was violated. If such an act really was only relatively wrong in that in violated some arbitrary cultural norm as opposed to absolutely wrong, because it violated an objective standard that such acts are always wrong, in all times and places across all cultures, then it'd be pretty tough to justify being outraged while remaining intellectually consistent. I don't see how it could be otherwise.DonaldM_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

---Jerry: "For example, how is the Lisbon earthquake a perversion of the will and that is the event that crystalized the modern discussion of evil and changed the thinking of many. Also I doubt that most here understand it as a perversion of the will." Yes, I agree that the overall problem of evil is, as you say, a broader idea than the notion of evil acts. To accomodate that notion, one must include the other component, which is "privation of the good." Indeed, if you take human acts out of the equation, that that other definition seems illuminative. So, to cover all the bases, including unfortunate acts of nature and other such things, I would submit that evil in the broad sense connotes a privation of that which is good and is caused directly or indirectly from perversion of the will [as in original sin etc.] I would argue, therefore, that the Lisbon earthquake could be thought of as the fallout as Adam's perversion of the will. Indeed, our perverted wills are the fallout of Adam's perversion of the will. From a theologcial perspective, it would seem that all evil follows from personal evil at some level. Otherwise, God must be held accountable for it, which is the secular approach to anti-theism and, I might add, the main argument against intelligent deisgn {God would never have designed things that way.) Here is Greg Koukl's summary of Augustine: Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees. With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: "Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?"[i] To this Augustine answered: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[ii] Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: "All which is corrupted is deprived of good."[iii] The diminution of the property of goodness is what's called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a "hole" in light, evil is a hole in goodness. To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: "Whence and how crept it in hither?" Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[iv] Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[v] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[vi] Central to Augustine's idea of goodness (and, consequently, evil) was the notion of being. To Augustine, anything that had being was good. God as the ground of being was perfectly good, along with everything he brought into being. This goodness was a property that came in varying degrees. With this foundation Augustine was now prepared to answer the key issue: "Where is evil then, and whence, and how crept it in hither? What is its root, and what its seed? Or hath it no being?"[i] To this Augustine answered: "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"[ii] Augustine observed that evil always injures, and such injury is a deprivation of good. If there were no deprivation, there would be no injury. Since all things were made with goodness, evil must be the privation of goodness: "All which is corrupted is deprived of good."[iii] The diminution of the property of goodness is what's called evil. Good has substantial being; evil does not. It is like a moral hole, a nothingness that results when goodness is removed. Just as a shadow is no more than a "hole" in light, evil is a hole in goodness. To say that something is evil, then, is a shorthand way of saying it either lacks goodness, or is a lower order of goodness than what ought to have been. But the question remains: "Whence and how crept it in hither?" Augustine observed that evil could not be chosen because there is no evil thing to choose. One can only turn away from the good, that is from a greater good to a lesser good (in Augustine's hierarchy) since all things are good. "For when the will abandons what is above itself, and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil--not because that is evil to which it turns, but because the turning itself is wicked."[iv] Evil, then, is the act itself of choosing the lesser good. To Augustine the source of evil is in the free will of persons: "And I strained to perceive what I now heard, that free-will was the cause of our doing ill."[v] Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things.[vi]StephenB_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

Gaz
Lewis’ writing might be a misunderstanding of something else that atheists often do, however, which is to point out the contradiction between the actions of alleged deities as reported in scriptures and the alleged moral teachings of same deities in those same scriptures.
First off, I really don't think you've read Lewis correctly. Lewis was directing his comments at atheists of the time who really did express dismay at the apparent meaninglessness of the cosmos. I'm not sure who exactly Lewis might have had in mind when he made the comment, but it may have someone like Jean Paul Satre.DonaldM_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Most instances of this discussion I’ve seen oversimplify and therefore distort the alternatives. The first omitted observation is that individuals don’t invent moral codes; cultures and communities do, over historical times scales. The second is related. Routinely omitted from this discussion is the fact that, from the perspective of the agnostic/atheist, one is not confronted with a choice between a received moral code on one hand and other codes of human devising on the other. The actual choice at hand is: 1) A state of affairs that includes the fact that human beings arose as part of, and are continuous with, the natural world. Due to our phenomenal behavioral and social flexibility, ethical and moral questions arise, questions with which we grapple with full awareness of our natural origins. We therefore recognize that the behavioral and ethical norms of our cultures, rather than having been received, themselves have a history, and were shaped by cultural evolution. Ultimately, they are recognized as of our own invention, and therefore we may wish to examine and challenge those cultural artifacts in light of experience. 2) A state of affairs that includes the fact that human beings arose as part of, and are continuous with, the natural world. Due to our phenomenal behavioral and social flexibility, ethical and moral questions arise, questions that are resolved by means of a moral code that originated as a social and cultural invention, yet that we accept as received. A component of the received story is the fiction that it was in fact received. Ethical and moral decisions are taken absent an understanding of the socially constructed nature of the system of morality employed, and absent a full understanding of the human predicament and its origins. I choose option one. From where I sit there is no other option, because from within that framework "absolute," received moral codes (including that of Christianity) are human inventions and reflect both human genius and human falibility. I find myself unable to believe otherwise.Diffaxial_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

