The overarching subject of this post (and potential sub-posts) is the relation between (im)morality and monotheism. In this particular post I discuss the atheist’s argument that the mere existence of evil is incompatible (or improbable) with the existence of GOD.
This post is not a discussion of the Moral Argument for the existence of GOD.
THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE DISCUSSION
First, I would like to make clear that living a moral life does not require one to have a specific worldview. Although living a moral life is possible regardless of one’s worldview, one’s worldview can be used to prevent living a moral life. For example, some humans have more trust in a certain book they deem holy than that they have in their moral compass, which can lead to moral insanity. A Christian, for example, might say that the guards in Auschwitz were not evil when they obeyed the Nazi government, because the Bible says that one should obey the government. Or a Muslim might say that Saudi-Arabia is justified in executing those who leave Islam, because the Koran says that apostrophe is to be punished by death. Those religious people need to be reminded that evil is evil, regardless of what some book says. Some humans manipulate their own moral compass such that it will not contradict their belief in a particular philosophical worldview. Obviously this will also lead to problems. No one should claim moral superiority over another simply because of their worldview or religion.
AGAINST MORAL ANTI-REALISM AND MORAL HIPOCRISY
I see Joe sitting on a chair. I point to my neighbour, and say, "where is Joe?". My neighbour answers: "He is there, sitting on a chair". I observe Joe sitting on a chair, and this observation is confirmed by the observation of another. Now I ask my neighbour: "Is rape evil", and he answers "Yes, of course!". I sense that rape is evil, and my neighbour confirms this moral sense. Morality is in many ways comparable to empirical observation. Most arguments one could make against the existence of true morality, can also be made against the truthfulness of empirical observation. A consistent person, I suspect, should accept both empirical observations, and moral sensations. Thus, I reject moral anti-realism.
Religious people, being highly inconsistent and hipocritical, have a particular version of moral hipocrosty. There are Christians, for example,who say that some commands made by the divine diety in the Quran are evil, but then turn around and say that one shouldn't question the morally shocking statements in the Hebrew Bible because it is not one's place to morally question the Biblical divine deity's commands. Obviously, such people are profound hippocrites. After all, Muslims also believe they should not question their deity's commands; the only difference in that regards between Christians and Muslims is that their deity is addressed with a different name. Each group believes they are right and the other group is wrong. I will be clear: I also strongly reject such moral hipocrisy.
DO ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES AND DUTIES EXIST ACCORDING TO NON-THEISTIC WORLDVIEWS?
In the previous section I attempted to make clear that all humans have moral compasses. Yes, everyone, religious or non-religious, everyone. However, the focus in this particular section is not whether we all have a moral compass. Instead, this section is about whether all worldviews acknowledge the existence of universal objective moral values, laws duties and also the existence of objectively true evil. So, do all worldview acknowledge the existence of absolute objective morals and absolute true evil? Well, let us look at what some famous academic atheists have to say. I cannot quote everyone, so I will restrict myself to just 10 giant famous academic atheistic thinkers – both dead and alive – who are considered to represent atheists more or less well:
>> Richard Dawkins is a behaviour and evolutionary biologist, with a PhD in behaviour biology and he is a Professor in “the Public Understanding of Science” (whatever that is). He is probably the most famous atheist on earth, and probably has more atheist fans supporters than anyone else on earth today (hence he is obviously qualified to be on this list). Here is what he had to say on his atheism: “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” (River out of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life, 1995, p 131-132).
>> Prof Dr Daniel Dennett, world famous philosopher and part of the hour horsemen of the New Atheists (along with the previously named Richard Dawkins). He thinks that morality is real, BUT it is a social construction. Of course making it a social construction does not make it any less real, but it does make morality dependent on the social reality. Therefore, it follows logically that Dennett’s view on morality as a social construction is not the view of universal objective morality: After all, universal objective morality is, by definition, not dependent on social constructions. See his full talk on free will and moral responsibility as social constructions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGPIzSe5cAU
>> Michael Ruse is a Philosopher of Science – specialized in biology, and a famous atheist. In his public article “GOD is dead. Long live morality”, he writes the following: “Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense. But you are still a human with your gene-based psychology working flat out to make you think you should be moral. It has been said that the truth will set you free. Don't believe it” (“GOD is dead. Long live morality”. The Guardian. March 2010. URL: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/15/morality-evolution-philosophy).
