Evolution and Evil

[Gary51]

I'm just wondering what the position is from an atheists point of view is on the subject of evil.

The world is full of sin and evil. Is this just a natural part of human evolution?

 

[Blayz]

I'm just wondering what the position is from an atheists point of view is on the subject of evil.

The world is full of sin and evil. Is this just a natural part of human evolution?

Can't speak for other atheists, just my self.

There is no such thing as sin
There is no such thing as Evil (the capital E, anti-god type thing)

Morality is subjective.

Any questions?

 

[Gary51]

Can't speak for other atheists, just my self.

There is no such thing as sin
There is no such thing as Evil (the capital E, anti-god type thing)

Morality is subjective.

Any questions?

Wow... is that really how atheist see the world... a place where evil and sin does not exist?

What does the word "morality" mean to you?

 

[uberd00b]

Yeah good and evil are really judgement calls. They have no external existence imo.

 

[IzzyPop]

Wow... is that really how atheist see the world... a place where evil and sin does not exist?

Depends on the atheist. I think I saw one a month or so back running around here arguing for an objective morality.

Why worry about sin when you don't believe in any of the stuff around it? There is no God to ask forgiveness for, there is no God to judge us.

And evil is a purely subjective value. What you consider evil, I may not, and vise versa.

What does the word "morality" mean to you?

Doing the right thing. An over-arching ethical code that helps me to decide what the right thing is at any given time.

 

[Gary51]

Yeah good and evil are really judgement calls. They have no external existence imo.

So what would you call me if I murdered your children and burnt you house down.

 

[Patashu]

Sin doesn't really have meaning outside of a religious context.

In fact, I don't think evil does either.

What evolution would predict, however, is that, overall, humans will be 'evil' when it pays off to do so and 'good' when it pays off to do so.

 

[Hnefi]

So what would you call me if I murdered your children and burnt you house down.

I would call that evil, at least if you did it knowingly. But that does in no way argue against his point that evil is subjective - the key is in your question ("What would you call me...").

Ask yourself this: what would you call a fox that slaughters the family of a hen? What would a hen call you for slaughtering the family of a fox?

 

[Gary51]

Depends on the atheist. I think I saw one a month or so back running around here arguing for an objective morality.

Why worry about sin when you don't believe in any of the stuff around it? There is no God to ask forgiveness for, there is no God to judge us.

And evil is a purely subjective value. What you consider evil, I may not, and vise versa.

Doing the right thing. An over-arching ethical code that helps me to decide what the right thing is at any given time.

This is very interesting... because you don't believe in God... you don't believe in sin.

I can't really get my head around this. You consider sin to be subjective, and you say you may not see evil the in the same way that I do.

How do you see the holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered. Are you saying that event bore no evil? Are you saying it was just part of evolution.... survival of the fittest... natural selection. Tell me?

 

[Hnefi]

Personally, I think it is very important to distinguish between saying that evil is subjective and saying that evil, in the general sense, doesn't exist. What us moral relativists mean when we say that evil is subjective is that there is no ultimate definition of evil. What is evil and what is not always depends on perspective and point of view, as in my fox and hen example above.

However, almost all sane humans have very similar values and thus a very similar concept of evil. This is not surprising; things we call evil are things which are inherently detrimental to our survival as a species, thus evolution guarantees that we, at the very least, are not predisposed towards doing these things. This means that we, as a society, can agree on rules on what is allowed and what isn't - we call them laws. There will always be quibblings about the details, but the big ones - no murdering etc - we all agree on, despite our subjective nature, thanks to our evolved instincts (and culture, I must add).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm just wondering what the position is from an atheists point of view is on the subject of evil.

Though I'm not an atheist, my morality is not influenced by my faith, and so I suppose I can answer as good as any atheist

Morality is just a method to label actions as 'good' or 'evil'. Good acts should be done and/or the agent should be rewarded for doing them, whilst evil actions should'nt be done and/or the agent should be punished for doing them.

What label a person ascribes to an action is wholly subjective: there is no objective way to discern the morality of an action.

The world is full of sin and evil. Is this just a natural part of human evolution?

There are certainly things in the world that I consider to be evil and which are caused by humans. And yes, our behaviour is very much governed by your genetics and, thus, by our evolution.

Of course, all the good things that people do are equally as rooted in genetics. It's a 50/50.

 

[Blayz]

This is very interesting... because you don't believe in God... you don't believe in sin.

Correct

I can't really get my head around this. You consider sin to be subjective

No, you got it right the first time. I don't believe in sin.

and you say you may not see evil the in the same way that I do.

more or less.

How do you see the holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered. Are you saying that event bore no evil? Are you saying it was just part of evolution.... survival of the fittest... natural selection. Tell me?

Could you stop bringing evolution into this? Evolution is science, it has nothing to say on issues of morality. Does the holocaust go against my moral code? yes it does. Would I call it "evil"? no. Insane, wrong and inhumane, but not evil. And that judgement call is based on my moral system, which is probably close to your own. I do not think anyone that partook in the holocaust considered themselves evil (or insane or inhumane)

 

[RealityCheck]

This is very interesting... because you don't believe in God... you don't believe in sin.

I can't really get my head around this. You consider sin to be subjective, and you say you may not see evil the in the same way that I do.

