Can We Be Good Without God

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

[al_c]

We can't even be without God.

Can you demonstrate the validity of that assertion?

John 15:5 says, "I am the vine, you are the branches. He that abides in me and I in him bears much fruit; for without me you can do nothing."

[FourtySeven]

If there is no universal truth, then it was ok for Clinton to lie under oath, because for him, it was the right thing to do.

[The Green Goblin]

The morality theists believe in is universal, unchanging, and eternal. I don't think you can hold to that claim- your metaphysical commitments do not allow you to.

While you would certainly like to use that statement to advance your argument, there is absolutely no evidence available suggesting that the arguments of theists are based on anything that is eternal and unchanging.

[semaj]

"Those who cannot determine right from wrong unless they think that Divine Judgement will b1tch slap 'em are creepy and are at risk of snapping. Those who know right from wrong because they know right from wrong are less of a concern."

I guess your wiser than Abraham Lincoln, for he said ..."if not for the Bible, we would not know right from wrong."

The bitch slapping will be reserved for ignoramuses like you.

[lavaroise]

Oh gees, what a prosecutorial question against religion, devoid of objectivity. Why not ask instead: can we be good as slaves of physics? or as slaves of lesser gods?

Frankly, to ask the question is to answer it.

[Doctor Doom]

So, are we non-believers just hung up on taking comic book bad guy screen names, or what?

(Great posts on this thread, gentlemen.)

[Gargantua]

"Can we be good without God?"

No. We can't even be good with Him. But, with Jesus, we can be forgiven for being sinners.

[semaj]

"Someone proclaiming to have absolute morals would either answer, "yes" or "no" here. Reality is far, far more complex."

You're full of it and don't even know it. In the above statement, you claim there are no absolutes, yet the same statement is an absolute in itself. You are saying that there are absolutely no absolute morals. You're so impressed with your own "wisdom" that you're blinded by it. What arrogance.

[ArGee]

I enjoy Budziszewski when I read him in World, but he isn't always the easiest to follow. I have not found a better discussion of the question than that by C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man although most publicly schooled people can't follow that one very well either.

Thanks for the article.

Shalom.

[st.smith]

there is absolutely no evidence available suggesting that the arguments of theists are based on anything that is eternal and unchanging.

There is philosophical evidence. But I doubt that is what you referring to. If you are referring to empirical evidence- it doesn't exist, nor does it need to. I wasn't even making the argument you attribute to me- I said theists believe in an eternal and unchanging morality, I didn't say it was demonstrable. I was making the point that if morality is liable to change at any time, as I would believe to be the case in a naturalistic universe, then they would seem to take on a rather arbitrary character.

[The Green Goblin]

There is philosophical evidence.

It is my contention that your philosophical evidence cannot (and does not) establish an eternal, unchanging morality of God.

[The Green Goblin]

I said theists believe in an eternal and unchanging morality, I didn't say it was demonstrable. I was making the point that if morality is liable to change at any time, as I would believe to be the case in a naturalistic universe, then they would seem to take on a rather arbitrary character.

If there is no evidence for such a belief, then how are we to know that an unsubstantiated "eternal morality" wouldn't suddenly change just as it easily might in a naturalistic world?

[st.smith]

Do you believe the existence of an eternal, intelligent being can be shown on a rational philosophical basis?

[The Green Goblin]

The ontological argument is the only purely rational (or purely logical) "proof" of the existence of God, and I believe that argument has been proven false long ago.

[st.smith]

If there is no evidence for such a belief, then how are we to know that an unsubstantiated "eternal morality" wouldn't suddenly change just as it easily might in a naturalistic world?

Because, as I posited earlier, if God exists- then as an eternal being he is immutable and unchangable. He is pure act- unchanging act. He does not act temporally as you and I and all other created beings do. His action is eternal. The laws he promulgated with the creation of the universe would be the laws of the universe as long as it exists.