Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The New Atheists and the Age Old Problem of Evil

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
KF, Thanks for posting the NWE article on ID. A few weeks back we had a discussion about Wikipedia's inaccurate and biased article on ID. NWE's alternative article was not brought up. I think it's an even better article than the one on Conservapedia, which was mentioned in the thread in question.CannuckianYankee
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT
SB, "If you don’t believe me, try putting something on the table. I assume you reject that irksome and objective document called the Ten Commandments, so I’ll let you start the bidding." Ha! I wanna watch.Upright BiPed
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
JB: Read the weak argument correctives here at UD, which are free of charge, and you will also find the -- equally free of charge -- article on ID at NWE a far more balanced survey than the hatchet job by the ideologues spiooiling what could have been such a grand achievement -- a solid encyclopedia by and for the people -- at Wiki. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT
Severski: You are seriously out of date. Cf summary of Plantinga's Free Will Defense, here. (FYI, this was worked out and published in the 1960's - 70's.) the key problems of evolutionary materialism on both mind and morality are also summarised here, in the always linked. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2009
August
08
Aug
14
14
2009
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
Seversky, Go ahead and work out your own morality, and I'll do the same, and ne'er the tween shall meet, for it will only be by artifice, and what you prefer will be different than what I prefer. You should read this essay called "On Ethics" in its entirety. http://books.google.com/books?id=e19zlwlOVwUC&pg=PR5&dq=the+seeing+eye+on+ethics+cs+lewis#v=onepage&q=&f=falseClive Hayden
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
James Bond said:
PS: I actually have some genuine questions about Intelligent Design that I’d like to ask. I don’t want to buy any books or subscribe to any mailing lists or anything – is there a forum or somewhere I can go to which I could ask questions about precisely what the ID “Designer” is supposed to be?
Yeah. God forbid you should read what any of the IDists actually have to say for themselves at any length. So I take it that the very best way to understand ID is to avoid actually buying any of the books? Here's something I've been trying to figure out over the last 13 years: are there any militant Darwinists who aren't like this? After more than a decade these guys still show almost no familiarity with the ID arguments as they actually stand. Honestly, it's ludicrous.Matteo
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
Seversky, "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 mean no disrespect, but your quote indicates that you don't really understand the New Testament God. Most Christians understand that the Old Testament God is the same as that portrayed in the New Testament. The demiurge notion was effectively destroyed by the Early Church fathers. If you can't understand that, you have no business really, defining for Christians what the NT God is like. We already know that He is the same as the OT God. We know this, because we take the NT scriptures seriously when Jesus warns the Pharasies of their fates, or when he warns the cities of Samaria and Judea that their fates might be worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. We also know that Jesus is the judge of humankind as mentioned in the Book of Revelation. We've covered this issue quite effectively in other threads. Perhaps you were not posting or paying attention then. Christians have good reason for seeing that God as judge is present in both the Old and New Testaments. Christians also have good reason for seeing that the God who lays down his life for his friends, is present also in both testaments. And it is in both testaments where the problem of evil is addressed. Both testaments point to human sin as the one issue where evil arises. We are all accountable to a Holy God. Dawkin's idea of the eradication of religion is simply the wishful dreams of a theologically limited (by choice) atheist. I understand that he is not necessarily calling on an all-out war on religion (although by some of his actions, one begins to wonder); rather, he believes that when more poeple are scientifically educated, religion's eradication will be a natural effect of evolution. The problem here is that his is an eradication by design either way - through forceful mitigattion or through re-education. And it rather weakens his own consistency in support for evolution. He's essentially saying that evolution provides no basis for morality naturally - that morality is something that has to be invented through reason. That's hardly an evolutionary idea. Maybe he could channel those space aliens he hypothetically believes in to come and teach us a thing or two about morality?CannuckianYankee
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
08:04 PM
8
08
04
PM
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?" The obvious answer is that we would all have different standards based on our own selfish proclivities. ----“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.” The answer is easy. [A] Someone has to put something on the table for everyone else to accept or reject, and [B] Once something is put on the table, most everyone else will reject it because they prefer a convenient code that plays to their strengths, rationalizes their weaknesses, and places few or no demands on them. If you don’t believe me, try putting something on the table. I assume you reject that irksome and objective document called the Ten Commandments, so I'll let you start the bidding.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
"Otherwise, we would not have a debate on origin or definition of evil" I will ask my traditional question on a thread that has to do with evil. 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.jerry
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
...as rational beings ourselves, why shouldn’t we do the same? I asked this before but no one seems to have had an answer. Seversky, Are you suggesting the large part of humanity is rational? That doesn't appear to be the case. Otherwise, we would not have a debate on origin or definition of evil. 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'? ?Oramus
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
---Gil Dodgen @15: Exactly right on all points. Well put.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
---Clive Hayden: "Evolution cannot pull a boot-strap trick and elevate itself above itself. Therefore, all judgments are from the same source as the thing being judged, the judge is also the defendant." Precisely. A Darwinist should not presume to express outrage about anything.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
The author of the original post really ought to be reported for cruelty to strawmen given his rough handling of several of the already battered wretches. Still, presumably those who abuse strawmen will claim that, like any Creator, they are entitled to do whatever they please with their own creations. First up, we have a relative newcomer:
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.”
