If you believe that people are basically good ?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, December 31, 2002 | Dennis Prager

[JohnHuang2]

No issue has a greater influence on determining your social and political views than whether you view human nature as basically good or not.

In 20 years as a radio talk-show host, I have dialogued with thousands of people, of both sexes and from virtually every religious, ethnic and national background. Very early on, I realized that perhaps the major reason for political and other disagreements I had with callers was that they believed people are basically good, and I did not. I believe that we are born with tendencies toward both good and evil. Yes, babies are born innocent, but not good.

Why is this issue so important?

First, if you believe people are born good, you will attribute evil to forces outside the individual. That is why, for example, our secular humanistic culture so often attributes evil to poverty. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, former President Jimmy Carter and millions of other Westerners believe that the cause of Islamic terror is poverty. They really believe that people who strap bombs to their bodies to blow up families in pizzerias in Israel, plant bombs at a nightclub in Bali, slit stewardesses' throats and ram airplanes filled with innocent Americans into office buildings do so because they lack sufficient incomes.

Something in these people cannot accept the fact that many people have evil values and choose evil for reasons having nothing to do with their economic situation. The Carters and Murrays of the West – representatives of that huge group of naive Westerners identified by the once proud title "liberal" – do not understand that no amount of money will dissuade those who believe that God wants them to rule the world and murder all those they deem infidels.

Second, if you believe people are born good, you will not stress character development when you raise children. You will have schools teach young people how to use condoms, how to avoid first and secondhand tobacco smoke, how to recycle and how to prevent rainforests from disappearing. You will teach them how to struggle against the evils of society – its sexism, its racism, its classism and its homophobia. But you will not teach them that the primary struggle they have to wage to make a better world is against their own nature.

I attended Jewish religious schools (yeshivas) until the age of 18, and aside from being taught that moral rules come from God rather than from personal or world opinion, this was the greatest difference between my education and those who attended public and private secular schools. They learned that their greatest struggles were with society, and I learned that the greatest struggle was with me, and my natural inclinations to laziness, insatiable appetites and self-centeredness.

Third, if you believe that people are basically good, God and religion are morally unnecessary, even harmful. Why would basically good people need a God or religion to provide moral standards? Therefore, the crowd that believes in innate human goodness tends to either be secular or to reduce God and religion to social workers, providers of compassion rather than of moral standards and moral judgments.

Fourth, if you believe people are basically good, you, of course, believe that you are good – and therefore those who disagree with you must be bad, not merely wrong. You also believe that the more power that you and those you agree with have, the better the society will be. That is why such people are so committed to powerful government and to powerful judges. On the other hand, those of us who believe that people are not basically good do not want power concentrated in any one group, and are therefore profoundly suspicious of big government, big labor, big corporations and even big religious institutions. As Lord Acton said long ago, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton did not believe people are basically good.

No great body of wisdom, East or West, ever posited that people were basically good. This naive and dangerous notion originated in modern secular Western thought, probably with Jean Jacques Rousseau, the Frenchman who gave us the notion of pre-modern man as a noble savage.

He was half right. Savage, yes, noble, no.

If the West does not soon reject Rousseau and humanism and begin to recognize evil, judge it and confront it, it will find itself incapable of fighting savages who are not noble.

[Phaedrus]

You seemed to be obfuscating to me. I don't feel I have, but if I misunderstood you in some way, then I apologize.

No apology is necessary since it is clear that you are sincere and if I appear to obfuscate, then I apologize to you. That is not my intent. I do sometimes speak more in "sound bites" than I should and I sometimes exaggerate to make a point, but I am also quite sincere.

I wish you the best as well for the New Year.

[TBP]

You and Prager operate on the assumption that there are "evil people" as if it's inherent. I don't think there are inherently evil; I think people make choices to do things that harm others and/or society. But you can't impute certain beliefs to people based on their beliefs on this particular matter, which Prager assumes he can do.

[onedoug]

I understand Prager to be saying that goodness can only be earned, that evil emanates only from the human mind and that it must be named, confronted and fought.

