Good and Evil.

Today I received and email with a number of optical illusions in it. The following one had a comment stating that it was a graphical representation that good cannot exist without evil.



If you look carefully you can see that the word "Good" appears in black lettering. However inside this word there are white letters that spell the word "evil".




The concept, that has been phrased in many ways, simply claims that there is a necessary co-existence of good and evil. As widespread as this belief is I think that it is fallacious.
I think we can all agree that good and evil are polar opposites. That is, they are at either ends of the scale to each other. There can be no good in evil and there can be no evil in good. This is by definition. In order to ascertain whether or not a thing or action is good or evil, a set of standards must be agreed upon. This morality then is the basis of discernment of the goodness, or badness of something.

Without this universal moral foundation, any talk of good or evil is futile as the discussion will only end up in subjective relativism.
So once we have established a set of rules, or standards by which everyone can agree on, we recognise that there is both good and evil in the world. We could hypothesise what the world would be like without one or the other, but ultimately our reality is that both exist, at least as concepts based on our definition of morality.

However for the sake of the argument let us assume that the world, and universe is without good. Is this a plausible scenario? If the universe was without good then everything would be evil. Since there is a lack of comparable opposites, or alternative concepts to evil, then there could be no moral framework. This is because the moral framework requires a discernment between good and evil. Since there is no good, there can be no morality. Since there is no morality, everything is morally neutral. Therefore what you might call evil, would in fact not be evil, it would just be. Without a conception of good or evil, then nothing is either good nor evil, it simply is. Therefore the initial assertion that everything was evil would be false, because evil cannot exist if there is no such thing as morality. Clearly from this reasoning, evil cannot possibly exist without good. From another perspective, one might say that all things that are evil are really just perversions of distortions of things that were originally good.
For example evil sexual acts are just perversions of the pure and good sexual act that occurs between a man and a woman that act purely with love in unison. Murder is a distorted expression of mans good nature of ruling over the lower forms on the earth. When it is practiced with selfless concern the outcome is good. When it is exercised with selfish ambition the outcome is evil. So if evil is a distorted version of what is good, then if good does not exist, then it follows that evil also cannot exist. For if the object you wish to distort does not exist, then you are left with nothing to distort, so no corruption can take place. Therefore evil cannot exist without good.

But is the converse also true. Initially it would seem so. However if we attempt to conceive of a world without evil, somehow it seems not only plausible, but maybe remotely possible. In fact it is the dream of mankind to attain some sort of perfection (goodness) in life with everything he does. The concepts of enlightenment, Nirvana, Heaven etc are evidence of this. So from mankind's point of view is would seem plausible that good can exist without evil, and much of our energy in life is expended in attempts to make this happen.
Assuming there is no evil in the world, then we propose that everything is good. Next you might say that if there is no evil then there is no morality due to the lack of contrast, and so without morality there can be no good, only neutral, inert realities.

Here I will disagree on the following basis. If there is a God, and this God created the universe, and this God is purely good, then everything that he creates is also good. If he had decided that he would not allow anything to exist in the universe except goodness then that would be the ultimate truth. Since goodness is a thing of itself, and not a distortion or adjustment of something other than good, we can conclude that good does not depend on the existence of evil. Someone might argue that this depends on God being completely and perfectly good. Based on their observations, the world does not fit the description of being entirely good, therefore God cannot be wholly good. But this puts the horse before the cart. I assert that since God is the highest being, then whatever he creates, or does, or is, by definition is good. If for instance God contradicted himself, purposely made beings to fight each other, and was capricious in his dealings with those creatures, then the following would be true: Contradiction, war, and unpredictable behaviour would be purely good. In behaving with these characteristics, we would in fact be emulating the God that created us and in effect be paying homage to and worship God. In fact, in a universe where evil is prevented by God, we would have no free will. We would by natuer be compelled to be good all the time because the instant that we were about to do otherwise, God would stop us in order to maintain perfect goodness in the universe. We would be merely puppets of God. The freewill and ability to rebel creates the situation where evil can exist.
If there is no God then concepts of good and evil are ultimately futile and reduce to sheer pragmatism based on the prevailing circumstances of the time. If this be the case then concepts of good and evil would be just that, concepts that had no real meaning in reality except to allow one group to manipulate another.
To accept God, even in the most abstract way is to affirm that goodness exists. And this goodness is not dependant on evil, rather evil is dependant on good, for without it evil cannot exist and has no meaning. If there were no such thing as evil, then the concept would be foreign to us (even though God could conceive of such a thing) and we would know everything as being good.


Ultimately God created Lucifer (or satan) who rebelled and set himself up in opposition to God and in so doing set himself in opposition to everything that God stood for. Satan then could only mangle, distort and destroy that which God had created, since he could not create anything himself. In order to cease worshipping God through being good, he had to do, and be the opposite, which by definition is evil. To conceive of a purely evil world without good, is tantamount to saying that Satan could exist without God. Since Satan is a created being, his existence is conditionally dependant upon Gods existence. The opposite cannot be true, simply because there was a time when Satan did not exist, though God did.

Evil cannot exist without good, but the existence of good does not depend on the existence of evil.

The Golden Rule!

The golden rule is that there are no golden rules. - George Bernard Shaw

I have spoken of the "Golden Rule" before. It is also known as the "Ethic of Recipocity". Simply put it means that you should treat a person in the same manner you would like to be treated yourself. This concept stems from the biblical passage where Jesus says "love others as you would love yourself".
Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you"
Luke 6:31 "Just as you want others to do for you, do the same for them"
This however is far from just a Christian concept. In fact just about every major religion has a similar sentiment (eg Hinduism, Buddism, Islam etc), and it is echoed by humanitarian atheists also. So essentially it would be fair to say that it is almost a universally believed idea.

Why then would George Bernard Shaw then make a statement that is so clearly in contrast to this idea? I suspect there are a number of reasons.

Firstly, as an author it is beneficial for him to make outlandish statements in order to get publicity. Who would want to report on a boring and often repeated cliche. It is simply not "good news" worth reporting. However statements in opposition to the established beliefs is different and exciting, and worth reporting on. It is a quote worth repeating because it is so oppositional.

Secondly, the statement is a little confusing because it asserts a concept in order to defeat the selfsame concept. It is a loose and nasty method of appearing to sound profound. It is the literary equivalent of a publicity stunt. The fact that there is little or no logic or veracity to the statement simply adds to its appeal in the modern mind. In a way this is somewhat like the Indian mindset that does not require the separation of mutually exclusive concepts in a statement. One can say that black is a dark colour, but at the same time a light colour, and somehow that is supposed to make it deep and profound regardless of its contradictory nature.

In this case, Shaw's quote is a self refuting statement. It is similar to saying "I always lie". If it is true that I always lie, then I am telling the truth. However if i always lie then I must be lying in which case i don't always lie and the statement is false. In Shaw's case he asserts the golden rule, and then redefines it as there being no golden rules, in which case the first part of the statement cannot have meaning. If the first part is nonsense, then the second part must follow as nonsense in which case saying that there are no golden rules cannot hold true. So using logic, it is plain that what Shaw said is not only nonsense, and self refuting, but it actually supports the concept that the Golden Rule does hold true and should be kept.

I have heard it said that the golden rule is not sufficient. Rather than doing to other what you would like, some say that you should do to others as they want done, not as you want done, as they may have different tastes to you. I suppose the difference is whether or not you believe in the universality of mankind or not. I think that although this sounds good on the surface, it treads on dangerous territory because it essentially it promote relativism. And who is to say that whether or not what a person wants is actually good or not. Without a framework of belief to surround it (such as Christianity that states we should be kind, generous etc.) then any weirdo might prefer to be treated in many weird ways. Sadomasochists would definitely want to be treated differently to me, and it sounds like the modified golden rule suits this fine, but this ignores the fact that it is detrimental to the giver of such treatment if it is offensive and repulsive to them.

I think the best way to approach the golden rule is follow it in its purest scriptural form surrounded by the framework of good living outline in God's word. Anything additional or diverging from this ultimately leads to acceptance of nonsense.

Useless Information

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) wrote "It is a very sad thing that nowadays there is so little useless information."

Oscar Wilde clearly knew nothing of the internet, nor of modern media. Perhaps in the late 19th Century newspapers were rare or contained invaluable information. I suppose without much knowledge of the time I would have to assume that at the time there was not a great deal of "useless infofrmation".