Seversky,
The obvious question is what is to prevent us from working out our own morality, from setting our own standards of good and evil?
Stalin did this. So did Hitler. And Pol Pot, and Amin, and Bin-laden, and... If working out our own standards is really such an "obvious question," then you're OK both with the standards these guys worked out for themselves?SteveB_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

vjtorley, De Futilitate is a great essay. There's also an essay called "The Poison of Subjectivism" that you might want to take a look at from one of Lewis's books called The Seeing Eye.Clive Hayden_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

StephenB, I have essentially asked the unanswerable question. Here on this thread we talk about evil in almost every comment but no one knows what they are talking about. Interesting phenomenon. I am not sure "perversion of the will" captures it. Though it is certainly one aspect of it. For example, how is the Lisbon earthquake a perversion of the will and that is the event that crystalized the modern discussion of evil and changed the thinking of many. Also I doubt that most here understand it as a perversion of the will.jerry_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

vjtorley (37), I'm afraid this is (yet another) example of C.S. Lewis getting it wrong. As an atheist, I am never defiant to or indignant about the cosmos, I just accept it as it is. Lewis' writing might be a misunderstanding of something else that atheists often do, however, which is to point out the contradiction between the actions of alleged deities as reported in scriptures and the alleged moral teachings of same deities in those same scriptures.Gaz_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, I was just reading the essay "On Ethics" in Christian Reflections by C. S. Lewis, which kairosfocus kindly provided a link to. I continued reading, and went on to the next essay, De Futilitate, an address given at Magdalen College, Oxford, during the Second World War, at the invitation of Sir Henry Tizard (then President of Magdalen College). On page 70, I found a very interesting passage, which I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on. Although it is directed at atheists who rail against the apparent heartlessness of the cosmos, I would contend that it could equally well be directed at modern-day atheists who rail against the apparent savagery of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Anyway, here is what Lewis says about these angry atheists:
The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recogizes as infinitely valuable or authoritative: for if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if he realized this, he could not go on being indignant. The fact that he arraigns heaven itself for disregarding them means that on some level of his mind he knows they are enthroned in a higher heaven still. I cannot and never could persuade myself that such defiance is displeasing to the supreme mind. There is something holier about the atheism of a Shelley than the theism of a Paley. That is the lesson of the book of Job. No explanation of the problem of unjust suffering is there given: that is not the point of the poem. The point is that the man who accepts our ordinary standard of good and by it hotly criticizes divine justice receives the divine approval; the orthodox, pious people who palter with that standard in the attempt to justify God are condemned. Apparently the way to advance from the imperfect apprehension of justice to the absolute justice is not to throw our imperfect apprehensions aside but boldly to go on applying them. Just as the pupil advances to more perfect arithmetic not by throwing his multiplication table away but by working it for all it is worth.
The above extract is taken from Christian Reflections by C. S. Lewis (preface by Walter Hooper), Wm. B. Eerdman Publishing Company, Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2003. ISBN 0-8028-0869-7. The fair-minded, profound sentiments in the passage above could only have been written by an ex-atheist such as Lewis. So I would encourage the new atheists to maintain their rage, and continue seeking after good.vjtorley_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

DM: Well said, again. I add this excerpt from Will Hawthorne (which was the subject of a full post some months back), that brings out implications a bit directly: ______________ >> Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from 'is'. >> _________________ The theistic solution -- as pointed out by Anscombe (contra Hume's "Surprise") -- is of course that when the ultimate, grounding "is" of all reality embeds the "ought" essentially [God is all-good], then we can safely derive ought from that is. In particular, properly instructed, empowered and insightful love will always be and do right. And, with creatures capable of virtue, we have creatures capable of choice. Thus, inherently the power to love implies the power to be indifferent or hostile. And so if we want a world in which love is possible as queen of the virtues, it is one in which real choice is possible, including that to do the selfish and the grasping. Thus, to twist the inherently good to improper ends, and so ending up with evil as privation of the good. The answer is of course that God acts with ultimate, self-sacrificing redemptive love, and we have a new choice of redemption. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

