DEFINITIONS
Evil as a Mere Lack: Evil isn’t real on its own; it’s just the absence or corruption of good—a weakness or flaw that depends on good to exist. When humans do evil, because of the lack, they are able to take good and distorted it. In so far as it is distorted good, it can be described as good in the wrong place and wrong time. For example, it is good for cancer to grow so well but bad under the circumstances.
Evil as a Real Substance: Evil is an actual, independent force or power that can act on its own and influence the world directly.
Moral evil - murdering - or natural evil - the plague - can be either form or both. If some evils are mere lacks, that does not mean all evils are.
Atheists and believers can hold that the values of love, compassion, mercy and justice are real and that bad deeds are just deeds that refuse to be as good as they can be. So evil is a lack of good and is not a power in its own right.
CLARIFICATION?
"The argument that evil is parasitic doesn’t claim that evil is nothing—but that it depends on good to exist. That doesn't mean it's harmless or trivial."
MY REPLY: That is not clear. It could mean it is trivial. And it does. If evil is a defect in an ocean of good and we are supposed to focus on the good more than the evil then it is trivial. What if there was a forced choice: "See the good" or "See the evil"? Which one should be focused on and which one should be forgotten? The one that is picked says it all about the person doing the picking. The clarification gets to the heart of the matter. It is not a clarification but an excuse.
CALLING GOOD A PROBLEM INSULTS IT
Believers incidentally say, "To say like atheists do that there cannot be a God when there is such great suffering and evil makes no sense. The problem of so much evil and suffering happening under God's care, does not justify abandoning God - but justifies turning to him. Atheists are stuck with an insoluble problem of good. The problem of good reminds us that an atheist cannot account for why he calls say happiness good and suffering bad. Evil becomes an opinion rather than anything of real significance."
This shows that they see good in evil. To them evil is a defective good.
If there is no God then refer to horrendous suffering, say, as a problem is irrational. They cannot demonstrate that God is real and full of love well enough to justify such a monumental claim. They don't know what good is when they claim that.
Good would exist whether there is a God or not. Imagine there is nothing at all. The rule not to murder still applies even though there are no people about to murder or to command the rule. The evil person has a distorted sense of good that blinds him or her to what good is. That is what makes her or him bad. The God belief does harm when it blinds one to those things.
The argument that design and goodness in the universe and in people shows there must be a God to make the good is to be rejected. It too goes too far.
Christians sometimes say that God made and designed all without intending it to be an argument for God. But argument or not, they are saying things with unintended negative implications. If he did not intend the marks he left to be evidence, they are still marks of goodness and show something of him. But we have a problem: we cannot understand that as real goodness as there is a lot of ignored obscurity around the subject of evil. The believers are still tacitly weaponising evil and good to promote faith in God!
GOD HAS NO RIGHT TO ALLOW EVIL WHEN HE HAS NO FREE WILL
God has no freedom to sin and yet he is perfect so how can he have the right to make us as free agents who can sin? If he can do without the ability to sin why can't we?
The notion that God gives us free will is about trying to say that God loves us so much that he respects our free choice. But to respect our free choice is not the same as respecting us. You are not respecting a person if you freely let them freely do something very dangerous.
AN ACTION IS REALLY A SUM OF ACTIONS
There is big picture to worry about all the time.
It is evil just to look at what "wrong" somebody has done. An action entails many direct actions and indirect ones. It entails many motives, many intentions. Not all that composes an "action" are really intended. Judging then is a problem. You would need almost supernatural discernment.
Wanting to see evil in a person or event or whatever, is a sign you are evil. That applies if the wanting is moral, psychological, or spiritual. Even if you cannot help it, it is safe to assume that you have become bad by force of habit so you are still disgraceful. You will find ways to make your desire come true.
This says to avoid seeing evil or judging anybody as evil - unless you cannot avoid doing so for the evidence is lucid.
As we learned earlier, the definition of evil is also riddled with wishful thinking and the embrace of a clarity and utility that is not there.
THE DOCTRINE OF EVIL BEING HOSTILE
Evil is hostile to good and what is real. To say evil is the negation of good is to call it in some way hostile and intrinsically malevolent.
Saying evil is maladapted good is to say that it can make you love it and you can make yourself love it. Both things must happen before evil can be done.
The problem is that you are not really loving evil but what you wrongly think good is!
The accusation of loving evil proves that religious people and moralists wrongly accuse you in the name of good.
WHAT ABOUT THINKING EVIL IS SUBSTANTIAL?
If evil is a substantial, then it is stronger than God or can hold its own and thus should be assumed to be permanent.
