"Atheist Overreach" by Christian Smith

[Carolla]

Can we really be good without God? Smith delves into this question & how our current day sense of ethics & morals have been shaped by many means over centuries & that religious beliefs were/are one of those means. My minister mentioned hearing this author on CBC Ideas programme recently - https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-good-can-we-really-be-without-god-1.5145125 - so I gave it a listen tonight. Now my head hurts as I am reminded how complex philosophy & sociology are! There was a lot of fascinating points raised, IMO at least. Would be interested in hearing what others think about this ... it's about an hour long.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

I think he made a lot of good points. A couple of questions stand out: He said (paraphrasing because I can't remember his exact words. They were many.) that new atheists can't give a good enough rationale as to why we have to behave to certain moral standards or why it really matters if we don't and that without that necessity for striving to a higher moral standard, they don't have a particularly optimistic out look other than, it will be what it'll be, and it only has to be "good enough" and not to have higher expectations for humanity. And he was critical of that. Then he said he's a follower of Aristotle's philosophy which says we should try to achieve a greater moral good, but not to expect too much. I don't really hear much of a difference in those positions. I wish the interviewer had picked up on that and asked him about it.

The next thing is, why didn't fundamentalism and the dangers of going too far in whatever the religious group claims to be a higher purpose - when it actually does more harm than good (like the Inquision and burning heretics at the stake or justification for deadly bigotry). He supposes that religious people are really kept from sin or breaking the social contract among themselves, even when they can get away with it. I don't think that's true at all of Christians more than anybody else.. I think of a large cohort of (extreme) religious Christians who do not believe that caring about the suffering of humans who are different from them is necessary or even called for. Their primary beliefs are about world destruction and Jesus coming back to pull them out of it and throw everybody else into a fiery pit for eternity. Most of them don't try to be bad but they don't interfere in the destructive process either because they don't believe they are supposed to and that the unbelievers deserve it. They're saved and waiting for Jesus.


Then there are the more moderate even humanistic leaning Christians who are naive enough to believe that with the right approach we can just talk to people and change the worst violent behaviours of people. I am one of those. Mostly. I think there is a small percentage of people who do not have the capacity to refrain from destructive behaviour. It's not something unique to atheism or secularism. Maybe it's naive, maybe it's hopeful but it's better than war. And I do think Jesus taught non-violence over violence, and loving enemies.

I feel like the guest author didn't really have his position clear. He contradicted himself a few times, but I largely agree that total reliance on scientific rationalism will not lead to a better world for all.

Another thing is the dangers of over-enforcement by whatever religious people get to decide what the standards are. I don't see how that's different from many places in the world now.

I'd say: try harder to love our neighbours. Christians can attribute that to Jesus. Atheists hopefully can clearly rationally see what happens when we don't and I don't think even they are going to say "que cera cera" if more wars were to break out and as the world becomes less habitable. I think most of them realize that preserving as much of human life as possible and aiming for human thriving is necessary and preferable.

But I think that Jesus does give an impetus (as well as a commandment) to love one another and that is the whole point, religious or not. It's the human social contract at its most basic.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I got a good chuckle out of it.

Where he says "already today we see certain kinds of backlashes, " he neglects to mention that the world is four fifths religious. And were these so called backlashes are coming from is the morally corrupt religions themselves. When you are following the morals of a corrupt entity corrupt things will happen.
The religious have put aside their own morality, even if they think a thing is wrong they will not question it. If god wants it, then it has to be morally good regardless. Seriously!!!!

Doesn't a huge red flag go up when you see that it does for me.

We only have to take the simplest example for what is innate in us, our instinct for our children. you don't even have to be a parent to have this. if you see a child running in to traffic you automatically respond. The care and love of children is in instinctive, and in many other species too. Who don't have a divine overseer. it is something we all share without having to have it explained to us.

We should always let our conscience be our guide. We should never put our moral aside, and adopt the morals of another, without question. Why do people behave well when no one is looking it isn't from a god, because that would degrade them. it makes it an act that is only done in the hope of a reward or for fear of punishment.
Human solidarity demands we act as brothers and sister. if we didn't have an ethic of reciprocity the human race would have end centuries ago.
We are a social species and social species work together without a divine overseer.

