7) A Response to the Problem of Evil: the Self-Comparison Argument

The next question we ask is this: does the standard which judges evil exist in nature or does it exist outside of nature in the supernatural?  This question is pivotal.  Its answer will once and for all determine whether or not an atheist can even affirm the existence of objective evil.  By virtue of his own worldview, the atheist would have to conclude that the standard which judges evil can be found within nature, since the atheist largely denies the supernatural (I say “largely” because, while the New Atheists unilaterally deny the supernatural, it is technically not necessary of an “atheistic” worldview).  But is such a conclusion possible?  Can the standard which judges evil be found within the realm of nature?  We will soon see if this contention stands up to close scrutiny.

The atheist contention that “evil exists” is more concisely translated to “evil exists in the natural world”.  This implication is crucial.  It means that the entire natural world has been compared to a standard of good, and those parts of it which are below the standard are what we call “evil”.  Now, the atheists also contend that the standard to which the natural world is compared is itself in the natural world.  What interests us at present is that, put together, we see that these two contentions lead us to the bizarre conclusion that the standard is, in fact, being compared to itself.  My argument, premise by premise, looks like this: 

1.  The standard is in the natural world

2.  All of the natural world is being compared to the standard

3.  Therefore, the standard is being compared to itself

This conclusion is an absurdity.  Something cannot be compared to itself simply by definition of comparison.  Comparison occurs between two separate, objective realities; they cannot be each other or they cannot be compared.  You cannot compare something to itself.  Empirical support: consider a corrupt tooth.  We know that this tooth is corrupt because we know what a healthy tooth looks like; the healthy tooth is the standard to which the corrupt tooth has been compared and found to be corrupt.  We notice in passing that the standard that judged the corrupt tooth to be corrupt cannot itself be found within the corrupt tooth.  We might be able to infer, from the non-corrupt parts, that the rest of the tooth should be white instead of yellow and black, or we could use mathematics to determine the most effective shape for the rest of the tooth, and so infer that that was its original shape.  But, again, in these instances the corrupt tooth is being compared to our inferences, not anything actually within the tooth.  There is no objective reality within the corrupt tooth which demonstrates what the tooth should really look like.