Quit often , i have heard theists and atheists arguing and debating about how a deity and evil can simultaneously exist. Many people during their daily lives assert ‘so and so is evil’ or the acts of a certain person is evil. The fact is, across history and across varying cultures on our planet, although murder and other acts are universally evil, there is so much of morality which is entirely subjective. Thus…what actually constitutes morality?
To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.
![[Image: 400px-Galvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=upload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F2f%2FGalvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png%2F400px-Galvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png)
So why can’t we find anything concrete like this in morality?
Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.
As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree’s with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.
Let me break it down further:
As an atheist you believe humans are complex organisms made out of trillions of cells, each cell made out of many more atoms ect. You arose through a process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the ‘scale’ by which you can compare good and evil.
Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is ‘immoral’ because of it’s consequence ultimately on survival.
Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a deity chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ‘ x is good’ or ‘x is bad’. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous. If your morality is coming from acts which benefit your survival, eternal life for any suffering in a finite one, even according to atheistic morality is a positive ‘moral’ act because you end up surviving -forever.
This Quote sums it up rather neatly:
The thesis: “conscience, the seat of our moral sense, evolved as a survival mechanism. When…we feel guilt because we have harmed a sibling, it is because we have thereby imperiled the proliferation of our genes. When we feel guilt because we have harmed someone outside the family circle, it is because we have potentially damaged our own (survival enhancing) status.”
The Moral Animal–Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology , by Robert Wright, published by Pantheon Press
To give you a practical example, take the below cell. You can have two positive electrode potentials, but the least positive one will be the negative terminal, i.e the one donating the electrons overall.
So why can’t we find anything concrete like this in morality?
Why is this relevant? Evil and good are all relative.
As an atheist, you are obliged to accept there is no objective morality. Any kind of moral act has some sort of evolutionary benefit to promote survival. Richard Dawkins agree’s with me on this, in addition of a plethora of atheists.
Let me break it down further:
As an atheist you believe humans are complex organisms made out of trillions of cells, each cell made out of many more atoms ect. You arose through a process of random mutation and natural selection. There is no good or evil: there are only acts which promote survival, and acts against survival. This is the ‘scale’ by which you can compare good and evil.
Thus, there is nothing objectively wrong with rape. However, rape destabilizes society. To an atheist, a stable society grants benefits in terms of survival, so it is in ones interest to not rape. There is nothing objectively disgusting about it, but it is ‘immoral’ because of it’s consequence ultimately on survival.
Furthermore, the scale by which you measure morality is survival. If a deity chooses to give eternal life for the finite one we live here, this nullifies the ground by which anyone can say ‘ x is good’ or ‘x is bad’. Thus, the argument for evil disproving God really is superfluous. If your morality is coming from acts which benefit your survival, eternal life for any suffering in a finite one, even according to atheistic morality is a positive ‘moral’ act because you end up surviving -forever.
This Quote sums it up rather neatly:
The thesis: “conscience, the seat of our moral sense, evolved as a survival mechanism. When…we feel guilt because we have harmed a sibling, it is because we have thereby imperiled the proliferation of our genes. When we feel guilt because we have harmed someone outside the family circle, it is because we have potentially damaged our own (survival enhancing) status.”
The Moral Animal–Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology , by Robert Wright, published by Pantheon Press
