If you don't believe in god or the supernatural then how do you explain injustice.?

Question

There is plenty more evil in the world then good. No science has been able to even explain the rise of Naziism. Even caos theory only explains the balance of matter, not the inter-relationship between people and events. Under random chance something bad is more likely to happen to you then something good.

does anybody else think the first person who answered is an idiot. I clearly asked, "if you don't believe in god"?

this is not a sociology or religion question. Look at the catagory. It's a physics question.

who decides what is good or bad? How about losing an arm. Who would consider that a good thing?

ferarri babe is a real pip. She critizes me after she gate a religiouse answere to a physics question.

Answer 1

Well, I _think_ what you're getting at, is the question: "Is it possible to give an explanation for injustice that does not appeal to god or the supernatural?"

And I guess you put the question in the "Physics" category because you're assuming that the only two ways of looking at things are: "supernatural" on the one hand; or "materialistic" on the other. And that therefore, if one's explanation of injustice doesn't rely on the supernatural, that it must be framed in terms of physics.

But I think that's a false dichotomy. There's plenty of robust thinking in philosophy, sociology, art, psychology, etc., etc. that does not depend on supernatural explanations, nor on particularly materialistic ones either. It is possible to examine human behavior and make important and valid conclusions about how and why they interact, without thinking of them either as eternal souls or as hunks of meat.

For my part, I believe it's likely that humans' thoughts, feelings and actions are ultimately a result of their physical bodies. But having said that, I don't think that analyzing people on a purely biological level is necessarily the best approach. To give an analogy from computer science: It's a fact that all software behavior can be ultimately explained in terms of long streams of "1"'s and "0"'s that do nothing but flip some of the 0's to 1's and vice-versa. But it would be ridiculous to try to understand, explain, or design any complex software system by looking at it that way. There are too many tiny details, so our brains have to jump up several layers of abstraction, and speak in terms of subroutines, interfaces, languages and data structures. None of those things are "physical," but they're certainly not "supernatural" either: they're just abstract.

In the same way, the interrelationship between people and events probably (in my opinion) has physical roots; but we're not going to find all the answers just by looking at people's cells. We need to jump up several layers of abstraction, and that's where the social sciences come into play.

In the case of computers, we developed them from the "ground up," so we have a firm understanding of how all the 1's and 0's translate into things like search engines and speech synthesizers. In the case of humans, we're at a disadvantage, because the systems were already "fully deployed" before we started being able to analyze them. So a lot of reverse engineering is necessary.

Answer 2

Geez, ya could not be afflicted to split those out, eh? one million. Do you feel your mom and dad are narcissists for stressful your recognize and obedience? They were not doing themselves a want, they had been doing you a want. two. Forgiveness is via definition a reaction to repentance. Hell is for the unrepentant. three. Because matters occur to men and women. Good and dangerous are private judgments centered on point of view. four. Darwin already did a great of explaining it. I see no clash for the reason that I am no longer a literalist. five. Logic shows a First Cause for the universe. Believers say it is God, and albeit it is the nonetheless the high-quality reply round. 6. It has been argued that definitive evidence of God could significantly tamper with unfastened will, so God does no longer furnish that form of evidence. 7. No. A substantial minority of believers are pushed via worry by myself. eight. That's simply rewording query 6. nine. Because we are not the one existence on the earth that struggles to outlive. Diseases are residing organisms, ya recognize. 10. Because the sector is a proving floor wherein righteousness is a alternative. Not enabling for injustice could significantly tamper with unfastened will. eleven. This is however a particular quotation of the prior query. My solutions could no longer be as fleshed out as you want, however you are kidding your self when you anticipate me to put in writing a guide, that is what you'll want for a complete reply. Maybe you must appear a few up.

Answer 3

There is no relationship between God, the Supernatural and injustice. Any law administered by man is fallible but has no bearing in belief in God or the Supernatural. Injustice is a fact, belief is a question of choice. Personally I choose not to believe in the first two, but I have faith, I am a Humanist. Evil is simply a concept, a polarized opposite of good and everyone has a choice to do either. God and the Devil are representations of good and evil and the struggle to choose between them. To understand the rise of Naziism you have to understand the state of the German economy and high unemployment at the time Adolf Hitler rose to lead the party, it had nothing to do with Science. Atrocities continue to be committed today in the name of religion whilst Naziism is history. The question is very confused and shows a lack of understanding of science, history, religion and morality.

