The problem of good

[Wootah]

We often focus on the problem of evil as if it is an achilles heel of Christianity but I feel there is a gaping wound for atheists called the problem of good.

Have you ever thought of the problem of good?

If there is only a materialist universe then there is no good (or evil). This is even worse if you consider the universe is deterministic because then we have no free will and are just like characters in a story.

How is this resolved for atheism? Why even worry about the speck in Christianity's eye called the problem of evil when there is a log in atheism's eye called the problem of good?

[AlanFromMI]

[Replying to Wootah]

Good and evil, in my view, is relative. The problem is people love the presentation of good and evil in books, movies, etc. They then want to expand that into the real world to give some sort of force/essence to good and evil. Create the ultimate good guy and ultimate evil guy.

You can believe whatever you like, but no matter how hard you pray and believe it to be true, the only thing that will ever be real is that which is real.

There's only one thing that you truly own, if you're willing to, and that is your mind - the real you. If you allow someone else's own ideologies and made up fairy tales to dominate your mind then you no longer own your own true possession. Religions, especially ones like Christianity, can be boiled down, IMHO, to being 'evil' due to them stealing away the one thing that people can truly own.

[Divine Insight]

If there is only a materialist universe then there is no good (or evil). This is even worse if you consider the universe is deterministic because then we have no free will and are just like characters in a story.

I don't see this as being a problem for atheism at all.

To begin with the term "deterministic" doesn't really have much meaning in atheism because nothing has been "determined". Instead everything is a result of two things. Randomness and the laws of physics. Where the laws of physics themselves may have been nothing more than a random event.

I used to say that for atheists there is indeed a "Problem of Good". And the reason I used to say this is because, IMHO, it appears to me that there is far more good in the world than evil (many Christians proclaim just the opposite to be true so clearly that is a point open to argument in any case).

However, my original thinking was that if it's not 50/50 good and evil, or very near that, then what caused the lopsidedness? I personally hold that when it comes to humans, humans are overwhelming more good than they are bad. We see this in crime statistics where far less than 10% of the world's population are criminals. If we only consider truly violent crimes it less than 2%. That leaves 98% of humans are more good than evil.

That's a pretty huge lopsided result in favor of a "random" goodness.

However, many scientists have clarified for me why this is not a problem.

First of, we as humans evolved as social creatures, so it's naturally in our evolutionary favor to be good to each other far more often than not. If every other one of us was a murderer we wouldn't have survived for very long.

So those kind of "bad traits" simply didn't evolve. Evolution, favors "goodness" in a social species particularly. So there is no "problem of goodness" in a random world that naturally evolved.

The other point that scientists have made is that if we look at the universe as a whole, actually the vast majority of the universe is extremely hostile and deadly to human life. So on that scale we could say that the universe is "mostly evil". At least from our perspective.

But then we suddenly realize that the very concepts of "Good and Evil" are indeed invention of humans. We decide what we consider to be "good" or "evil" based on what we find to be pleasant or unpleasant.

Of course in terms of Christianity the Christians will point to the Bible in an attempt to define "good" and "evil" precisely using "God's Word", but isn't that extremely problematic? After all the Biblical God condoned and even instructed, genocides, slavery, the taking of virgin enemy women as sex slaves, and so on.

I think this is where a lot of atheists speak up and say, "Hey we don't even agree with what Christianity claims is good or evil"

There is no absolute definitions. Unless we do try to turn to something like the Bible but when we do that all we find is contradictions and God condoning many things that most modern day people would themselves consider to be "evil".

So I don't see where atheists have any "Problem of Goodness". I think a purely atheistic world would indeed be precisely what we see before us right now.

Biological evolution and the fact that humans are social creatures explains "Human Goodness". And a universe that's 99.9% hostile to us indicates a universe that was definitely not designed with humans in mind.

It's fits the atheistic view quite well actually.

In fact these observations are the things that cause many people to be atheists.

[bluethread]

There's only one thing that you truly own, if you're willing to, and that is your mind - the real you. If you allow someone else's own ideologies and made up fairy tales to dominate your mind then you no longer own your own true possession. Religions, especially ones like Christianity, can be boiled down, IMHO, to being 'evil' due to them stealing away the one thing that people can truly own.

So, if I allow the social theories of egalitarian scientific humanism to dominate my mind, then I no longer own my own true possession? Also, that philosophy is "evil", because it steals away the one thing that I can truly own? What about strict empiricism, presuppositional rationalism or any of the myriad philosophies that also require me to accept a premise? In fact, if I accept what you just said, do I no longer own my own true possession, because I have subjected myself to your viewpoint?

[Divine Insight]

There's only one thing that you truly own, if you're willing to, and that is your mind - the real you. If you allow someone else's own ideologies and made up fairy tales to dominate your mind then you no longer own your own true possession. Religions, especially ones like Christianity, can be boiled down, IMHO, to being 'evil' due to them stealing away the one thing that people can truly own.

So, if I allow the social theories of egalitarian scientific humanism to dominate my mind, then I no longer own my own true possession? Also, that philosophy is "evil", because it steals away the one thing that I can truly own? What about strict empiricism, presuppositional rationalism or any of the myriad philosophies that also require me to accept a premise? In fact, if I accept what you just said, do I no longer own my own true possession, because I have subjected myself to your viewpoint?

I don't think this follows at all.

There is nothing in social theories of egalitarian scientific humanism that threatens to harm you if you don't care to be educated in those theories.

Those theories are intellectually sound on their own merit. Not only are you free to ask questions about them, but you can even ultimately contribute to the sciences if you are inclined to do so.

How does that compare with religious dogmas that claim that they have an invisible jealous God who will hate your guts and ultimately cast you into a state of eternal damnation if you fail to worship the religion, support it's dogma and do as it says?

There is nothing in the social theories of egalitarian scientific humanism that asks you to do anything other than consider rational ideas that have been well-tested and shown to be valid.

You are even free to point out mistakes or flaws if you can find them and show rationally why they are wrong. Then your observations will become part of the upgraded system.

Try doing that with religion.

Any attempt to compare science with dogmatic religions is just plain silly.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 2 by AlanFromMI]

Hi Alan

What ideological position are you arguing from?

I appreciate your viewpoint is that they are relative but from a materialist/evolutionary viewpoint good and evil don't exist - they are invisible sky faries.

Is it good or evil when anothing animal eats another animal?

This is the gaping wound of the problem of good for atheists. To deny good is absurd.

[Divine Insight]

Is it good or evil when anothing animal eats another animal?

This is the gaping wound of the problem of good for atheists. To deny good is absurd.

If animals eating animals is considered to be "evil", then clearly if there is a creator God who created animals that eat each other, then that God would necessarily be an evil creator.

Animals eating other animals is a problem for theists, not for atheists.

[AlanFromMI]

[Replying to post 6 by Wootah]

Please don't assert that something is absurd without some kind of demonstration on why that is so. Perhaps, good and evil are simply emergent based upon acts and understanding of those acts.

If there was some sort of 'good' on a godlike level then I'm pretty sure that that good wouldn't command the slaughter of children as if they're just animals. It's kind of absurd to point to any character that does such of thing as being good, just, righteous, merciful, loving, and so forth. This should be an example of absurdity in any dictionary.

You're manifesting problems with atheism in your head then inserting words like 'absurd' to make the problem seem legit. It's another fairy tale that you're trying to strengthen by ignoring what is truly absurd.

[Bust Nak]

If there is only a materialist universe then there is no good (or evil).

Whatever made you think good and evil doesn't exist in a materialist universe? Good and evil are material signals in the brain, just like all thoughts are material.

This is even worse if you consider the universe is deterministic because then we have no free will and are just like characters in a story.

If the universe is deterministic then so be it. To argue the universe cannot be deterministic because that would mean we are characters in a story, is an appeal to consequence fallacy.

How is this resolved for atheism?

There is nothing to resolve. Materialism can account for good and evil; determinism, if it is indeed the case and I am not saying it is, would simply be a feature and not a problem.

Why even worry about the speck in Christianity's eye called the problem of evil when there is a log in atheism's eye called the problem of good?

Loaded question cannot be answered. The premise that this so called "problem of good" is a larger log than the problem of evil, is false.

Is it good or evil when anothing animal eats another animal?

That depends on which species of animals you are talking about here.

[Divine Insight]

Materialism can account for good and evil

It can and it can't. I think that all depends on what a person means by good and evil.

Let's not forget that many theists have it in their head that there are "absolute" concepts of good and evil. And by "absolute" they think that this is somehow above all of reality. In other words, it is "absolutely evil" to torture or kill a human baby.

Every sane human would agree with this. But in truth that doesn't make it "absolute", it only means that humans have a very strong subjective consensus on this.

For example, a bear or alligator wouldn't think twice about eating a human baby. It's not evil to them. It's just lunch.

Same thing with a natural disaster, or a parasitic disease or virus.

There just is no "absolute good and evil" period. The whole concept of "good and evil" is a concept invented and defined by humans. In fact, even theists ultimately understand this because they won't truly argue that bears, alligators, natural disasters, or disease is "evil". Because those entities don't know what they are doing.

Only man has a concept of "good and evil", which ironically seems to support their biblical tale that man ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But that's truly a farce. Man decides what he considers to be good or evil subjectively. The men who wrote the Bible were just trying to push their subjective notions of good and evil onto everyone else by claiming that they speak for some imaginary God.

But in truth, in a purely materialistic world there is no such thing as "absolute" good or evil.

Aliens could come to earth from another planet, see humans living here, wipes us out and move onto the planet and not think that they had done anything "wrong". Just like we might set up to have a picnic, discover an ant hill under our picnic table and drown out the ants with scalding hot water and not think twice about it.

Most humans would have no problem at all pouring scalding hot water on an ant hill that was in a location that was threatening their comfort. They wouldn't think it was "evil" to kill those ants.

In this very same way some very advanced aliens might view us as being nothing more than "ants". Just a pest to get rid of. No reason to even bring morality into question.

Our notion of good and evil is definitely a human perspective. It's relative to human subjectivity.

There is no such thing as absolute morality or good and evil. And there would be no such thing as absolute morality in a purely materialistic world. At best humans can come to a consensus that killing any living thing would be "in their subjective opinion" immoral, or evil. But clearly not all animals think that way.

So morality is not innate to nature overall.

Besides, it's even hard to get a consensus from humans that it would be wrong to kill any living thing. Many Christians are avid hunters or fisherman for example. They aren't about to support that we shouldn't kill anything.

And how many humans could be convinced not to swat a mosquito? Obviously humans are going to draw line of morality pretty quickly. The further we move away from human-like life, the less evil humans are going to consider killing a living thing.

So where's the line of "good and evil". Can I shoot my cat for sport and feel "good" about it? I don't think so. Yet why should my cat take precedence over a deer during hunting season?

Actually humans have a really warped and very selfish idea of "good and evil". Mostly what they care about is themselves. Move away from humans and all bets of "good and evil" quickly fade away.

In fact, during a war humans can easily see each other as an easy kill if they are on the wrong "side".