Moot The Point

I find a lot of faults in your argument that are very common among believers. The basic question is - where do morals come from? Not from God.

First, you are talking about the god who created EVERYTHING. This is a god who has failed time and time again. He created Lucifer, then he allowed Lucifer to cause Adam and Eve to be cast out of paradise. God, who is supposed to be perfect, is responsible for the creation of evil, and blamed it on man when he destroyed all but Noah’s family in the great flood.

When I took my daughter into the store at the age of two, she had no idea that she could not steal. These are not morals that we are born with. We pound them into our children’s heads.

Laws are something that are created through human experience. After awhile, we learned that murder does not help society progress. Look at the difference between the old testament and now. We have learned that stoning people is not the best way to go.

I understand why you argue this, but it is a tired argument, that holds no leverage in the real world because it is false.

Well let me respond point by point as much as possible.

First - you don’t really answer my argument. To say that theism doesn’t explain evil doesn’t mean that atheism does.

Secondly you’re essentially arguing that morality is a societal construct. But yet you use terms like “progress” to describe the human experience. Unless you have some objective standard by which to measure stoning and murder you can’t argue that what we do now is better than what they did then.

Your essential problem is that these concepts of progress and ideals and innate to the human experience and naturalism alone cannot account for them.

Finally, to say an argument is false does not make it so. You’ve not really addressed the problem of evil.

I’m interested in hearing your arguments but you have to have some theory for why society seems to have produced two instincts, good and evil. And further how we determine which to follow.

Atheism doesn’t explain evil. You’re right in that. You’re wrong in thinking that atheism NEEDS to explain evil. Atheism doesn’t explain evil because atheism doesn’t believe evil exists. What you think is some higher objective standard of evil doesn’t exist in atheism, this is you trying to impose your theistic a priori assumptions on a system of thought that does not accept them. It’s senseless for you to expect atheism to explain why ‘evil’ exists.
And while we’re at it, the atheistic ideal matches the observed reality better than yours. You say there is a universal morality and this is dictated by god. As mentioned above, even the people in your bible used to stone people for committing adultery or even working on a sunday (well, saturday, but… They thought that was moral. You don’t, or at least I hope you don’t. Obviously morality is not universal.

“Unless you have some objective standard by which to measure stoning and murder you can’t argue that what we do now is better than what they did then.”
Of course we have objective measures. People are dead when we stone them. They can no longer contribute to society. That’s objective. Society likes things that increase its power. More people = more power. Murder is bad for society because it decreases the power of that society. It’s not complicated. In fact, you can actually apply darwinian rules to society as if it were a living thing and explain patterns of morality quite well.

The point is that society HAS developed concepts of good and evil. The problem is that you think this proves there is a god. Just because we have developed opposite words to describe characteristics doesn’t mean there is a god at all. We have hot and cold, dark and light, white and black, round and square, etc.

Good and evil were ideas that were around LONG before Judaism and Christianity.

I didn’t argue that theism doesn’t explain evil. You are changing what I said. I am saying that you believe in an evil CREATED by a “perfect” god.

The idea of good and evil is very simplistic and pretty childish.

There is no such things as “evil”. It’s nonesense.

Was Hitler “evil”? No. Time Magazine voted that guy as Man of The Year in 1938 or something. Hitler was a complex human being who did things which caused an awful lot of pain and misery and destruction.

Trying to understand how world wars and industrial slaughter happened is useful and can at leats give us the possibility of improving things in the future. Just saying “he’s evil” or “it’s the work of the devil” doesn’t help us in any way.

It’s ignorant and only promotes further ignorance. The type of ignorance wich allowed Hitler to get power in the first place.

asl001,

Saying a thing is opposite of something else doesn’t explain a innate desire in the human for either. And it certainly doesn’t explain why we often suppress the strong desire to follow the desire we think is better. And it doesn’t explain why we think one is better than the other.

I can agree that good and evil were around before Judaism and Christianity, but (and I know we won’t agree here) I agree because I believe God was around before either (or any) religious system.

I made the assumption that your arguing that theism doesn’t explain evil. I still sort of making that assumption because I assume you’re going to say that a “perfect” God and “evil” can’t logically co-exist. Thus theism has an evil problem too.