How do you see the holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered. Are you saying that event bore no evil? Are you saying it was just part of evolution.... survival of the fittest... natural selection. Tell me?

How did Hitler see the holocaust? How did the soldiers that committed the acts of killing 12 million people (yes, 12 million, not 6) view what they did? Did they believe what they were doing was evil, or did they believe the people they were killing were evil, and thus needed to be exterminated?

How do you see the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by insurgents and terrorists?

Now how do you see the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by our own troops?

 

[Hnefi]

This is very interesting... because you don't believe in God... you don't believe in sin.

Do note that not believing in sin does NOT imply a lack of morals or a lack of belief that certain things are bad. It's very important that you do not try to build a misrepresentation of people based on such grave misconceptions.

I can't really get my head around this. You consider sin to be subjective, and you say you may not see evil the in the same way that I do.

Noone, not even religious people, sees evil quite the same way as anyone else. That isn't really a matter of contention, because it is very easy to demonstrate.

How do you see the holocaust. Six million Jews were murdered. Are you saying that event bore no evil? Are you saying it was just part of evolution.... survival of the fittest... natural selection. Tell me?

Again, you make the mistake you did above. The person you respond to said he does not believe in sin and that evil is subjective. He, as an individual, most likely is of the subjective opinion that the holocaust was very, very evil. That does in no way detract from his argument.

Please, carefully consider what we are actually saying here. Evil being subjective is not the same way as believing that no things are bad and everything should be allowed or encouraged.

 

[Chalnoth]

Wow... is that really how atheist see the world... a place where evil and sin does not exist?

That's right, because those are terms imposed from the outside upon us.

What does the word "morality" mean to you?

A generally agreed-upon system of behavior for encouraging cooperation and preventing conflict. The purpose of morality, in essence, is to allow humans to live well together. And this leads naturally to a number of moral rules (such as the rule of reciprocity, i.e. "do unto others...", or the value of supporting equal opportunity for all persons, regardless of birth).

Remember that just because we don't believe morality is imposed externally doesn't mean we don't believe in morality. Because we are human, we believe in morality (barring a few who have antisocial personality disorder, but that's not really relevant to the topic at hand).

The difference, essentially, is that we don't believe in following legalistic rules, but rather we care about how our actions impact those around us. Furthermore, we tend to allow the evidence of how our actions affect others dictate which things we should and should not do. For example, instead of just thinking, "Stealing is wrong because X says so," we think, "I would not like to have things stolen from me, so I should not steal." The result is a much better system of morality than anything imposed externally could ever be.

 

[Bombila]

So what would you call me if I murdered your children and burnt you house down.

This agnostic would call you an insane vicious murderer. 'Sin' and 'evil' are Christian concepts, surrounded by layers of belief in God and the Devil. It appears to me you are trying to imply that atheists have no morality, which is an absurdity.

Taken to its extreme, the notion that people will rampage through the streets committing crimes without God beliefs to frighten them into good behaviour implies that you as a Christian are only prevented from doing such things because of your God beliefs.

Do you really think, if you lost your faith today, the first thing you'd do is run out and murder someone? Do you have murderous fantasies that only your beliefs keep in check? I expect not.

We are a social species. Social animals interact with each other in complex ways, and that interaction is the basis of what we refer to as 'morality'. So in that sense, we have indeed 'evolved' to have a sense of right and wrong.

Humans are not 'special' in this light. Wolves have strict social behaviours. They care for the alpha pairs' cubs, hunt together, socialise, have a heirarchal pack structure. But wolves, like humans, can act outside their social rules. A very interesting example of this is a wolf pack, I think I recall in the US, where the alpha female was very vicious. She was found dead one day, and it appeared that the entire pack had turned on her and killed her, an atypical pack response to an atypically bad leader. I think there are obvious parallels to human 'good' and 'bad' behaviour to be seen in this incident and in others.

 

[Gary51]

I would call that evil, at least if you did it knowingly. But that does in no way argue against his point that evil is subjective - the key is in your question ("What would you call me...").

Ask yourself this: what would you call a fox that slaughters the family of a hen? What would a hen call you for slaughtering the family of a fox?

You must realise there is a difference between a fox killing a hen, and me killing your children. An animal lives on instinct. Humans live with the knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[uberd00b]

So what would you call me if I murdered your children and burnt you house down.

Well, for the purposes of this example, I'd call you evil (in real life I probably wouldn't). But from your point of view, with the voices/aliens/government subliminal messaging telling you to do it, it could have been not evil, but good. Welcome to subjectivity.

 

[Gary51]

How did Hitler see the holocaust? How did the soldiers that committed the acts of killing 12 million people (yes, 12 million, not 6) view what they did? Did they believe what they were doing was evil, or did they believe the people they were killing were evil, and thus needed to be exterminated?

How do you see the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by insurgents and terrorists?

Now how do you see the killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by our own troops?

Is not about how I think people see things. I'm asking you as an atheist, is the murder of millions of Jews just part of natural selection?

 

[Blayz]

You must realise there is a difference between a fox killing a hen, and me killing your children. An animal lives on instinct. Humans live with the knowledge of right and wrong.

Sure, but that right and wrong is subjective.