It looks like we've got some interesting discussion going here, which is what I hoped. A couple of responses are in order. Seversky writes:
No doubt Richard Dawkins will be flattered to have his writing compared with that of Charles Dickens but it is beside the point. If you read that passage in context it is quite clear that Dawkins is pointing out that, if you take Old Testament accounts at face value, then the image of God you must take away is exactly as he describes in the quoted passage. And he is right. It is not difficult to find a Scriptural justification for every one of those epithets.
But Dawkins doesn't take the OT at face value. If he did, he wouldn't refer to it as "fiction". And because he thinks none of it is true, he interprets the central character, God, exactly how he wants, with no attempt to really understand. In short, when it comes to understanding who God is, Dawkins is a novice. Seversky continues:
While there is no doubt that the New Atheists would be more than happy to see the back of all religion, there is nothing in their work to suggest that they think that eradicating faith will be quick and easy. And nowhere do they suggest that purging human culture of all faiths and superstitions will automatically cleanse it of evil.
I don't recall ever suggesting that the NA's did suggest that eradicating faith will be quick and easy. But they have made clear that they believe that if we rid the world of religious faith, most, if not all, evil goes with it. They conveniently ignore evils committed by atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot, etc) and more conveniently completely ignore much good works inspired by faith (ie, William Wilberforce or Mother Theresa). The clear implication of the many books, articles, lectures and blog posts of the NA's is that a world devoid of religion will be one where reason and rationality are exalted (and by implication, evil free).
Not exactly. The Problem of Evil in theology is not that human beings commit evil acts but that such behavior is very difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the existence of the all-wise, all-powerful, all-loving God of New Testament Christianity. Apparently, there are atheists who understand this better then some Christians.
I think Seversky has missed the point. The issue is not the PoE "in theology", but the problem that Dawkins and his fellow NA's have in claiming evil exists at all under their worldview. It is both logically inconsistent and incoherent to label acts as good or evil when, under the NA's worldview, there is no objective standard whatsoever to make the determination. The NA's dislike of certain behavior is NOT an objective standard, hence the problem for them!
As for evil, if religion were taken out of the picture you would remove one justification for bad behavior but the lessons of National Socialism in Germany or communism in Russia and China suggests people would have no difficulty in finding substitutes.
Thus Dawkins and the NA's can only appeal to evolution to explain it. Even calling it "bad behavior" is incoherent on the NA's worldview. What makes it "bad"...the fact they don't like it? Too bad and who cares.
No, first, evil needs to be defined. Is it an objective entity like a force of nature or a malevolent but incorporeal being like an “evil spirit”? Or is just an adjective we use to describe extremely anti-social behavior. We need to decide what there is to be explained before we get to the explaining.
But Dawkins and the NA's have defined it for us. Its basically anything people do in the name of religion that they don't like. That is the subject of Harris's books. Also, on the NA worldview, there can be no evil spirits. For them, evil is whatever they decide to call evil...there is no other way to define it under the NA worldview. None. And that's the point!
Now we come to the most egregious misrepresentation of all. No, the theory of evolution does not provide an objective standard by which to measure good and evil because it is a theory in biology not ethics. It tries to describe how the world is not prescribe how it should be. Any attempt to justify any morality by appealing to the natural order of things commits the naturalistic fallacy and founders on the ‘is/ought’ problem. Again, atheists and agnostics seem to understand this better than some believers.
Well, don't tell that to me -- tell it to Dawkins, Harris and the other NA's, because this precisely what they do. Apparently these atheists and agnostics do NOT undertand the fallacies they commit at all! That is the main point of my OP!
What is intriguing about this need for an objective standard of good and evil is the fear and immaturity it betrays: the fear of not being able to tell right from wrong without some sort of ethical umpire to whom all decisions can be appealed; the fear of not having some wise father-figure you can run to with your problems and who will pat you on the head and tell you reassuringly not to worry, everything will work out all right in the end.
The whole point is that under the NA worldview, everything, absolutely everything -- all events in space and time (no exceptions!) - must be explained as the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. That's it. There can be no appeal to any other forces because there are no other forces to which they can appeal. None. On that worldview, there simply is no way to tell right from wrong, because the very terms are incoherent and all ethics and morals are relative. Each person can decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. That is precisely what the NA's have done. They have decided for themselves that religious belief is wrong. Now, they didn't discover through science some objective standard to tell them that, because no such standard has ever been produced by the evolutionary process. So why should anyone pay any attention to their ethical opinion on the matter? Great, they don't like religion or what people do in the name of religion. (Yawn) who cares what they think? Its no different than if I said, I think people who wear pink shirts are evil and if we rid the world of pink shirts, then the evil that people who wear pink shirts do would go away. That makes about as much sense as any of the arguments coming from the NA's about religion and evil.
The obvious question is what is to prevent us from working out our own morality, from setting our own standards of good and evil? We assume that God worked out His rules rationally, He didn’t just make them up as He went along (although it sometimes looks like that in the Old Testament) so, as rational beings ourselves, why shouldn’t we do the same? I asked this before but no one seems to have had an answer.
Let's suppose the NA's are right and there is no God or gods, no deities of any sort that play any role whatsoever in the affairs of humans. Then, you're right we each work out our own morality. But, and here's the rub, there really is no behavior that can properly be called good or evil, since no one has any basis to make the determination beyond "I don't like what you're doing!" That's the upshot of working out one's own morality. On that worldview there simply is no way that morality ought to be, because there is no ought at all. But, if we suppose the NA's have it all wrong (as I think they do) and there really is a God who is actively involved in the affairs of humans, and even had quite a bit to do with bringing everything, including us, into existence, then we need to discover what moral rules God intends for his creation and line up our morality with that rather than just making things up on our own.DonaldM_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