These all demand choices. The only thing "inherent" in them is that God is good, which I personally believe He needs us to aspire to.

And of course "you" CAN "impute certain beliefs to people based on their beliefs on this..." or any other "particular matter".

They either have the courage to actuate their beliefs, which are fundamental, or they don't.

[watchin]

Right on target. My own conclusions are reflected here.

I think this explains the basic difference between the capitalist/democratic USA, and the socialist/totalitarian USSR - as well as the outcome of their struggle.

The Soviet Union relied on people, like ants, working for the good of the nation. The motivation to produce was the supposed good in man - a willingness to sacrifice for the good of the group without personal reward. This is wishful thinking, and it opens the door to tyranny, since leaders are to be trusted.

The USA functions more realistically, realizing that people are motivated by personal gain. If that can be channeled into good for the nation, then there's no stopping us. This might sound crass, but it's realistic. Sure, we'll sacrifice for the country under certain conditions, but that's not the mechanism that powers our nation.

It's a self-centered desire to get ahead that powers this nation. Our founding fathers harnessed the fire of man's nature, putting what is worst in our nature to work for good. This also explains the checks and balances in our Constitution. They would not be necessary if men were basically good.

Idealism is fine for theories, but facing reality produces answers that work.

[watchin]

You're taking credit for choosing to be a Calvinist? You chose to believe that you were predestined to believe? Interesting.

[watchin]

You make a lot of good points. Differences in definitions are causing arguments and name-calling here.

The Bible does say that all have sinned, and that our righteous acts are as filthy rags - indicating that our condition is hopeless without a Savior.

I do not believe it follows, however, that every word, thought, and deed is therefore "evil", in the more aggresive sense of word - Jack the Ripper and Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?) come to mind. The word "evil", though Biblical, conjures up images much more savage than we generally see around us. Perhaps the word is Biblical, but the images are not. It doesn't take a Christian to recognize and appreciate goodness, kindness, and mercy.

Let me toss out an analogy for everyone to attack: Original sin is like a hole in the ground. We're born in the hole, and no amount of climbing will get us out. All of our efforts are futile - as a matter of fact, we usually dig ourselves in even deeper. If you want to call that "inherently evil", fine. We need a Savior.

But the fact that we can't get ourselves out doesn't mean that we can't look up, or climb a bit before tumbling back down. Calling that "inherently good" is a stretch. Those efforts are in the right direction, except for the important point that they deny our only way out. Climbing the sides of the hole when God has thrown us a rope is wrong ... defiant, rebellious ... evil.

Man can do good, but relying on his goodness is a rejection of the Gospel - which can turn even our righteous acts into filthy rags.

So a given action can be "good" in and of itself, and yet "evil" when counted on as an alternative to Christ. In that sense we need not be incapable of good to be considered hopelessly "evil".

[Phaedrus]

Thank you for your fine contribution, which I take as much addressed to "all" as to me.

There is great correspondence between my structure of belief and philosophical Christianity and those who are familiar with my posts will, I think, agree that I am among the most effective debaters against the so-called Theory of Evolution as well as for Christianity as the essential foundation of Western Civilization. We part ways, I think, when specific doctrine and dogma and the primacy of the institutional church come into play. But this in no way degrades or overcomes my deep respect for and agreement with philosophical Christianity.

I could go more into my structure of belief with the outcome that it might cause controversy here but that, I think, would be counter-productive. The "bottom line" for me is that Christianity is reponsible for Western Civilization, for very good and specific reasons, and I would not want to live in a non-Christian society, so I would emphasize those areas of correspondence to which I refer.

[rwfromkansas]

You obviously don't know anything about Calvinism or you would not have asked such a silly question.

I chose, but it was within God's plan for me to believe his truth also.

When it comes to actually being saved, God did it ALL.

[paul51]

I believe most people are basically good. That doesn't change the fact that we should watch out for those among us that are evil incarnate.