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. Next we have this:
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.
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. Moving right along, we come to this:
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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 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.Seversky
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
On the atheist/Darwinist view, moral relativism must be true by definition. This is an absolute truth claim about the nature of morality, which says, “No absolute truth claims about morality are valid.” If moral relativism is true: 1) You cannot criticize anyone. 2) There is no evil. 3) Blame, praise, justice, and fairness are meaningless concepts. 5) There is no accountability. 6) There is no possibility of moral improvement. 7) Moral conversations are a complete waste of time. 8) There is no reason to be tolerant. Yet, the NA’s engage in arguing in favor of everything their ideology and philosophy denies by definition. They criticize, talk about evil, praise, blame, justice, fairness, and moral improvement, and engage in endless conversations about morality which their philosophy cannot even begin address in principle. Last of all, and most importantly, in the name of tolerance, they are the most intolerant. The entire NA thing is logically incoherent and commits intellectual suicide from the outset. The bottom line is that they have created an imaginary philosophical universe which does not comport with reality and in which they cannot live without being completely self-contradictory.GilDodgen
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
---MeganC: "I took it from your OP that you had an objective method of determining if something is good/evil? Is that no longer the case?" And you felt that talking donkeys will illuminate that point? -----"To fill you in: we decided in a previous thread that, although unusual in violating physical but not logical laws, talking donkeys are part of a rational universe," OK, so far: ----"that they are symbolic mediums for disembodied agents by means of nomologically issuing forth streaming audio and that parrots can apparently perform the same function (but that may be an incompatible category contradiction on my part). I would emphasize the wisdom found in the parenthesis and deemphasize that which precedes it. ---"Somebody even produced video evidence of a talking mule!" Do you suppose that could have been a tribue to your obsession? "If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."----Abraham Maslow.StephenB
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Wow, that was a pretty crazy post. So, can you explain why "evil" was "designed" into humans then? By the unknowable and unfathomable "designer"? As for the evolution of "evil" behaviour, (I AM NOT A SCIENTIST) it may be that such behaviour is simply an extension of social tribal behaviour that has been seen in primates - "You are not of my tribe and so I am hostile towards you" - which has been evolutionarily successful for isolated populations of various species. PS: I actually have some genuine questions about Intelligent Design that I'd like to ask. I don't want to buy any books or subscribe to any mailing lists or anything - is there a forum or somewhere I can go to which I could ask questions about precisely what the ID "Designer" is supposed to be?JamesBond
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
DonaldM: Excellent. (A+ for Dr Dembski's UD blog course in disguise!) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
I'm curious as to whether ghosts are good or evil, or goblins. Better yet, what about trolls?ScottAndrews
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
DonaldM, "Please tell me what this has to do with my OP?" I took it from your OP that you had an objective method of determining if something is good/evil? Is that no longer the case? "The literal truth (or not)of a talking beast as related in the Old Testament has no bearing whatsoever on the problem the NA’s have explaining any notions of good and evil, letting alone ranting against religion." To fill you in: we decided in a previous thread that, although unusual in violating physical but not logical laws, talking donkeys are part of a rational universe, that they are symbolic mediums for disembodied agents by means of nomologically issuing forth streaming audio and that parrots can apparently perform the same function (but that may be an incompatible category contradiction on my part). Somebody even produced video evidence of a talking mule!MeganC
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
Dawkins even wants to explain God via darwinism. In one of his public interview he dociled that if God existed he must had evolved. According darwinian opinion human evolved from ancient fish via natural selection and random mutation. The more simle organism gave rise to more complex one. Human "evolved" by random mutation. So must have evolved also the supranatural. Dawkins are obviously not ashamed to solve also theological problems by applying his beloved darwinism. Marxists on the other hand explained evo of supranatural by "class struggle". --- http://cadra.wordpress.com/VMartin
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
“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.” Sounds like someone has daddy issues.Barb
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT
"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." It actually may have been the Grinch!! After all he's a cruel one. Cartoons are more my speed :) Clive Hayden @ #3; Excellent point!! However thinking about it through the mind of Mr Dawkins, the defendent doens't even exist and Mr. Dawkins has appointed himself as judge!! Isn't that like trying to prove a therum or principle that slao doesn't exist? Hmmm...interesting.wagenweg
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
MeganC You wrote:
Is a talking donkey considered 'good' or 'evil?
