A serious look at whether we can be good without God

As I use the term (and hear others use it), it's a person's answers to the big questions of life, such as why we're here, whether truth exists outside of us, whether we're designed or just accidents of nature. All the big answers that then inform everything else. I guess if the answers are consistent and cohere nicely, then it's a person's top-level framework of understanding for existence, life, etc. EDTA

Is worldview associated with our view of the ultimate reality? For many the ultimate reality is based on matter and energy For Christians it’s based on John 1:1-3 PaoloV

Two irreconcilable opposite worldviews: On one end those who believe that everything that is can be reduced to matter and energy. On the other end those who believe what is written in John 1:1-3 “In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made.” Science is pointing more and more at the latter. Since the beginning of last century a German guy named Max Planck stated that mind is primary and matter/energy derived. PaoloV

To be clearer about this concept I am using, a worldview could be considered one's largest framework about fundamental matters. hazel

I agree, EDTA. hazel

Hazel, >People have frameworks about political issues, education, child rearing, environmental issues, etc. It means a structure of basic assumptions, beliefs, values, and choices that a person has within which they think about all the details of a subject. My definition of a worldview is something even more fundamental, which would inform all of the above. EDTA

Hi Marfin, First, framework is a general word that applies to just more than a worldview. People have frameworks about political issues, education, child rearing, environmental issues, etc. It means a structure of basic assumptions, beliefs, values, and choices that a person has within which they think about all the details of a subject. Your framework includes the idea of “defining good and evil”. Can you explain more? Does that mean providing verbal statements that assert what the words good and evil mean? (That is a standard meaning of "definition", I think.) If so, what is your definition of good and evil? hazel

Hazel re 31. Framework as described in your Post at 20 re George Lakoff is just another word for worldview so please define good and evil through the lens of your framework or worldview .Then let us see if its once again its just one persons opinion as to what good and evil is or is it perhaps something greater. Marfin

re 30: Marfin, I pointed out that I am not a materialist, and I don't think you got the point of my post on frameworks. But your summary is not a correct description of my views. hazel

Hazel , by framework you mean your worldview, opinion,feeling about something, so morality is what feels right to the individual as frameworks differ from person to person and there is no solid foundation for good and evil for the atheist , materialist. Marfin

Thanks. I may have time to write about that in the morning: I'd appreciate the discussion. hazel

I'm asking about the general framework concept. EDTA

EDTA, by "your framework idea" do you mean this general theory about frameworks that I am describing, or do you mean my (or anyone's) particular framework? I'm not sure which of those two you are referring to. hazel

Hazel, how do you know that your framework idea is correct enough to warrant using it? EDTA

Again, an example of what I'm talking about. The phrase "more firmly grounded" as a positive criteria is part of framework A, therefore framework B is deficient, in A's eyes, because it is not as "firmly grounded." But this is judging by Framework A's perspective, which already contains the implicit decision that Framework A's perspective that "firmly grounded" is an essential way to judge is correct. hazel

Yes, we would have to step up a level, and debate whose framework made the most sense. I suggest that any relativistic framework is going to have a hard time in the ring with any that is grounded more firmly. That sums up a lot of the points we make around here (KF in particular), but those with a relativistic framework have a hard time with those more firmly grounded... EDTA

Hazel states and then quotes, " I am not a materialist, so maybe I don’t count, and then,, "it is important to not try to argue for one’s own position within the framework of the other person, because doing so implicitly recognizes and supports the other person’s foundational assumptions." Apparently you need to take your own advice, as well as the quote that you yourself cited, to heart. Atheistic materialism is completely amoral and yet atheists apparently see nothing peculiar with the fact that they themselves become raging moralists when they rage about how morally awful God is (Dawkins, Seversky, BB), and also on how morally awful Christians are. i.e. Their worldview denies the existence of objective moral standards and holds that they are merely subjective and illusory, and yet they themselves act as if there really are objective moral standards that are binding to all humans and even act as if they are binding to God. In other words, the way that atheists themselves live their own personal lives, as if objective morality really does exist, falsifies their claim that morality is merely subjective and illusory.

