When asked what it means for someone to be "evil", a normal everyday person would probably respond with a list of things he or she believes to be evil (this list may vary from person to person depending on your world view). A typical Christian response to "sin" would be anything that disobeys a direct commandment from God. No matter your view, I think typically we would all agree that humans are essentially selfish, in that, for the most part, they put their own self interests ahead of others.
However, if we just apply Occam's Razor and pick the simplest course of the origin of evil without wading through all the religious and superstitious nonsense like the concept of "original sin", a perfectly natural answer presents itself. The world is a hostile place containing a vast number of organisms, all competing for space and resources. All living creatures are composed of genes which influence not just the physical characteristics of the creature, but also its behaviour. Now, imagine that there is a scale - at one end there exists a gene that influences its host to not pay a lot of attention to its needs, stuff like food, warmth, the need to reproduce. At the other end of this scale is a gene that influences its host to give these areas very high priority and to put its interests first.
Over millions of years, which genes do you think are more likely to survive and propogate themselves, and which genes are likely to end up being removed from the gene pool? Simple really. Genes that influence their host to look after its needs will thrive, those that won't will disappear and the hosts are likely to become extinct. Repeat this process endlessly and you end up with life on Earth, and anyone who has watched a nature program on the TV will immediately understand the outcome.
But on the other side of the coin, it's not so extreme to the point of organisms not being able to cooperate with each other and thus dying out because of it. Gregariousness in animals (including humans) is perfectly acceptable when the overall benefits to the individual is considered.
Questions? Comments?
However, if we just apply Occam's Razor and pick the simplest course of the origin of evil without wading through all the religious and superstitious nonsense like the concept of "original sin", a perfectly natural answer presents itself. The world is a hostile place containing a vast number of organisms, all competing for space and resources. All living creatures are composed of genes which influence not just the physical characteristics of the creature, but also its behaviour. Now, imagine that there is a scale - at one end there exists a gene that influences its host to not pay a lot of attention to its needs, stuff like food, warmth, the need to reproduce. At the other end of this scale is a gene that influences its host to give these areas very high priority and to put its interests first.
Over millions of years, which genes do you think are more likely to survive and propogate themselves, and which genes are likely to end up being removed from the gene pool? Simple really. Genes that influence their host to look after its needs will thrive, those that won't will disappear and the hosts are likely to become extinct. Repeat this process endlessly and you end up with life on Earth, and anyone who has watched a nature program on the TV will immediately understand the outcome.
But on the other side of the coin, it's not so extreme to the point of organisms not being able to cooperate with each other and thus dying out because of it. Gregariousness in animals (including humans) is perfectly acceptable when the overall benefits to the individual is considered.
Questions? Comments?
