Notice: Test mode is enabled. While in test mode no live donations are processed.
Theodicies
This site discusses Good and Evil by reducing them to their simplest components. Good includes things and conditions favorable to perpetuation of a cycle of life; evil is simply the opposite – the unnecessary destruction of life.
Philosophers generally don’t like to reduce important questions to biology or evolutionary psychology. Instead they imagine reality encompassing an endless stream of complex notions.
Historically the question of Good and Evil has been clouded by the impossible question: “How could an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God allow evil to exist?”
After centuries of debate, this question was finally given a name by Gottfried Leibniz (a German) in his essay, Essays of Theodicy on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil. In French it was Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme et l’origine du mal (1710). Why French? In the late 17th and early 18th century, French was the lingua franca of diplomacy, aristocracy, and intellectual correspondence across Europe. Writing in French ensured his work would reach the widest European audience, not just German readers. Today Leibniz would publish in English but he would still fall back on Greek to name his brainchild Theodicy, from Theos (God) and dike (justice).
Brief History of Theodicy
The concept of theodicy has roots in ancient religious and philosophical traditions, long before the term itself was coined. In ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (circa 2000–1000 BCE), myths and texts grappled with why gods allowed suffering, often attributing it to divine punishment or cosmic order. The Hebrew Bible’s Book of Job (likely composed between 600–400 BCE) is one of the earliest explicit explorations, questioning why the righteous suffer if God is just.
In classical Greek philosophy, Epicurus (341–270 BCE) formulated the “Epicurean paradox,” a logical challenge: If God is all-powerful and all-good, why does evil exist? This laid foundational groundwork for later theodicies. Early Christian thinkers built on this. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE) proposed a “soul-making” theodicy, where evil serves as a necessary process for human moral and spiritual growth. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) developed the “free will” theodicy, arguing that evil stems from human misuse of free will and is the absence of good rather than a substance created by God; he also introduced the idea of original sin as a source of evil.
Medieval philosophers like Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) integrated Aristotelian logic, viewing evil as a privation that allows for greater goods, such as heroism or compassion. Leibniz in his essays argued that we live in the “best of all possible worlds,” with evil being a necessary contrast for good and part of divine optimization.
In the modern era, events like the 1755 Lisbon earthquake prompted critiques from figures like Voltaire, who satirized Leibniz in Candide. The 20th century, marked by the Holocaust and world wars, led to new approaches: process theology (e.g., Alfred North Whitehead) posits a God who is not omnipotent but persuasive, while post-Holocaust thinkers like Emmanuel Levinas emphasized ethical responsibility over traditional justifications. Contemporary discussions often incorporate evolutionary biology and neuroscience, with some philosophers like Alvin Plantinga defending “free will” and “greater good” arguments against atheistic critiques.
Philosophers on Good and Evil without God
Several philosophers have explored concepts of good and evil from atheistic or secular perspectives, arguing that morality can exist independently of divine command or existence. Key figures include:
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900): An avowed atheist who famously declared “God is dead,” Nietzsche critiqued traditional Christian morality as slave morality in works like Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and On the Genealogy of Morality (1887). He proposed a revaluation of values based on human will to power, life-affirmation, and individual creativity, viewing good and evil as human constructs shaped by culture and power dynamics rather than divine absolutes.
Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789): A French Enlightenment materialist and atheist, d’Holbach wrote Good Sense Without God (1772), arguing that good and evil are natural effects arising from human needs, society, and reason, not supernatural forces. He saw morality as derived from utility and happiness, dismissing God as unnecessary for ethical behavior.
David Hume (1711–1776): Though more agnostic than strictly atheist, Hume’s empiricism in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion(1779) and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751) treated good and evil as rooted in human sentiments, emotions, and social utility, without requiring divine grounding. He influenced later secular ethics by emphasizing sympathy and habit over theological absolutes.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) and Albert Camus (1913–1960) were existentialist atheists who addressed good and evil in an absurd, godless universe.
Sartre’s Being and Nothingness (1943)and Existentialism is a Humanism (1946) argue that humans must create their own values and essence, with good and evil emerging from authentic choices.
Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus (1942) and The Rebel (1951), explored rebellion against absurdity as a path to meaning, viewing evil as human oppression rather than divine punishment.
