Can Atheists talk about Evil?
April 25th, 2008There are some exciting events going on in the the town right now. The local education authority’s Think In Kingston adult learning group is putting on what it calls “A Festival of Ideas”, which is a series of short talks focussing on questions of Humanity, Global Citizenship, Environment, Trade Justice, New Drama, Philosophy and Religion. I attended a talk a couple of weeks ago in Kingston’s Borders bookshop from Peter Dewes, Professor of European Philosophy, with the title “Can Atheists talk about Evil?”
Now most people on the street would probably say that everyone has their own different opinions and unique worldviews, each as unique and diverse as the last. In reality it turns out that while there are many unusual and exotic ideas, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a person’s worldview will fall into the 5 or 6 most popular buckets. This means that you can often get a very clear picture of what a person will say, well before they’ve even said it.
Now with the title “Can Atheists talk about Evil?” and the blurb given on the “Think in Kingston” programme, it seemed pretty clear that this would be a talk from an Atheist, who would presumably, whether he knew it or not, be a logical positivist (one who believes only that which can be shown with evidence is true), a scientific naturalist (one whole believes that the only things that exist are matter, energy, time and chance), and a humanist (one who trusts in human reason, justice and ethics) – similar to Richard Dawkins and other popular atheist writers.
The thing is, that within the realm philosophical academia, big problems have been found with both logical positivism, scientific naturalism and humanism. This means that these are seen as increasing passé within the academic world, and the numbers of their proponents have been dwindling for decades now. There are still many, in other branches of the academic world – such as the technical disciplines, and many at street level who still hold on to these views, often through a lack of exposure to the debate surrounding them; hence, the continuing popularity of Dawkins.
Anyway, I went along, certain I knew what was about to come. Around 30, mostly older people had assembled, and we sat down to listen. The talk turned out to be quite scholarly, and quite surprising. The guy didn’t really say very much about his own view, he simply presented the different sides of the debate mostly from Nietzsche and Freud. How do we define evil in a post-Christian society? Is it that which goes against human progress? or something ultimately inexplicable? or something that isn’t even real? - incredibly profound questions. After speaking for about 45 minutes, the main question he had answered wasn’t “Can Atheists talk about Evil?”, but “Should Atheists talk about Evil?” – to which he gave a decisive yes.
Then Q&A time came, so I asked the question “Can Atheists talk about Evil?” Naturalism tells you what is, but cannot say anything about what ought, and so strictly speaking moral distinctions are ultimately meaningless, evil included.
At this point he gave the most astonishing answer: He said that some naturalists had claimed to be able to accommodate a moral framework within their worldview, but that in the end he had never seen a naturalistic philosophy that actually “cashed out”. He said that some have understood moral obligation in terms of social customs, but then he pointed out: “…but for a truly hard-boiled naturalist, why should he be beholden to social customs?”
I almost fell off my seat! This man is, I think, the first non-Christian person that I’ve ever met who would acknowledge that fact. If God does not exist – then what obligation can there possibly be to do what is right, and not what is wrong. Atheists are often quite moral people, but when all is said and done, why should anyone be beholden to social customs and moral values? If naturalism is true, then morals, conversations, human lives are in the end totally meaningless, and it’s no good trying to sneak meaning in through the back door.
I might choose to be a “good” man, and live a “moral” life as many atheists I know do. But if I decided that I wanted to live a life of evil - ultimately what difference would it make? The difference would be literally meaningless, as would all human activity be.
For a Christian the answer is simple. Good is defined as what God does. Evil goes against what God does. Moral distinctions matter, because God cares about them.
Another thing that I found facinating, in answer to a question from someone else he said “No matter how much science advances, I don’t think our everyday understanding of human moral responsibility is going to change.” What a statement! Amazing, because it flies in the face of the Star Trek philosophy that has been so popular in that last couple of decades: the notion that as modern people we’re somehow different from the ancients, or that one our society will one day develop into a utopia.
I guess the reason I mention all this, is because the content of the lecture, and the points being made with people’s questions and answers marks a definite break from the norm in terms of people’s attitudes. I wonder if this is a theme which we’ll see more in the future.