allanius (33), "Now a question for the proponents of naturalism: what is your account for the existence of evil, and, more importantly, your prescription for overcoming it?" First you need to define "evil".Gaz_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

The Bible has a sensible and useful explanation for evil: it enters consciousness through vanity, or the desire to be “like God.” From this it follows that the most important decision in life is between the love of God and our neighbor and excessive self-love. Life is described as the “light of men,” their highest good. All men desire it, and for this reason all men hate their own nothingness, their mortality. Most of what is characterized as evil in the Bible comes from attempting to overcome their nothingness or “nakedness” by building themselves up at the expense of their neighbors. To “walk in the light,” then, is to love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is said to lead to prosperity, health and security—“abundant life.” To walk in darkness is to be in love with oneself—a mortal being—and to break the commandments on account of this unreasonable love; the result being death and destruction. This is an empirical proposition, by the way. It can actually be tested (unlike Natural Selection). Now a question for the proponents of naturalism: what is your account for the existence of evil, and, more importantly, your prescription for overcoming it?allanius_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

WM: Spinoza built up a rationalistic system on postulates standing on thin air. (Or if not thin air, then on such excerpts of commonsense experience as suited his purposes; in either case leaving major questions hanging unanswered.) As with any major philosophical system it should be examined on comparative difficulties. Lewis confines himself to specifics, and to cases anchored in experiential reality and the relevant history of ideas in a nutshell (and remember he is about 300 years farther on than Spinoza in that history]. Cf in particular his discussion on Ethics from p. 44 on, and his remarks on subjectivism from 72 on. (I suspect Spinoza would have been scandalised by our modern and ultra-/ post- modern wave of subjectivist nihilisam.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT}

You should read this essay called “On Ethics” in its entirety. I would suggest this one instead. It's much better, in my opinion. http://books.google.ca/books?id=dad-BmD1PGoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ethics+spinoza#v=onepage&q=&f=falseWinston Macchi_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Since we're talking about the Ten Commandments, can I ask a couple of questions : Is it the position of those who state that there is an objective moral code that the Ten Commandments is the basic moral code? And Is it your position that an act breaching one of the Ten Commandments is an evil act?Gaz_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

---Jerry: "What is the definition of evil and why are some acts/situations/happenings evil and others not? I have never seen it answered yet but we discuss it at length?" Most of the masters define it in terms of "perversion of the will." Augustine: "Evil was a "perversion of the will, turned aside from...God" to lesser things." Stanely Grentz: "Evil is a perversion of the will that leads to a falsification of the order of the universe through an exchange of means for ends."StephenB_{August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply