Mr. Sparks is arguing that darkness is an absence of light, which is true enough. But like all theories, it is provisional. One good particle of darkness can blow the whole thing away. And the conclusion that compare to God... that's just a gratuitous assertion (strawman?).
I'd wager that outside of human beings, there is no good and evil. For animals, there is only success or failure. let's face it, the natural order can be brutal. Humans generally hold themselves above it. If I kill you and eat you, someone is going to come looking for me. If we were animals, no other animal would mete out justice. What gives us the right? We all agree that we can intervene if certain social conventions are not met. Example: murder.
I think people are saddled with the notion of good an evil as a social gambit. By declaring some action more virtuous than another, we are ensuring a certain social order that is self policing, relatively speaking. The majority rules. Or the mob, depending on which side of the fence you're on.
Good & evil are intellectual constructs, and completely artificial. Like art is. You make rules, then amend them to suit your purposes later. If you can get everyone to agree to your caveats, then you're still being good. If you can't, then you're doing evil.
To my mind, virtue is largely it's own reward. I have no belief in a direct and intervening God, yet I still have occassion to exercise virtue. Why do you suppose that is?
Good versus Evil
I'd wager that outside of human beings, there is no good and evil. For animals, there is only success or failure. let's face it, the natural order can be brutal. Humans generally hold themselves above it. If I kill you and eat you, someone is going to come looking for me. If we were animals, no other animal would mete out justice. What gives us the right? We all agree that we can intervene if certain social conventions are not met. Example: murder.
I think people are saddled with the notion of good an evil as a social gambit. By declaring some action more virtuous than another, we are ensuring a certain social order that is self policing, relatively speaking. The majority rules. Or the mob, depending on which side of the fence you're on.
Good & evil are intellectual constructs, and completely artificial. Like art is. You make rules, then amend them to suit your purposes later. If you can get everyone to agree to your caveats, then you're still being good. If you can't, then you're doing evil.
To my mind, virtue is largely it's own reward. I have no belief in a direct and intervening God, yet I still have occassion to exercise virtue. Why do you suppose that is?