Good and evil?
Another popular objection to our video 'A contradiction at the heart of atheism?' says that good and evil are not a 'naturally occuring' aspect of the universe; we create them for ourselves:
'To the universe there is no good and evil, to people there are things that we call good and evil.'
'Everyone is different so there are different answers to this. Right and wrong is determined by what helps an individual and what hurts an individual. When an individual becomes part of a group or society then it is in their best interest to protect others in that group as well. Morality may also change to fit the group's goal. This explains why different places have different morals. '
The people who make this objection have not understood our video: their objection is just re-stating the central point we are making. If naturalism is true – if nothing exists except the physical world – then good and evil cannot be objectively 'out there.' They can only be something that we create. As Dr. Andy Bannister says:
If you deny the existence of God, any moral values you advocate for are nothing more than your personal preference.
This means that:
(1) Everything is just an opinion
Alex Rosenberg, in his book ‘The Atheist’s Guide to Reality,’ puts it like this:
‘What’s the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There’s no moral difference between them. Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral. Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or something obligatory? Anything goes.'
If there is no real right or wrong, in the end killers, paedophiles, and rapists are on the same level as saints and humanitarians. It is just a matter of what each individual prefers. Most of us would see this as a problem.
(2) There cannot be real moral progress
Can society make progress over right and wrong? Is it progress when we become less racist, less sexist, or less homophobic? Was it a good thing when slavery was abolished?
Most of us would think that there has been real progress in these areas. But if we create right and wrong, if they are not 'out there,' how can there be progress? All that can happen is that the law is changed. An individual could decide that they like the new law more (or less), but so what? We are still back with individual opinion and preference.
(3) It is meaningless to argue about right and wrong
What are we doing when we argue about what is right or wrong? When we try to persuade someone who disagrees with us, it certainly seems as if we are appealing to some outside standard of right and wrong that we might agree about, if we understood it properly.
But if there is no real right and wrong, how can one view be better than another?
If right and wrong are something we create, this is meaningless. All we have are differing opinions (see point 1 again).
In practice, we do not think that right and wrong is just a matter of opinion or preference; we do believe that some things are genuinely better than others; we do believe that society can make progress, and we do believe that it is worth trying to persuade people to change.