 

[Luce NDs]

Can we really be good without God? Smith delves into this question & how our current day sense of ethics & morals have been shaped by many means over centuries & that religious beliefs were/are one of those means. My minister mentioned hearing this author on CBC Ideas programme recently - https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-good-can-we-really-be-without-god-1.5145125 - so I gave it a listen tonight. Now my head hurts as I am reminded how complex philosophy & sociology are! There was a lot of fascinating points raised, IMO at least. Would be interested in hearing what others think about this ... it's about an hour long.

Heard it too ... thought it contained a critical program. But then some call me hard headed and crazy about learning about unknowns. Given that eternal parts of god are out of reach of mortals ... that's all!

 

[Luce NDs]

I got a good chuckle out of it.

Where he says "already today we see certain kinds of backlashes, " he neglects to mention that the world is four fifths religious. And were these so called backlashes are coming from is the morally corrupt religions themselves. When you are following the morals of a corrupt entity corrupt things will happen.
The religious have put aside their own morality, even if they think a thing is wrong they will not question it. If god wants it, then it has to be morally good regardless. Seriously!!!!

Doesn't a huge red flag go up when you see that it does for me.

We only have to take the simplest example for what is innate in us, our instinct for our children. you don't even have to be a parent to have this. if you see a child running in to traffic you automatically respond. The care and love of children is in instinctive, and in many other species too. Who don't have a divine overseer. it is something we all share without having to have it explained to us.

We should always let our conscience be our guide. We should never put our moral aside, and adopt the morals of another, without question. Why do people behave well when no one is looking it isn't from a god, because that would degrade them. it makes it an act that is only done in the hope of a reward or for fear of punishment.
Human solidarity demands we act as brothers and sister. if we didn't have an ethic of reciprocity the human race would have end centuries ago.
We are a social species and social species work together without a divine overseer.

Thus that dark seed of mine deus ... if you can put 2 and 2 together to come forth with a complex pentagraph ... simple beliers wouldn't accept the mental conflicts involved with such mines ... to deep and complex! Here the simple loses contact with the greater complexities --- Carl Sagan!

Consider how little we know of the night sky and its extremities as a metaphor or whatever! "Why?" we may ask in some more open cliques!

 

[revjohn]

Can we really be good without God?

This begs a question which, for the Christian, Jesus already answered.

Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Which, read properly suggests that even those of us who are with God do not qualify as good. If Jesus had instead responded, "No one is good but God and the godly" then there would be justification (for the Christian at the very least) to claim that without God nobody is good.

Jesus earlier in responding to a question about prayer by saying,

11 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? 12 Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? 13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Here Jesus suggests that there is a difference between "being" good and "doing" good. Taking Jesus at his word nobody but God succeeds in "being" good. Everyone is capable of "doing" good.

With that understanding, all people are capable of acting ethically. They may not be consistent in their ethics and the ethical system to which they subscribe may differ from the ethical system of another there seems to be some consensus that good ethical systems share a concern for the well-being of others which qualifies as "doing" good.

So in response to the initial question,

Can we really be good without God?

I would say. No, we cannot really be good without God. Neither are we really good with God. Being good is the domain of God alone. There is nothing prohibiting those with God and those without God from doing good if they wish.

 

[unsafe]

revjohn ----your quote -----
There is nothing prohibiting those with God and those without God from doing good if they wish.


How does that work in your belief of Divine Sovereignty --that is the Calvinist belief that God is in Controls of all we do ----and here you say ------doing good---- if they wish. -------wouldn't it be God that is directing the person and not themselves in the good and bad each of us do if God controls everything ?------if God choses to save some and not others why wouldn't it be the same for going good or bad in our life ?

 

[Mendalla]

that is the Calvinist belief that God is in Controls of all we do

No, God is in control of our final destiny, not the minutiae of daily life. John's explained that many times. Predestination does not equal predetermination.

 

[revjohn]

How does that work in your belief of Divine Sovereignty

People still doing good are no threat to God's Sovereignty

that is the Calvinist belief that God is in Controls of all we do

No. It is not. You are confusing predeterminism with predestination.