Living Modern writers like Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape, 2010) and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion, 2006), extend these ideas through science and humanism, positing evolutionary and neurological bases for morality without gods.
Richard Dawkins
Here we explore how Richard Dawkins’ work in genetics influenced his later polemic against theism.
The Selfish Gene
Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, first published in 1976, is a seminal work in evolutionary biology that popularized the gene-centered view of evolution. Drawing on earlier ideas from biologists like George C. Williams and W.D. Hamilton, Dawkins argues that natural selection operates primarily at the level of genes rather than individuals, groups, or species. He describes genes as “selfish” replicators—molecules like DNA that persist through generations by building “survival machines” (organisms) to ensure their own propagation, even if it sometimes comes at the expense of the organism’s well-being. This metaphor of selfishness does not imply conscious intent but rather that genes evolve behaviors and traits that maximize their chances of being copied and passed on.
Key concepts
Evolution begins with simple self-replicating molecules in the primordial soup, leading to complex life via natural selection. Genes are the fundamental units of selection, and organisms are mere vehicles for their replication. Seemingly selfless behaviors, like a bird warning its flock of danger, are explained through “inclusive fitness”—genes promoting actions that benefit relatives (who share copies of those genes) to enhance overall replication success. This accounts for phenomena like eusociality in insects, where workers sacrifice reproduction for the colony.
Dawkins borrows a concept from game theory, ESS(evolutionarily stable strategy) to explain stable behaviors in populations, such as aggression or cooperation. ESS is not a “conscious strategy” but the outcome of natural selection. His Hawk-Dove example shows that Doves thrive by cooperation, while Hawks fight for resources but can sustain injuries. The two strategies balance each other out ensuring stable populations of both.
In the book’s final chapter (expanded in later editions), Dawkins introduces memes as cultural replicators—ideas, behaviors, or styles that spread through imitation, analogous to genes. Examples include tunes, fashions, or religious beliefs, which replicate “selfishly” based on their appeal, regardless of truth or benefit to the host.
Selfish Gene’s Influence on The God Delusion
Published in 2006, The God Delusion is Dawkins’ polemic against theism, arguing that God is a delusion and that science, particularly evolutionary biology, provides better explanations for the universe, life, and morality. The concepts from The Selfish Gene profoundly shape its arguments, extending gene-centered evolution to challenge religious claims and promote atheism.
Countering the Argument from Design: In The God Delusion, Dawkins invokes natural selection as a “consciousness-raiser” that explains apparent design in nature without a designer, building directly on the gene-centered mechanisms in The Selfish Gene. He argues that complex life emerges from simple replicators through cumulative selection, not divine intervention—echoing how “selfish” genes drive adaptation over generations. This culminates in the “Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit,” that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747.
Positing a complex God to explain complexity is more improbable than evolution, as God would require an even greater explanation, whereas genes evolve incrementally without foresight.
Explaining Morality and Altruism Without God: Dawkins uses the selfish gene framework to argue that morality arises from evolutionary processes, not divine command. Altruism, often cited as evidence of God’s moral law, is re-framed as a product of kin selection and reciprocal behaviors that enhance gene survival—genes “selfishly” promote helping relatives or allies to propagate shared copies. This Darwinian morality undercuts religious claims, showing empathy and ethics as natural outcomes of selection, allowing societies to evolve moral norms independently of scripture.
Religion as a Meme or By-Product: The meme concept from The Selfish Gene is pivotal in The God Delusion’s analysis of religion’s origins. Dawkins portrays religious ideas as viral memes that replicate culturally due to psychological appeal (e.g., fear of death, promise of afterlife), not truth, persisting “selfishly” even if harmful. Religion is also seen as a by-product of adaptive traits, like children’s obedience to authority (useful for survival but exploitable by faith), tying back to gene-driven behaviors.
Overall, The Selfish Gene provides the scientific scaffolding for The God Delusion’s atheism, demonstrating that evolution demystifies life’s complexities, rendering gods unnecessary and improbable. This influence shifts Dawkins from biologist to atheist advocate, though critics argue it oversimplifies philosophy and theology.
Eliminating gods from the discussion may be called simplification, or oversimplification, or even reductionism. Reductionism is certainly Dawkins’ statement in River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995), where he says:
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”
We agree, but here we are, conscious beings searching for purpose, meaning, and consciously deciding if and how to perpetuate our genes.