Cetainly in todays world there is an incredible overabundance of completely useless information. Our newspapers are filled with it, magazine thrive on it, the internet is overrun by it, and foolish people continue to propagate it. I think there is little doubt that Oscar Wildes assertion that there is so little useless information no longer applies evern by the greatest stretch of the imagination. The question remains however, whether or not it was a sad thing that there was so little useless information at the time, and whether conversely it is a happy thing that we have so much crap information constantly bombarding us.

Using some imagination I suppose that if your wolrdview was such that you thought it important to keep the majority of people frivolously occupied but never achieving much in their lives, then this sentiment might be true. True for you at least. Whether it is true that it is a good thing for the people who are so occupied remains debatable. At a stretch, the few people that desire to be blissfully unaware of things that don't interest them or make them happy, might fit this category. The character in The Matrix who chooses the blue pill over the red pill would be such a person. They wish to remain ignorantly unaware of the real truth as long as they don't have to suffer or feel any pain. Effectively anaesthetised against reality, they float around in relative bliss and ignorance.

The abundance of useless information makes this process a bearable one. In fact, without a great deal of useless information, and an attitude to avoid harsh truth, one can only be left in total boredom. So for the person who wishes to manipulate the masses into a false sense of security and importance, it is important to ensure that there is a great deal of superfluous, frivolous, and ridiculous information readily available to placate them.

On the other hand, for the people who actually wish to know the truth, who would choose the red pill, and who desire to lead a life of improvement and vitality and reality, such a scenario can be distracting and inhibiting. To always be seeking truth and constantly wading through guff and fluff can be extremely tiring. To be overwhelmed by massive amounts of irrelevant information can take us off task, diverting our attention and make us forget the real purpose of our lives. As we allow this useless information into our lives we slowly begin to lose feeling just like the anaesthetic does to our nerves. The spell overwhelms us slowly and bit by bit until we no longer realise that we have lost our dreams.

It takes a disciplined person to consciously choose useful and relevant information into our lives while blocking out all of the useless and irrelevant information. However there is another problem at hand and that is; how does one determine what is useless and irrelevant in order to discard it before it affects us. I suspect it is a little bit like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It states that in measuring the location of a particle, its momentum is not able to be determined and that measuring the momentum of a particle precudes the ability to know its position. In short, the particles position or momentum is affected by the act of measuring it such that the measurement cannot be fully known. The reason I use this analogy is that the absorption of the irrelevant information affects our ability to determine is usefulness and in small ways we are unable to be completely unaffected by what we see or hear. Slowly and inadvertantly the garbage changes us and our thinking. It is only small at first but it is progressive and accumulative. Eventually we find ourselves in a place where we never intended to go, and we have no real way of knowing where we would be if we had excercised restraint because our perceptions have been altered. It is a little bit like taking a psychedelic drug in order to see if is good for me. Observers might say that my behaviour deteriorated and that the effects were detrimental, yet in my altered state of mind I might be oblivious to any negative effects due to temporary euphoria. If the drug killed me then the observer could easily say that it was not good for me, however it would leave me in a very difficult position to observe this or even hear it conveyed to me. It would in fact be too late for me to decide or hear anything from others. Suicide is the ultimate irreversible extrapolation of all the stupid experiments that young people might try to see if it is good for them. The hope that suicide might solve all ones problems has no benefit when the act itself is irreversible. You cannot try before you buy. If it is, in fact, not the answer to my problems but actually the biggest addition to them ever concieved, then I would truly be totally lost and forsaken. Getting back to the drug analogy, what neither myself nor the observer could say was how the drug chemically affected me and what the long term effects might be assuming I survived. It would take a biologist or an expert in drugs to know this superior information. If I had consulted such a person before taking the drug, then I would be in a much better position to reject the drug without the need to try it, and of course I would save myself a lot of heartache in the process. Drug rehabilitation is not a pleasant process I am told.

So the issue is this. If taking in the information affects my ability to determine its usefulness than how does one decide what to accept and what to reject unequivocally. The answer lies in accepting expert, outside help. Superior knowledge can prevent us from being overwhelmed by useless information. The expert in the field can guide us before we make mistakes. It is always harder to learn from and rehabilitate out of the foolish decisions we make. Abstinence is superior and less painful. There is no greater expert in anything in this world than the one who created it all. Take advice from Gods word.

Phil 4:8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

Conversely whatever is in opposition to these things you should reject.