>> Dr Peter Singer, a moral philosopher (PhD), is probably one of the most honestly struggling atheists out there (and a very nice guy, from what I’ve heard). Peter Singer used to say that there is no universal objective morality. He recently (2012) reconsidered his ethics a bit though, and said there is objective morality – but this version of objective morality is not the universal objective morality we are used to from monotheism. Instead, he uses the word “objective” meaning “rational for the universe point of view”. That is to say, morality here means the “preferred utilitarian” view. The greatest good, for the greatest number of people. Thus, this is an objective theory from ethical philosophy. However, this merely states that it wise to be utilitarian. However, there is still an absence in true good and true evil. Ironically, Singer’s universal utilitarianism will also not get you to universal values like caring for climate change, as Singer admitted towards Christians philosophers in a conferences for ethical philosophers (reported by the Guardian). (Reference 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer; Reference 2: “Ethics”, by Dr Peter Singer, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Chicago, 1985, pages 627 to 648; Reference 3: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/25/peter-singer-utilitarianism-climate-change)
>> Dr Austin Dacey & Prof Dr Peter Millican. – Wait, two atheists? Yes two. Many Christians consider William Lane Craig to be the best defender of Christian monotheism in America. William Lane Craig in turn considers Austin Dacey and Peter Millican to be the best givers of a defense for atheism. Although these two are not as famous and popular as the other atheists in this list, they are philosophically more impressive (perhaps they are too friendly to be popular; I don’t know). I therefore felt it would be unfair not to include these two philosophers in this list. Anyways, both gentlemen talk about objective morality in secularism as being “not subjective”. However, this morality is not “objective” because it uses human conscience and logic (i.e. philosophical moral theories). With other words, this morality is objective in the sense that it is logical instead of emotional. Nevertheless, this form of “objective” morality is not universal in its objectivity because it is highly dependent on the opinion of the majority of (academic) humans. Thus, neither gentleman acknowledge true objective universal morality. I would like to encourage you to watch their debates with William Lane Craig, as the morality-part of these debates are very interesting:
> Austin Dacey VS Bill Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnof3-hdMOE
> Peter Millican VS Bill Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JVRy7bR7zI
>> William Provine was an historian of science specialized in evolutionary biology and population genetics. He believes science IS the truth, and here’s what he says: “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either” (Origins Research, William Provine).
>> Friedrich Nietzsche....almost everyone knows who he is, so no intro here. He was a strict perspectivist, meaning he rejected ANY form of objective truth, including universal objective morality. He considered this the logical conclusion of atheism.
>> Kai Nielsen, has a PhD in Philosophy, is a Professor emeritus of Philosophy, and even one of the founding members of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy. Here’s what he has to say: “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality” (Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 21, 198, p 90).
>> J.L. Mackie was a Professor of Philosophy (with a PhD in Philosophy, of course), specialized and best known for Meta-ethics. In his time, he was a famous academic atheist (not just simply a mere populariser). He had this to say about morals: “Moral properties constitute so odd a cluster of properties and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful god to create them” (The miracle of Theism, 1982, p 115).
Notice that above I have not chosen some random atheists. I have chosen atheists who are both academics and also people who generally represent what atheists themselves believe.
The above atheists seem to think that ethics and morality is a socio-biological adaptation. But that does not make morality objectively true. It is merely a psychological effect. This brings us to the next section...
THE POINT
The atheists mentioned in the previous section obviously do NOT claim atheists cannot be ethical and moral – that would be ridiculous! The atheists quoted above also do NOT claim that objective theories from ethical philosophy are pointless. In fact many or even most atheists have some form of an objective theory from ethical philosophy that they prefer. Objective theories from ethical philosophy are available for all people, atheists and theists alike. What these atheists ARE saying is that, without the existence of GOD, there is no objective rational justification for being ethical in the first place, regardless of the ethical theory. No why would they say that?! Well, because, according to these atheists (and I agree), if there is no GOD, there are no universal objective moral laws and duties. Therefore, without a GOD, one cannot call something really objectively true evil. Without an absolute moral Law Giver, GOD, ‘evil’ things are actually just very socially unacceptable things that are discouraged by certain ethical theories. But socially unacceptable or logically inappropriate behaviour does not equate truly evil behaviour. For example, raping or even killing a child is considered very immoral. But this happens in the animal kingdom all the time. If there is no GOD who made humans in HIS image, if humans are not different in their moral responsibility as compared to animals, why would it be wrong for humans to start raping and killing each other’s babies, like lions do? Thus, to call something truly objectively absolutely evil, one must assume a morally perfect Law Giver, a perfectly-good GOD.