If evil is permanent, it will want us to assume it can burn out. Why can't evil be a power that will burn out? We cannot be sure of that. Evil afflicting some area and then vanishing means it may have gone elsewhere.
The notion that evil is an uncreated substance means it is permanent and you can be permanently evil and it will never be overcome. It means there are many evils which there is no point in battling.
One reason why people are inconsistent over morality, is that they assume many people in need cannot be helped as if evil has them in its grip and evil is a substance. They make that assumption against groups they feel nothing for.
The notion that evil is substantial and the fact that evil does burn out, implies that you should do evil just to use up the power so that it will be gone for good. Then those affected can move on. This inspires people to use the evil against their enemies or the worst people in society so that it is directed at them instead of being allowed to strike innocent people and maybe children.
Whether it burns out or not makes no difference to the harm done by seeing it as a real substance.
Observations:
People rightly or wrongly do see evil as just that – a substance..
Many will not admit it.
Those who see some evil they encounter or find in themselves as permanent will believe the substance is present so there is no option but to go along with it.
People probably are lying when they say they think good masters evil every time.
PARASITE OBJECTION IS ALL THEY HAVE GOT
The doctrine that good is substantial and evil is not - for it is a lack - says evil is parasitic on good.
The logic is
Evil needs good
Evil is just a distortion of good
Evil is a parasite
Therefore that is all it is and it is a mere distortion.
This is not logical at all.
Imagine evil is a substance as much as good supposedly is. That does not mean that it cannot pretend to be good or to be a mere lack. You can present that tempting glass of water as water when it is poison. Substantial evil will have to target real good by trying to pollute it. So whether substance or not, evil is parasitic on good.
What of the view, "If evil is simply a lack, then in a sense, it is worse than substantial evil. Good being corrupted is worse than good being good and evil being evil and separate."
This is not relevant. It is still saying that overall, evil is not truly abhorrent but a mere void in a sea of good.
By the way, a lack does not have to be a gap but a substance. It is not necessarily a vacuum. So evil can be a substance and also a lack. An analogy is needed. Water and oil do not mix. There is a lack of water where the oil is.
If evil is a substance, or possibly one, then hate for evil people will be inevitable as there is a literal malevolent energy to be feared. And if evil is a mere lack, fear still happens period. Hate will still appear for the idea that evil is a form of good does nothing to make you more endearing to others if you are doing wrong.
GOD USING EVIL TO DO GOOD SEEMS TO JUSTIFY IT AT LEAST A LITTLE
Religion says, "God using evil to do good does nothing to justify the evil even a little. It emphasises the condemnation. It is still totally inexcusable. So if evil is bad anyway it is worse in how it has to be fought with good."
Evil, whatever it is, uses good to mask itself. So you may say that God tolerates a baby suffering terribly for he has found a way to inject good into it. But that is the point. Evil always uses the good purpose to promote itself. It needs the God idea to do that. So religion is wrong.
FORGIVENESS AND EVIL AS NEAR-GOOD
The person who forgives will reason, "That person hurts me for he sees me as a danger. He hates his perception of me and not me and so I forgive. I understand and understanding is necessary for forgiving."
In fact a person who has warped perception is worse than the person who sees you as you are and hates you for it. That person is more dangerous. It is more rational to forgive the person who hates you because he knows you. Whether it is the perception of you that is hated or you, you will still bleed from the knife in your back. It follows then that Christian goodness is not as good as it pretends to be.
THE NOTION THAT EVIL IS NOT EVIL BUT NEAR-GOOD
The notion that evil is not real - but is merely good that is not good enough - leads to some interesting things. What if a person is a cynical malicious gossip? His friends may say, "You tell it as you see it!" That is saying, "You are to be praised for being a gossip." It does not make their condemnations of cynicism and gossip sincere. If you love the person you will be forced to praise what good they do even if it is the good of evil. That you condemn proves that you do not. To view a person as dangerous and harmful makes you hate and that is what hate is all about.
FINALLY
An atheist might see evil as good in the wrong place just like a believer in God does. But at least the atheist is not at risk of seeing it as more good than the believer is. The believer sees God in it.
The believer has no coherent idea of what evil is and should just say, "This murder is good but..."
If they say, "This murder is bad but..." that would still be startling.
The believer cannot ask anybody to believe they do not hate sinners.
The believer is the, perhaps unwitting, friend of evil for they are devoid of any ability to tell us why evil is no more than a lack. They have to imagine instead that evil is a parasite and that is the answer! The rage and disgust that a sin gets, shows that the believers are lying when they make out the sin to them is a nearly good thing.