Answer 4

Justice is relative.

- To a religious terrorist, it is an injustice that there are those who do not follow their code of belief, they must die.
- To a jilted lover, it is an injustice that one he/she loves so dearly can leave, so much that she/he commits a crime of passion.

The sense of justice is a product of the human condition - the feeling of righteousness. Science cannot determine this because it is not something physical that is it cannot be quantified, measured, compared, evaluated - just as science cannot explain why we fear things. Sure we can explain it in terms of biochemistry, flight or fight etc, but fundamentally WHY there exists a fear is again relative and not quantifiable.

It is a case of the 'human perception' that surmises the greater evil over good, maybe people have been influenced by the media - who know that bad news sells big. There is plenty of good in the world, it is just that people don't realise:
- The birth of a couple's child, restoring sight to the blind, giving a teacher an apple on the first day of school, providing food and shelter for the homeless, these aren't reported daily but they are acts of goodness.

"Under random chance something bad is more likely to happen to you then something good." demonstrates a pessimistic outlook on life. This is not a general case. There are plenty of people that go through their lives only looking forward to good things, perhaps winning a bet, or scoring high on a test, or cooking a great lunch for your friends - random chance is just that - good and bad things happen to people, but removing all other influences they are both equally likely to occur.

Physics can explain the workings of the world relative to us, to explain the workings of the human condition lies in the realms of psychology and philosophy.

Answer 5

You don't understand what you're talking about. A world without injustice is not definable. And why are you relating science to explaining Naziism? And a lot of life isn't random. And why are you assuming people don't believe in God? You're probably not very intelligent.

Answer 6

You are assuming (or at least insinuating) that the existence of the supernatural or god would explain injustice. This is not necessarily correct.

Injustice happens because all people have free will, but not all people have the wisdom / intelligence / education / foresight / experience / discipline (or what ever it takes) to make good decisions or perform actions that would be just (or considered just).

You see, injustice is both subjective and relative. Something that appears unjust to one person might seem justifiable to another.

This is also true of evil. Many people probably think that characters like Hitler and Osama Bin Laden were evil. However, you have to understand that these people believed they were doing what was best for humanity (from their twisted perspectives). They believed they were acting righteously. As another example, suicide bombers actually believe what they say they believe - that they are going to some kind of paradise for their (despicable) actions. They are acting righteously.

Therefore, one could argue that evil does not truly exist, only apparent evil. And one could argue the same for the concept of injustice.

But this doesn't really answer your question - it only suggests that what you are really asking is, "how do you explain apparent injustice?"

Answer: Natural selection and selfish gene theory (proposed by Richard Dawkins). In his book, The Selfish Gene, Dawkins argues that the gene is the fundamental unit of natural selection - complex organisms like us are just temporary vessels for perpetuation and replication of our genes (DNA). He offers an excellent evolutionary explanation for altruistic behavior. At the same time argues convincingly that just because our genes "behave" selfishly doesn't justify selfish behavior in individual organisms - in fact just the opposite. People in society are much better off (as are their genes) if they behave altruistically toward one another.

As an example that answers your other question (how could losing an arm be good?), what if you lost your arm to save the life of your son? Wouldn’t that be good, or at least OK? This is a perfect example of altruistic behavior in an individual - sacrificing an arm to save your child - that serves the selfish needs of your DNA (the need to live on in the gene pool and replicate).

Life is more successful if it cooperates with other life.

The concept of injustice is, again, relative and subjective.

Answer 7

I would like to know how it is that you determined that there is more evil in the world than good. I think that there is almost certainly more good in the world than evil. Yes there a few very evil people in the world who create a hell of a lot of grief for a great number of people, but all in all I would have to say that the majority of people are good the majority of the time.

Answer 8

Because i don't believe in God I don't have to explain injustice. It's all just randomness

Your question would make more sense if you asked people that believed in God to explain injustice

(Not that they should have to, of course, just because I don't personally believe doesn't negate anyone else's beliefs or values )

Answer 9

who defines bad and good? this question makes no sense. there is a science that can explain naziism, by the way- it's called sociology.

Answer 10

this world does not have enough efficiency to give people the result of their behaviour ,
i.e sb who has killed 1 thousand people ,how justice would be felt for him , what can we do to make him punished??its impossible . so,god has located another world after death ,in that our senses will be sober and thats when justice is found and completely done.
so not believing in god an dthe life after death cannot show us how justice exsists.