Does this mean that atheists cannot live moral lives? Of course not! In fact, all of the above has very little (if any) practical influence on a person’s day to day life. But if that is the case, what is the point of all of the above? Well, the actual point is the following. If atheists say that – in their worldview – there exists no such thing as universal objective morals and objectively true evil, how can they deny the existence of GOD on the basis of there being too much evil? They cannot. Thus, it is logically inconsistent for a atheist/non-theist to say that GOD cannot exist if evil exists, because by acknowledging true evil one implicitly acknowledges the existence of a universal and objective moral standard, and thus a supreme transcendent absolute goodness, like GOD. And that is the point of this all. In other words: it's not that atheism implies immorality, or even that specific religions imply the existence of objective moral values; instead, what is said is that atheism (and naturalism) is philosophically inconsistent with the existence of objectively true moral values and duties. Notice that this is a philosophical question, not question of how to practically live one's life.
PRIMARY PHILOSOPHICAL BASE ANSWER
So, in more words than was necessary, I pointed out in the previous sections that it is logically inconsistent for an atheist/non-theist to deny the existence of GOD on the basis of the existence of true evil, because the atheistic worldview denies the existence of true evil. In other words, one cannot claim that there is no such thing as true evil, and then turn around and suddenly claim there is too much evil in the world. One has to make a choice: Does true evil exist, or does it not exist?
In this section, I would like to answer a different question: Assuming that GOD exists, how can there be evil in the world? Notice that this question does not deny the existence of GOD, and so becomes a valid question.
Many philosophers of religion today recognise that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of GOD and the existence of evil. To make this statement into a contradiction, one would have to show that GOD cannot have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil and suffering. Yet, obviosuly, GOD can have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil and suffering. In fact, several forms of evil and suffering can be allowed with morally sufficient reason. The most obvious would of course be free will; free will is a morally sufficient reason to allow evil and suffering, as one cannot force all humans to be good without removing free will. Another morally sufficient reason to allow evil and suffering is love. It seems not unthinkable that, perhaps, only in a world full of evil and suffering, humans will freely choose to have a loving relationship with GOD. Those who suffer will be blessed infinitely more in heaven than they have suffered in life.
Also, it should be noted that this ASSUMES that a good monotheistic GOD exists, but this post does not provide arguments for it. See my other posts for that.
! Just to be clear: I am NOT saying that atheists are immoral or something of that nature.
THE EMOTIONAL STUFF
So far, I have attempted to made it clear that many philosophers of religion and theologians today recognise that the statements “evil and suffering exists” and the statement “GOD exists” are not statements that are logical contradictory. We can all give logical reasons for suffering. But when you hear stories about people suffering from extreme suffering, those logical reasons are overshadowed by emotion. By far, without a doubt, the problem of evil for most people is not the question of the logical problem of evil. Instead, for most people who ask about the problem of evil ask it regarding the EMOTIONAL problem of evil. I am not a very emotional person. For me, the philosophical response solves it all. But many people, including atheists, are more emotional rather than rational when it comes to the problem of evil and suffering. Since I am not a very emotional person, I must admit that I am not very well qualified for writing this particular section. But I will try to discuss this emotional problem nonetheless.
The emotional problem of evil is ironically solved by GOD HIMSELF. Ask yourself: how does removing GOD from the equation of the universe solve the emotional problem of evil? In atheism, suffering is by definition meaningless and indifferent – there is no hope for a Paradise in the Eternal Heaven, no Salvation in the Messiah, no Ultimate Meaning. As it said, there is “nothing but pitiless indifference”. Include GOD, however, and you will see that suffering is restricted in time and space.
AN UNNECESSARY DISCLAIMER AND A NECESSARY WARNING
Although this is probably obvious to everyone, I would still like to stress that I am NOT stating that atheists are immoral or something like that. Of course I am not saying that; that would be ridiculous! There are people who do more good than bad and vice versa, and these people can be found everywhere regardless of their philosophical worldview. I merely state that the concept of true objective absolute moral laws and duties is a theistic concept, based on the idea that there is an absolute objective transcendent moral code, which implies the requirement of moral absolute that is GOD. Without the existence of an absolute that is GOD, there is no rational justification to call anything objectively true evil.
Safety and peace be upon you.