Maybe you aren’t getting this. Third time is a charm. I am saying that your belief in god is ignorant and ridiculous, because god is a screwup. He is not perfect at all. He created the greatest evil ever known. He is not perfect, so how can you believe he is real?

You are still writing under the false assumption that people have an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other. Evil is the things that we CLASSIFY as evil. We say murder is evil, so people think that is what an evil person does. Your assumption fails because their is NO evil outside of your classification of it.

Human history has taught us that it is wrong to impose on the freedom of other people. This is why we have laws. The problem is that atheists try to live in a moral sense by fighting for equality, while christians are “evil.” Christians fight to reduce the freedom of other people - like homosexuals. God had no problem with slavery, which we now consider to be “evil.”

Give up your god and save the world.

Jason,

I was wondering if someone was going to take that line of reasoning. To be honest, though I disagree with it, I think it’s at least consistent. To deny the existence of evil is the only way to get around this problem.

However, you then went on to say that there is an objective standard - society. So it’s society that dictates good and evil? Then even in your world-view evil still exists, it’s just defined by societal norms rather than a deity.

And if evil still exists we’re back to the original problem.

Simon,

I didn’t find much to respond to in your response. You claim evil doesn’t exist but saying it doesn’t make it so. And saying that the idea is “ignorant” and “childish”.

Then you go on to say that understanding world wars and industrial slaughter can give us a change to improve things in the future. Improve? Again by what standard does it need improving?

We’re back to the same place again.

asl001,

So in your perspective as with the other two commentators here, evil really doesn’t exist?

But I’m confused (and I honestly want to understand) by what standard is it “wrong to impose on the freedom of other people?” If no such standards exist how can you make that statement?

My ultimate point, and I’m willing to concede that I may just not be getting what you’re putting down.) is that inevitable we get back to these sorts of classification even in the process of trying to get away from them.

To say something is wrong is to say that there’s an objective standard. You said that “human history” taught us? So is history the objective standard?. If so how do we know we’re right and they were wrong. Why is it wrong to impose on the freedom of others.

To say that society is that standard isn’t quite clear enough - who defines that society? In a global society what culture gets the last say? Do I have to give into China’s or India’s standard of morality after all they’re the majority in our global society. And what if I disagree with society? How does naturalism explain my ability to disagree with the system of morality it has set in place? If our sense of morality is evolved then how can one person deny the standard while another accepts it?

You continue to attack theism but my point is not to prove theism - my point is still to prove that atheism fails to measure up.

ATHEISM HAS NOTHING TO MEASURE UP TO. Your circular argument makes no sense. For your sake, I will say that evil absolutely exists. So what? It is not the job of atheism to recognize it. It is your job. If you believe in evil, fine, but stay away from me, because your god CREATED this evil. Your problem is that you view things - and people - as wholey evil or good.

You saying that there is evil doesn’t make it so. Your reasoning does not make sense and is getting nowhere. You are making arguments that are not rooted in fact. There is no evil. There are things that we perceive as good and bad, but there is no evil force runing around causing sin, because sin does not exist. Neither does the soul.

We must be miscommunicated because I feel like your the one reasoning in circles. Let me try to rephrase what you’re saying to make sure that I’m getting it.

You’re saying that when you take God out of the picture there is no such thing as evil. Evil is merely a way we describe behavior but it’s not really right or wrong. If someone robs a back it’s simply behavior that isn’t in line with societal norms but it’s neither good nor evil.

Is that right?

“miscommunicating” Sorry

I don’t know. I was having trouble communicating what I was thinking earlier. I get frustrated when people fight so hard about the meaning of a word. Atheists annoy me when they push that atheism is a “lack of belief, not a belief.” The argument for the definition of a word is stupid. Personally, I believe in evil, but only evil actions, not evil people. I classify evil as bad behavior. Behavior that violates the rights or freedoms of other people. Obviously, I don’t need god to explain this evil. Is that clearer?

By the way, your pic is hilarious. Watermelon head…haha…I’m such a dork.

Evil is just what one person or group has decided is wrong.

One person’s evil is another person’s good.

