Can We Be Good Without God

Catholic Educator's Resource Center/ Boundless (December 6, 2001). ^ | MARK BRUMLEY

[st.smith]

How about "anybody who says they speak for or understand god is not being honest with themselves or me"?

This is what is known as a self-referentially false statement. It sounds humble, but it couldn't be any more arrogant- to claim that nothing can be known about God is to really to claim that 'I know everything that could possibly be known about God and thus I can state that God cannot be understood.

If you really thought nothing could be known about God- you would state it in propositional form- because you really couldn't be sure about that which is unknowable.

[st.smith]

I can see how you account for the existence of morality(I disagree, but I can understand it). But why would your conception of morality be binding absolutely?- technically all we are violating are rational standards that have shown over time to be good for the community.

I think it would follow that if one could act immorally without doing any harm to the community it would be licit. For example, say I am on a desert island with other people, like the show Survivor. If I am able to better engender my own pleasure by eliminating those competing for very scarce resources could I not licitly do so? There would be no universal consequences as all would never leave the island anyway. What say ye, lexcorp?

[Texas Gal]

The more important question is "can we be good with God?" Morality and righteousness becomes pretty phony looking when the promise of eternal reward for such behavior is offered, and eternal damantion for diversion from such behavior. Remove that reward/punishment, and people are/do good for it's own sake.

 

I would never want to discourage anyone from doing good, for whatever reason they found to do good. 
But the fact is that sane people who give thought to, and choose, their actions do so on the basis of what they hope will be a good outcome. 
It is then impossible to remove the reward/punishment aspect, even for people who completely do not believe in God,
so why attempt to downplay the reward/punishment aspect for people who do believe in God?
If someone believes in God, and they want to do good, should they hesitate and say to themselves, "Hmmmmmm, I want to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and I want to glorify God in my life, but it would just be so phoney for me to do that, because deep down I believe God will take me to an exquisite existence in heaven after I die if I am obedient to him, so I guess I'd better just go get wasted and party until my money is all gone, and then go knock off a convenience store."

You are advocating doing good for goodness sake (which is part of a song where you know that you really do good because Santa is watching you).  Do good for whatever reason you find to do it, but let's not put a damper on someone doing good for a reason you don't like .   And remember, moral relativism means your "good" is "bad" to someone somewhere, and maybe they think it's so bad that the only way they can find to be good is to kill you for being bad.  Moral relativism is BAD.

[wwjdn]

Thanks.

[FairWitness]

Can we be educated without schools? Some will, most won't.

Can we be healthy without exercise and a good diet? Some will, most won't.

"Can we be good without God?" Some will, most won't.

[Dr. Good Will Hunting]

Moral relativism is BAD.

Very true.

[eleni121]

Exactly. As befit their national socialistic beliefs in paganism.

[eleni121]

The first part is exactly what I said. The weak argument appears in your second sentence. Quite a leap...from a humanist perspective to rational, ethical behavior. Doesn't work that way.

[gjenkins]

God is everything. If we do not understand everything, then we do not understand god.

[steve-b]

But then I asked him whether he thought he could go a week without selfishness, without resentment, without lust. I asked whether he thought he could go a day, an hour, ten minutes.

What an idiot. Nobody meets that standard whether they believe in God or not -- hence, his own argument reduces God to irrelevance.

[steve-b]

"Can we be good without God?" Some will, most won't.

Again, this is true independent of religious belief. People inclined to evil will simply pervert religious belief into the service of evil (as has been demonstrated time and time again, and rather dramatically a few months ago).

[Antoninus]

Can we be good without God? Yes, it's possible. Just highly unlikely. Men have enough trouble being good when they know that God is watching. Once we adopt the belief that there is no God, there is suddenly no obligation to do good and a great temptation to do evil to achieve immediate personal gain or satisfaction.

Lord knows, atheistic societies have certainly attracted flocks of immigrants wishing to bask in their gentle goodness... Can you say 'track record'?

[al_c]

"Can we be good without God?"

We can't even be without God.

[Antoninus]

And speaking as an agnostic, I understand them and their drive for good fully... and I share it.

It's interesting that for an 'agnostic' you've posted dozens of time to this religion-oriented thread. Which leads to my eternal question: Why do agnostics and atheists gravitate toward religious discussions? After discussing this question with many of them, I think I know the answer.

My other question is - why are atheists more judgemental, intrusive, annoying, and persistent evangelists of their 'faith' than either Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses?

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Very good.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Why do agnostics and atheists gravitate toward religious discussions?

Like the tongue going to a sore tooth in the mouth of the man who fears the dentist...(I made that one up, you can quote me on it...)

[tortoise]

We can't even be without God.

Can you demonstrate the validity of that assertion?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I believe that goodbye is a contraction of "God be with ye."

[tortoise]

Why do agnostics and atheists gravitate toward religious discussions?

Entertainment value.