[TBP]

I understand Prager to be saying that goodness can only be earned,

I disagree with this. If we are the image and likeness of God, since we know that God is beyond physical form, then this must mean spiritually. If so, then the Love that God is must be reflected through us. That would be inherent in our very being. That is why every human being is important and every human life is sacred.

that evil emanates only from the human mind and that it must be named, confronted and fought.

That's partially right, IMO. Evil is an illusion stemming from the human mind -- the Collective Unconscious, the Race Mind of humanity -- and while struggling against it can merely give it energy, it does need to be purged from our consciousness.

These all demand choices. The only thing "inherent" in them is that God is good, which I personally believe He needs us to aspire to.

We are always choosing, every moment of our lives. Why does God, who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, need us to aspire to anything? A God that needs to be worshipped would be a pretty insecure God. What God needs us to do is express the Love that we are in God as fully and completely as we can. This is a choice, an ongoing one, made every moment.

And of course "you" CAN "impute certain beliefs to people based on their beliefs on this..." or any other "particular matter".

Certainly not in the way that Prager is attempting to do. He attributes certain political and social beliefs to EVERYONE who holds that mankind is inherently good, yet at least one of them contradicts that very belief.

I can tell you that these political and social beliefs are not either universal among those who accept man's goodness as a premise, nor do they follow logically. One is not a necessay adjunct of the other.

[snowstorm12]

b

[onedoug]

Okay. No quarrel. But...

If we are the image and likeness of God, since we know that God is beyond physical form, then this must mean spiritually. If so, then the Love that God is must be reflected through us. That would be inherent in our very being. That is why every human being is important and every human life is sacred.

The image and likeness of God would also seem to refer to our ability to abtsract information from our environment, and derive meaning from it, which only the human is capable of.

God is also more than Love. God is justice. Truth. And morality, to which end He gives us free will thus to choose. Debits or credits to our souls. Reward and punishment. That earned as opposed to spent. The sacredness and importance of human life comes ultimately to the good or evil it does. In terms of evil, the life of Saddam, for example, can hardly be deemed sacred, and his importance understood only by how necessary it is to get rid of him for good to prevail.

We are always choosing , every moment of our lives. Why does God, who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent, need us to aspire to anything? A God that needs to be worshipped would be a pretty insecure God. What God needs us to do is express the Love that we are in God as fully and completely as we can. This is a choice, an ongoing one, made every moment.

My emphases, forgive me.

Admitedly "why" God created us is but ontological speculation, for if I knew Him, I would be Him. But indeed, why? given His Oneness you note.

If God is also good (which I believe He is) then certainly he "wants" us to aspire to that Good, we then, even more greatly in his image and likeness.

Are good and evil accounted like energy in existence, in and out, balanced as in thermodynamics? Even a quantum good that God might derive from the greater good than evil that humanity does, might leave Him with a net gain in goodness, which as coming from Man it would be hard to imagine God as not exceedingly pleased. Wouldn't God seem worshipped in that process?

Does He need it? In that sense, could God possibly "feed" from our doing good?

I can tell you that these political and social beliefs are not either universal among those who accept man's goodness as a premise, nor do they follow logically. One is not a necessay adjunct of the other.

I believe that because there is only One God there is only One Morality for all mankind. That God's principle demand on us is deceny toward others, and that "deed" is more important than "creed".

Everything GOOD then, to you.

[onedoug]

Now, now.... "Judeo"-Christianity is reponsible for Western Civilization

"...will, I think, agree that I am among the most effective debaters against the so-called Theory of Evolution as well as...."

"A little modesty might suit you better, Mozart." -Amadeus

[Phaedrus]

Pheadrus: ... I am among the most effective debaters against the so-called Theory of Evolution ...

onedoug: "A little modesty might suit you better, Mozart." -Amadeus

LOL! I should add, I suppose, that the acolytes of the so-called Theory of Evolution are rather easily defeated since they do not have the facts or the evidence. These people, onedoug, are fundamentally anti-Christian and I am not. Does this put things in better perspective?

[Destructor]

No. People are basically selfish, and self-centered. Only God is good.