By Gurnam Singh | Opinion |
Though not everyone will agree with the argument, from a materialist perspective, one can make a logical argument that the universe was created by an all powerful entity i.e. God. This is the essential proposition of what is known the ‘watchmaker’ argument for the existence of God. First championed by William Paley, this suggests that the complexity and purpose which is found in nature, like the intricate mechanisms of a watch, implies an intelligent designer. Just as a watch is crafted, the intricate structures and fine tuned laws of the nature and the universe require an amazing intelligent being, often referred to as God.
Whilst there are some religious belief systems that limit the scope of God to that of a watchmaker, others extend his remit to argue that God can determine good and evil. I want to suggest that it makes no sense to make the argument that God determines what is good and evil. Indeed, even if we accept the theistic conception of an all pervasive, powerful, all loving and all knowing God, there is no logical reason to belief he can delineate good from evil.
The God of nature has no concern about good and evil; these are subjective human constructs. In nature when we see the terrible destructive force of an earth quake or tsunami, it makes no sense to blame God, or even to talk about the cruelty of the destructive force of nature. The simple point is that because nature is devoid of any moral intentions, good or evil, then it follows that natural events are not subject to moral judgement.
For example, a lion does not kill its prey through hate or evil intentions, but because of a simple need to survive. Similarly, a trees does not seek to starve other shrubs or plants of water and sunlight out of spite, fear, greed, anger or hate. One could also add that in order to make a moral choice one requires as degree of self awareness, unless one can demonstrate nature and objects with. It are self aware, there is now way for them to have any moral agency.
Since most would agree humans have self awareness, then it is plausible that humans have moral agency and that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are subjectively produced by human beings. In this regard, the realm of good and evil is not the concern of God, but the provenance of each and every human being. That is to say, the idea that we can label thoughts and actions as being ‘good’ or ‘evil’ originate not from divine intervention but from human capacity to reason and feel. In other words, we determine our sense of morality from the past and present of human behaviour, thought, actions and culture.
It is this uniquely human capacity to develop a sense of mind, purpose and time that constitute the well spring from which ideas about good and evil emerge. In simple terms we discover what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ from socialisation, from our parents, teachers, priests, the media and even notions of common sense. The major problem with this is that given the right conditions all kinds of violence could be justified as being good.
Take for example the Nazi holocaust, which was based of the dehumanisation and and demonisation of Jews to manipulate public opinion. This included claiming Jews were responsible for Germany’s economic woes, portraying Jews as an inferior and dangerous ‘race’, blaming Jews for societal problems like crime and disease, and fabricating Jewish conspiracy theories to justify pre-emptive violence and elimination.
It makes no logical sense that an all powerful, all knowing and all living being would have allowed such evil crimes to have taken place, so it is left to us as human beings, both individually and collectively take responsibility for defining good and evil and then acting accordingly.
Because few people rarely accept their actions or beliefs are evil – indeed, some perhaps many claim they are carrying out Gods work – we must find another way to delineate good from evil. Here, the work of German philosopher Frederick Nietzsche on morality is very useful. Nietzsche was deeply critical of the conceptions of morality determined by prevailing religious or ethical frameworks.
In his famous book “Beyond Good and Evil.” Moral Disagreements Nietzsche radically different and for some troubling conception of morality that transcends or escapes the traditional, fixed definitions of good and evil: He begins by critiquing established moral conventions as subjective tools created by different groups with different power dynamics. what he terms Slave morality” he suggests this is centred on guilt and self-denial, which restricts and undermines human potential for moral agency. As an alternative he urges individuals to critically question and create their own value systems. This is an individualist approach to morality where we engage in a truly critical and creative exploration of what it means to be good, rather than simply follow a set of prescriptions.
For some, perhaps many, this kind of individualist approach to determining what might be a good action is troubling, but if one thinks about it, if moral agency is about doing what one feels to be right, then ultimately it has to be an individual choice; one cannot defer one’s moral duty/responsibility to another person or institution!
In contemplating what it means to be moral, the external God of the established religious clergy is of little use; we have to find the answers our own conscience, or if you like the divine within. In this sense, determining good and evil requires us to exercise our own human agency. And, just like the Sikh Gurus, only by questioning dominant viewpoints and traditional religious orthodoxy, can we engage in a genuine exploration of what constitutes ‘good’ or ‘bad’, i.e. what it means to be moral.
Perhaps this is precisely what Guru Nanak was implying when he said that “with our own hands, let us resolve our own affairs. ॥ ਆਪਣ ਹਥੀ ਆਪਣਾ ਆਪੇ ਹੀ ਕਾਜੁ ਸਵਾਰੀਐ ॥੨੦॥ (GGS p474)
Gurnam Singh is an academic activist dedicated to human rights, liberty, equality, social and environmental justice. He is an Associate Professor of Sociology at University of Warwick, UK. He can be contacted at Gurnam.singh.1@warwick.ac.uk
* This is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Asia Samachar.
RELATED STORY:
Miracles and Godmen (Asia Samachar, 31 July 2020)
ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs / Punjabis in Southeast Asia and beyond. You can leave your comments at our website, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. We will delete comments we deem offensive or potentially libelous. You can reach us via WhatsApp +6017-335-1399 or email: asia.samachar@gmail.com. For obituary announcements, click here