Neither, since donkeys lack the ability to reason (as far as we know). An intelligent agent capable of making a donkey talk could be good, evil or simply mischievous.vjtorley
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Megan
DonaldM, Is a talking donkey considered ‘good’ or ‘evil’?
Please tell me what this has to do with my OP? The literal truth (or not)of a talking beast as related in the Old Testament has no bearing whatsoever on the problem the NA's have explaining any notions of good and evil, letting alone ranting against religion.DonaldM
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
DonaldM, Is a talking donkey considered 'good' or 'evil'?MeganC
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Evolution cannot pull a boot-strap trick and elevate itself above itself. Therefore, all judgments are from the same source as the thing being judged, the judge is also the defendant.Clive Hayden
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
And who is to say that racism, homophobia, infanticide etc. is evil? And at what point does abortion become infanticide? When the cord is cut? When the head is visible? Those are rather arbitrary lines.tribune7
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
"For the NA’s, the only possible explanation for any behavior, evil or otherwise is evolution." That's right. This is the crux of the matter. Everything, including religion and all evil, is a result of evolution. Even their disdain for evil and religion is a result of evolution. Now this makes their standard of comparison incoherent. This makes the standard, or measuring stick, also the thing being measured. There is no escape. No outside haven, that is not itself a result of evolution and subject to the same doubt that produces all other doubts, even doubts about religion, or deems evil as evil. If evolution cannot be trusted in the many regards that it produces "false" beliefs, why believe in any other beliefs it produces? If the judge is also on trial, the verdict is invalid. There is no possibility of a higher court of appeals, for all courts and all appeals come from evolution. So what next? C.S. Lewis articulated this problem well in The Abolition of Man. By "instinct" he means an evolutionary impulse or evolutionary standard of comparison in our actions and what we value. "But why ought we to obey Instinct? Is there another instinct of a higher order directing us to do so, and a third of a still higher order directing us to obey it?—an infinite regress of instincts? This is presumably impossible, but nothing else will serve. From the statement about psychological fact 'I have an impulse to do so and so' we cannot by any ingenuity derive the practical principle 'I ought to obey this impulse'. Even if it were true that men had a spontaneous, unreflective impulse to sacrifice their own lives for the preservation of their fellows, it remains a quite separate question whether this is an impulse they should control or one they should indulge. For even the Innovator admits that many impulses (those which conflict with the preservation of the species) have to be controlled. And this admission surely introduces us to a yet more fundamental difficulty. Telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey 'people'. People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war. If it is held that the instinct for preserving the species should always be obeyed at the expense of other instincts, whence do we derive this rule of precedence? To listen to that instinct speaking in its own cause and deciding it in its own favour would be rather simple-minded. Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of all the rest. By the very act of listening to one rather than to others we have already prejudged the case. If we did not bring to the examination of our instincts a knowledge of their comparative dignity we could never learn it from them. And that knowledge cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite. The idea that, without appealing to any court higher than the instincts themselves, we can yet find grounds for preferring one instinct [evolutionary standard] above its fellows dies very hard. We grasp at useless words: we call it the 'basic', or 'fundamental', or 'primal', or 'deepest' instinct [evolutionary standard]. It is of no avail. Either these words conceal a value judgment passed upon the instinct [evolutionary standard] and therefore not derivable from it, or else they merely record its felt intensity, the frequency of its operation and its wide distribution. If the former, the whole attempt to base value upon instinct [evolution] has been abandoned: if the latter, these observations about the quantitative aspects of a psychological event lead to no practical conclusion. It is the old dilemma. Either the premises already concealed an imperative or the conclusion remains merely in the indicative."Clive Hayden
August 13, 2009
August
08
Aug
13
13
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply