Let me narrate an interaction I had with a student at the University of Nottingham in England. As soon as I had finished one of my lectures, he shot up from his seat and blurted out rather angrily,” There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God.” I asked him to remain standing and answer a few questions for me. I said, “If there is such a thing as evil, aren’t you assuming there is such a thing as good?” He paused, reflected, and said, “I guess so.” If there is such a thing as good,” I countered, “you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.”
I reminded him of the debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate, Copleston said,” Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don’t you?” Russell answered, “Yes, I do.” “ How do you differentiate between them?” challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders, as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said, “ The same way I differentiate yellow and blue.” Copleston graciously responded and said, “ But Mr Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don’t you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russell, with all his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: “On the basis of feeling-what else?” I must confess, Mr Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate “logical kill” for the moment would have been, “Mr Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbours, in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?”
So I returned to my questioning student in Nottingham: “When say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What, then, is your question?”
I reminded him of the debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the atheist Bertrand Russell. At one point in the debate, Copleston said,” Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad, don’t you?” Russell answered, “Yes, I do.” “ How do you differentiate between them?” challenged Copleston. Russell shrugged his shoulders, as he was wont to do in philosophical dead ends for him and said, “ The same way I differentiate yellow and blue.” Copleston graciously responded and said, “ But Mr Russell, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don’t you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russell, with all his genius still within reach, gave the most vapid answer he could have given: “On the basis of feeling-what else?” I must confess, Mr Copleston was a kindlier gentleman than many others. The appropriate “logical kill” for the moment would have been, “Mr Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbours, in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?”
So I returned to my questioning student in Nottingham: “When say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate good and evil. But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What, then, is your question?”
I wanted to say thanks for writing and posting the article. I found it to be well written and thought provoking. Thanks again and I will continue to follow your articles to see what else you write in the future.
ReplyDeletestudent lettings jesmond