Predeterminism is the doctrine which claims humans merely play parts that are already scripted for them.

Predestination is the doctrine which claims God elects individuals to salvation prior to the creation of the universe.

if God choses to save some and not others why wouldn't it be the same for going good or bad in our life ?

Since God saves whom God chooses to save salvation is grace based not merit-based. What happens between birth and death or even second birth and death is a matter of choices we make.

Totally Depraved individuals still make choices. They are not absolutely free to make any choice that can be conceived. Doing good is not a matter of being saved or not.

 

[unsafe]

revjohn ---Thanks for your clarification ----

 

[Carolla]

We only have to take the simplest example for what is innate in us, our instinct for our children. you don't even have to be a parent to have this. if you see a child running in to traffic you automatically respond. The care and love of children is in instinctive, and in many other species too. Who don't have a divine overseer. it is something we all share without having to have it explained to us.

Mostly true - although I do remember my guppies & black mollie males eating their young ... so I guess protection is not universal.

But that aside ... yes, we humans most often protect our young - again, not totally accurate. But when we see young in danger, what stops us from attacking & killing that which seems to pose a threat? Where does the notion come from to avoid that extreme action? I think the author is pointing out that other philosophies, not necessarily just organized religion, has contributed to development of moral standards we hold true to in 'Western' society. But at some level, spiritual beliefs may have informed those philosophical positions. That these do inform current social behaviours based on values - whether or not we espouse those beliefs personally. Atheism is not found in a vacuum, I guess he's saying, and if it were, then it would not necessarily espouse working for common good. At least that was my take on it.

 

[mgagnonlv]

Can we really be good without God?

I think so, but why should we be good? That's the real question. Without God, I think there are a few reasons to be good anyways, but all reasons may not be that good:

• Tradition and culture. We live in a post-Christian era, where most people have little knowledge of God and religion. Most people hear of those right-wing "Christians" in US (and we have some here) and of those old folks who still go to church. Direct cultural references are slowly disappearing as those who are currently teenagers and young adults have been raised by parents who never went to church; yet our Criminal and Civil Codes are full of rules that are in line with our Christian heritage.
  
  
• A reverse "eye for eye" philosophy. We always talk about "eye for eye" as being vengeful. But what if most people get it the other way around, and what if they see that doing good things is a way to hope that other people will do good things to them?

In a nutshell, I see God and faith as a way to make sense of it all. I try to be a good guy not just to get brownie points, but most importantly because I am guided by the Holy Spirit. And unfortunately, I don't always follow that light.

 

[unsafe]

From OP -----Can we really be good without God? ------


Transcript: The Moral Argument

Can you be good without God? Let’s find out! [Atheist helps kitten out of tree.] Absolutely astounding! There you have it - undeniable proof that you can be good without believing in God!

But wait!

The question isn’t “Can you be good without believing in God.” The question is: “Can you be good without God?”

See, here’s the problem: If there is no God, what basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong? If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

And here’s why.

Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God’s nature provides an objective reference point for moral values – it’s the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. But if there’s no God, there’s no objective reference point. All we’re left with is one person’s viewpoint – which is no more valid than any one else’s viewpoint.

This kind of morality is subjective, not objective. It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream – the preference is in the subject, not the object. So it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject; it’s not valid or binding for anyone else.

So, in a world without God, there can be “… no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, Atheist)[1]

God has expressed his moral nature to us as commands. These provide the basis for moral duties. For example, God’s essential attribute of love is expressed in his command to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). This command provides a foundation upon which we can affirm the objective goodness of generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality. And we can condemn as objectively evil greed, abuse, and discrimination.

This raises a problem: is something good just because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The answer is: neither one! Rather, God wills something because He is good.

God is the standard of moral values just as a live musical performance is the standard for a high-fidelity recording. The more a recording sounds like the original, the better it is. Likewise, the more closely a moral action conforms to God’s nature, the better it is.

But if atheism is true, there is no ultimate standard so there can be no moral obligations or duties. Who or what lays such duties upon us? No one.

Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature – highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. The cat’s just being a cat. If God doesn’t exist then we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

But the problem is – good and bad, right and wrong do exist! Just as our sense experience convinces us that the physical world is objectively real, our moral experience convinces us that moral values are objectively real. Every time you say, “Hey, that’s not fair! That’s wrong! That’s an injustice!” you affirm your belief in the existence of objective morals.

This is the video for those who would rather watch it ---4 min and a bit ----

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

 

[Ritafee]

When you are following the morals of a corrupt entity corrupt things will happen.

Parliament, is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies and the British Overseas Territories.[3][4] It alone possesses legislative supremacy and thereby ultimate power over all other political bodies in the UK and the overseas territories. Parliament is bicameral but has three parts, consisting of the Sovereign (the Queen-in-Parliament), the House of Lords, and the House of Commons (the primary chamber).[5][6] The two houses meet in the Palace of Westminster in the City of Westminster, one of the inner boroughs of the capital city, London.

The House of Lords includes two different types of members: the Lords Spiritual, consisting of the most senior bishops of the Church of England, and the Lords Temporal, consisting mainly of life peers, appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister,[7] and of 92 hereditary peers, sitting either by virtue of holding a royal office, or by being elected by their fellow hereditary peers. Prior to the opening of the Supreme Court in October 2009, the House of Lords also performed a judicial role through the Law Lords.

 

[Luce NDs]

Could the Law Lords go against the common people as a simple matter of corrupt imbalance?

There! off on a winger ...

 

[revsdd]

revjohn ----your quote -----
There is nothing prohibiting those with God and those without God from doing good if they wish.


How does that work in your belief of Divine Sovereignty --that is the Calvinist belief that God is in Controls of all we do

You've just demonstrated that you don't understand calvinism. Calvinists do not believe "that God is in control of all we do." That's pre-determinism. Calvinists believe in predestination - that God sovereignly decides our eternal destiny.

EDIT: And, of course, as I read further into the thread I discovered that revjohn had already responded and explained. Carry on folks!

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Parliament, < snip >the Law Lords.

Your point in regard to god and morality?

 

[Ritafee]

We should always let our conscience be our guide. We should never put our moral aside, and adopt the morals of another, without question. Why do people behave well when no one is looking it isn't from a god, because that would degrade them. it makes it an act that is only done in the hope of a reward or for fear of punishment.
Human solidarity demands we act as brothers and sister. if we didn't have an ethic of reciprocity the human race would have end centuries ago.
We are a social species and social species work together without a divine overseer.

Your point in regard to god and morality?

Inability to parse complex subjects or thought and unwillingness to extend humanity to those with whom they disagree, a lack of compassion or humility, and a devotion to a way of thought that defines whether they do good or not has more to do with hope of reward or fear of punishment from the 'state' than from 'god'. 'God consciousness' allows for doing good in spite of 'State consciousness'.

Most 'systems' have something 'good' in them, it is just that when they insist on becoming THE system to which everyone else must subscribe that they become oppressive and dangerous. It does not matter whether this is science, monotheistic religion, meritocratic systems, a particular form of social justice activism, technological medicine, corporate capitalism, or what have you.

Supplanting 'god' with 'state', does not necessarily demonstrate a willingness to change or grow in our moral maturity. To fully face up to our human limitations, we need to do better ... not merely repeat the same 'errors of conscience' under the name of 'state' instead of 'god'. It does not matter the field: religion, medicine, science, social justice activism, or our relations with other people.

Repeating the behaviors of any 'system' we wish to supplant only perpetuates the problem. The situation all of us now face in this world, that none of us can escape, has been created by flawed thinking around flawed 'parliaments' of both church and state. It is a philosophical problem. Legal goodness does not necessarily translate into moral goodness. In another thread you mentioned 'government sanctioned' applications ... like that was proof of 'moral high ground'.

 

[Mendalla]

Legal goodness does not necessarily translate into moral goodness.

In fact, laws can be immoral. Look at the anti-gay laws that we in Canada, and much of the West, are finally repudiating even as other countries double down on them.

Goodness does not come from religion or politics or law or business or any other such human institution. It is something that is needed in all of them, though.

 

[GeoFee]

Character stands close to the heart of human well being. A kind, generous atheist does more good for us all than a self-serving theist, for example. Where character declines society declines.