1 Cor 3:5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

I believe very strongly in the garbage in, garbage out philosophy. It is quite a proven phenomenon throughout observable history. Unfortunately when one absorbs a great deal of garbage or useless information, then their lives will be filled with useless talk and useless actions. A life like this will in short be a useless life, and a tragic result of what could have been an exciting, vibrant, productive life.

For whatever reason, Oscar Wilde pined that it was a sad thing that there was so little useless information. Unlike Oscar Wilde, I think that it is a very very sad thing that we now have so much useless information.

Did God stuff up?

Oscar Wilde obviously thinks so.
"I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability." - Oscar Wilde

I think most people would know what Oscar was talking about when he said this. It is no mystery that man can be a wicked debased creature. That his capacity for cruelty, corruption and malice are second to none. No thing in creation so perverts itself as comprehensively as man. it seems that there is no place or action too disgusting for some person on earth to wallow in.
However that is not the sum total of man. Man also has the exceptional ability to display unmitigated selflessness. To express love to the unlovable, compassion to the underpriveleged, grace to the ungraceful. Man, more than any other thing in creation has the capacity for love, respect, honour, passion, and just plain goodness. Mark Twain wrote “God has put something noble and good into every heart His hand created.”

So here we have this dichotomy of character that at different times manifests itself to varying degrees in all of us. The question some people ask is "Why did God create us with the ability to be at once so noble and yet so base?". However I think the real question is "How could God have created us with freedom, yet at the same time forced us to always be good and perfect". In fact the two concepts are mutually exclusive, because as soon as you inhibit bad behaviour you are at the same time inhibiting freedom. The more freedom you give, the more chance there is to misuse that freedom for evil purposes. Why do people choose bad behaviour? The same reason they reject Gods ways. Man has an innate desire for complete autonomy and God gets in the way of that selfish desire. The result is that God allows us to be consumed by our own evil desires because he loved us enough to let us choose. But make no mistake: we choose our own behaviours and our own destiny. How about we stop blaming God for what is clearly our fault.

Oscar Wilde was most certainly being facetious, and probably meant something like "clearly there is no God, for who would create such a flawed being, and if he did so then he would certainly not be a perfect God, therefore God is either fake or flawed, and in either case worshipping him is not justified". But I believe that mans pervertedness is just proof of mans pervertedness and evidence that God will not interrupt us in our quest for freedom and autonomy. Yet still he stands by the side of the road offering safety and redemption from our own foolishness. God created us with the ability to cause lots of problems, yet in his love he gave us to perfect solution for all of them.

The difference between Oscar Wilde and myself is that while he states that God made us that way because of His lack of abilities, I believe he made us with freedom to choose either way, out of His divine wisdom.

Freedom of speech?

Mark Twain wrote "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."

Perhaps it applied when he penned those words, but I doubt whether such a sentiment could be applied to todays world. It seems that everywhere you go there is someone spouting their opinions and their right to express them. Anyone it seems is allowed to not only have their opinions, but also express them in any way they choose as long as it is according to the golden rule.
Freedom of speech is interpreted today as being able to say whatever you want. In fact it has been extended to cover other ways in which to express ones thoughts and beliefs so that it could be rephrased as the freedom of action. Freedom of conscience has been interpreted as the freedom to choose what is right or wrong in your own mind to the point that we now have a million different ways in which to frame our morality, hence the marginalisation of absolute truth. How can be curb what basically constitutes a move towards complete anarchy?

The interesting part of Twains phrase is the beginning where he states that it is by the goodness of God that we have these three things. Today however it seems the third is sadly lacking. Prudence is something that is very rare in todays society. In fact I suspect that most people find the word prudence to have negative connotations, and certainly is not a trait that many people aspire to have and exhibit.

The natural consequence of kicking God out of the 21st Century is that we will suffer the foolishness of our actions. Wisdom is left in the wake of the death of God and prudence along with it. It seems there is a lunatic on every street corner proclaiming their version of life and personal rights and few people exercising restraint.
You may speak about and be an activist for any cause it seems except for the one that champions the one true God of heaven and earth. If that be the case then you will be vilified for breaching the one exception to the rule of freedom of speech, and that is "God doesn't belong in public dialogue"

I believe however that removing God from the public dialogue will prove to be the worst thing that man has done this century.