There is ultimate arbitration saying whose right is right and whose wrong is wrong.

But it’s simplistic and unhelpful to just say ’such and such is evil cos God says so’ without looking under the surface and trying to find out what is actually going on.

I would say Hitler was very destructive, for whatever reason. I think most people would be in agreement (excepting neo-Nazis). Once we’ve agreed this, society can then decide if it wishes to act against such a destructive force for the benefit of the community as a whole.

In Britain’s case, most people were against doing anything. A petition was sent to Chamberlain which was partly responsible for him delaying re-armament. At the time, the people were happy because they did not want to fight a war. In hindsight, that was a mistake and if Britain had stood up to to Hitler there’s a chance WW2 could have been avoided.

America’s policy was to stay out of it until they had no choice.

So much for the concept of “evil”. My answer is long but I’ve hardly even scratched the very tiniest outer layer of the surface. Where does “evil” come into it?

“Again by what standard does it need improving?”

By the standard of society at the time. That is how society has worked and will work, whether you like it or not.

Oops:

This should read: “There is NO ultimate arbitration saying whose right is right and whose wrong is wrong”

Simon

You’re right in saying that evil is something that a group decided is wrong. But you’re only half right.

Let me illustrate.

Let’s say in Victorian England it was wrong for a woman to show her ankles. The was a construct of that society. The objective truth was that it was not wrong and that was something that earlier societies and later societies figured out.

For some reason Victorian Society obscured the objective truth of the issue.

Now take something like slavery. Society in the 18th and 19th centuries generally accepted slavery as morally OK. But the objective truth was that it was not. A few men, appealing to that objective truth, changed the minds of the majority.

Had there been no objective truth men like William Wilberforce, who did much to change the culture of accepting slavery, would have been immoral because they stood in opposition to society.

Thus we see that there is a subjective definition of evil, but there is also an objective definition of evil, one of which society is not always in compliance. If we do away with the objective sense of morality then slavery becomes just as valid as non-slavery. Child-molestation becomes just as valid as being horrified by that crime. If morality is truly relative then we have nothing by which to condemn immoral (even by society’s standards) behavior.

Morality is agreed upon by a society for the good of the society. While it’s relative in a sense, that does not mean that child-molestation is as valid as condemnation of that behavior. Child molestation has a negative impact on society, and sooner or later a society must recognize that or fail to continue to make progress at a level in which it can be competitive with other societies. Any behavior your can possibly think of as ‘immoral’ is either acceptable in some current culture or was in a past culture. This is a testament to the relativity of morality. However, all successful cultures have adopted similar codes of morality that include basic human rights, which is a testament to the idea that relative morality is not the same as ‘anything goes.’

There remains a difficulty in using society as the standard of morality. First it can’t address the problem I brought up in my previous posting about those that stood against what they felt like were commonly accepted instances of immorality like slavery. In your system not only to I not have to listen to the abolitionist, I can dismiss him as immoral.

Secondly you mention that all successful cultures have adopted similar codes of morality. I’m not sure what you mean by “successful” but would you say that cultures that have existed for centuries like India have a successful culture? If so their idea of a caste system is anything but civil and certainly provides no rights for those whom it subjugates. Likewise China or Cuba or Communist Russia or countless other cultures.

Thirdly, if these culture are evolving separately then why do they consistently return to a similar moral framework? You see many of the same things idealize for thousands of years and across hundreds of cultures. This sort of consistency I suppose could be explained by saying that there’s only one system of morality that works. But even that is pretty unique and I believe supports a system of absolutes rather than independently developed moral frameworks.

Finally, what happens when two societies clash? In your system and in a global society there is a sort of global morality. When we find ourselves in contradiction to the practices of another society we have no moral grounds by which to interfere of the oppressed of those societies. Places like Sudan, Darfur or Tibet need to be left alone. But in an objective morality we have the prerogative to do something. Obviously history has shown that we frequently make mistakes but the objective morality better explains the desire to influence other cultures.

I realize that there can be a naturalistic explanation for morality. I’m certainly not denying that. My point is that a sense of objective morality better fits what we actually see.

I’m interested in your thoughts about this.