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3

Dawkins himself admitted that it would be 'intolerable' for him to live his life as if his atheistic materialism were actually true

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

And again, Atheists have to steal objective morality from Theism in order to attack God and Christians in the first place (as Seversky and BB have repeatedly done on UD):

The Universe Reflects a Mind - Michael Egnor - February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

For atheists to have to 'borrow' objective morality from Theists in order to attack God and Christians as somehow being morally deficient is again, as Cornelius Van Til put it, "like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face.”

“Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him.” – Cornelius Hunter Photo- Atheist contemplating his own mind http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg

Of supplemental note: Out of all the mono-Theistic religions, only the grace inherent within Christianity realistically and sufficiently bridges the infinite moral gap between God's moral perfection and humanity's moral imperfection. The unmerited grace of Christ bridging that infinite moral gap on the behalf of humans is called "propitiation":

Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/ Tim Keller - The Mountain - The Terrifying and Beckoning God – (the unapproachable God of the old testament vs. the approachable God of the new testament) - sermon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6tnnU_wUi8 G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385

Verse and video:

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words "The Lamb" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

bornagain77

EDTA writes, "How do you, Sev and others, objectively place some Christian actions into a “good” category and others into an “evil” category, without an objective reference?" This is a perfect example of my point in 20. hazel

Sev @ 13, >The problem with religion is that it seems to amplify both. It can inspire people to great acts of courage, compassion, generosity and kindness. But, unfortunately, in the minds of some, it can justify all manner of atrocities in pursuance of their ‘one true faith’. Then perhaps we should ask which--in, say, the last 100 years of human history, gets amplified the most by which belief system. Christianity seems pretty benign _in relative terms_ in that time frame, statistically speaking. (We could discuss the Crusades all night, but we're not living in the 1100's anymore. At least I'm not.) Re Marfin @ 11, you all are correct that without that "infinite reference point" mentioned by Sartre (of all people), those who reject God have no way to define good/evil. (Yes, the rest of us sometimes have trouble with that also. But at least we believe a basis is out there for us to discover, if we listen well enough.) Those who always bring up the Crusades (etc.) have in fact stumbled into Hazel's framework trap, and assumed the theist's frame of reference. How do you, Sev and others, objectively place some Christian actions into a "good" category and others into an "evil" category, without an objective reference? (I think I know the answer, since you have described your views here already. But the question still nags at all of us, as it seems that non-theistic answers are and indeed must be subjective in the extreme.) EDTA

Marfin at 11 and 19:

Brian or any other atheist/materialist before you can do good or evil right or wrong can one of you please give a definition of what criteria you use to define good and evil , and how you know you are correct. ... Any takers on my post at 11 ,or will it be ignored as usual . We all know you cannot make claims re moral standards of good and evil without a definition of good and evil , but alas once again we wait, so how about it BB , Seversky , Bob o H, Hazel , et al

Well, I am not a materialist, so maybe I don’t count, but I have a meta-comment. George Lakoff talks about frameworks: we all start with frameworks of understanding which have a structure of underlying assumptions that the holder of the framework accepts uncritically as fundamental truth. Furthermore, says Lakoff, when discussing with someone that holds a different framework than one’s own, it is important to not try to argue for one’s own position within the framework of the other person, because doing so implicitly recognizes and supports the other person’s foundational assumptions. Marfin’s post, as well as the OP, display this problem. Marfin’s statement of the issue incorporates assumptions that I don’t accept. There is no way to try to discuss the issue within his framework, because his framework has the truth of itself embedded within its description of the issue. And yet, it also does no good to present a different framework, because Marfin (taking him as representative of many people here at UD), will and can only judge the different framework in terms of his own framework, and thus will find the different framework lacking. For instance, take the phrase “definition of good and evil.” If one starts trying to offer a “definition” of good and evil from a non-theistic viewpoint, one has immediately agreed to the background framing that in fact good and evil are something that are “defined”. Even if someone starts with, “Well, good and evil are not things we “define”’, one is still accepting the framework that the issue of whether good and evil are “defined” or not is in fact an issue. The same point applies to the question “how do you know you are correct?”. I have seen countless examples of this problem in the discussions about morality which have taken place here at UD. I fail, in the eyes of my interlocutor, if I can’t satisfy his objections to my ideas, which are part of my framework, because they don’t meet the criteria of his framework. Discussion in such situations is fruitless. hazel

Any takers on my post at 11 ,or will it be ignored as usual . We all know you cannot make claims re moral standards of good and evil without a definition of good and evil , but alas once again we wait, so how about it BB , Seversky , Bob o H, Hazel , et al Marfin

Or related note. For an atheistic materialist to presuppose that he can form a 'consistent' argument to prove that his worldview is true is for him to presuppose the validity of the Laws of logic. Specifically, it is for him to presuppose that the 'Law of Non-Contradiction' is true. Yet herein lies the irresolvable dilemma for the atheistic materialist. The laws of logic cannot be based upon atheistic materialism but must instead be based upon Theism.

Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic J. Warner January 9, 2019 Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day: The Law of Identity Things “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. Each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features. The Law of Non-Contradiction “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time, in the same way and in the same sense. Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. The Law of Excluded Middle A statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false. These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read or reason through this blog post if you didn’t employ these laws. In fact, you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using these laws. They’re not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead, objectively true. So, here’s an important question: “From where do the transcendent, objective laws of logic come?” As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver? (1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location. The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans. (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind. (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God. The Christian Worldview accounts for the existence of the transcendent Laws of Logic. If God exists, He is the absolute, objective, transcendent standard of truth. The Laws of Logic are simply a reflection of the nature of God. God did not create these laws. They are a reflection of His rational thinking, and for this reason, they are as eternal as God Himself. You and I, as humans, have the ability to discover these laws because we have been created in the image of God, but we don’t create or invent the laws. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/

In short, the atheistic materialist needs God to be real just so in order to be able to deny Him.,,, "as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face."

"Hawking’s entire argument is built upon theism. He is, as Cornelius Van Til put it, like the child who must climb up onto his father’s lap into order to slap his face. Take that part about the “human mind” for example. Under atheism there is no such thing as a mind. There is no such thing as understanding and no such thing as truth. All Hawking is left with is a box, called a skull, which contains a bunch of molecules. Hawking needs God In order to deny Him." - Cornelius Hunter Photo – an atheist contemplating his 'mind' http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H-kjiGN_9Fw/URkPboX5l2I/AAAAAAAAATw/yN18NZgMJ-4/s1600/rob4.jpg

bornagain77

Bob (and weave) O'Hara, the poster boy for inconsistency, complaining about inconsistency?? HA HA HA, LOL, rolling on the floor LOL !!! Whew boy. That takes the cake. :) Tell you what Bob ole boy, you tell me how anything can possibly be good or evil in atheistic materialism in the first place, and then we will start to mull over whether it is inconsistent or not for an atheistic materialist, i.e. Sev. or you, to comment on whether anything is good or evil in any other worldview.

What is the Moral Argument for the Existence of God? https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/interviews-panels/what-is-the-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-bobby-conway/ The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

bornagain77

ba77 - why do you attack Seversky in post 5 and then provide evidence to back up the one specific claim you cite? It seems a bit inconsistent. Bob O'H

Sev post an exercise in fluffy atheistic inconsistency and Hazel cheer leads such fluffy atheistic inconsistent tripe as 'Good". But alas, I guess even those who falsely claim that human life has no inherent meaning, value, or worth, nonetheless, need to feel appreciated and that they some real worth in spite of their delusional claim that there is not any real meaning, value, or worth for human life..

In the following video by Dr William Lane Craig entitled “Is There Meaning to Life?”, it is pointed out that if God does not exist then life has no objective meaning, value, or purpose. Is There Meaning to Life? - Dr Craig videos (animated video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE The following video goes over several lines of physical evidence that overwhelming supports the Christian's contention that human life does indeed have real and objective meaning, value, and worth. Atheistic Materialism vs Meaning, Value, and Purpose in Our Lives - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqUxBSbFhog

As to an example of a false claim, out of several, that Seversky made in his post, Seversky insinuated that, "It wouldn’t surprise me to find that Christians are more generous with their money. You could probably find the same of Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists." Really???

Christian, Muslim households top in donations for charity Suvojit Bagchi - JULY 15, 2017 Excerpt: Hindus donated a little over ?15,600 crore as religious contribution in 2014-15 — six times the quantum donated by Muslims — but the per-household contribution of Muslims is marginally higher than that of Hindus, as they are enjoined by religion to give to charity. But the per-household religious contribution of Christians is the highest among all communities, (almost double the next closest group), as per data from the 72nd round of National Sample Survey (NSS) on Household Expenditure on Services and Durable Goods. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/christian-muslim-households-top-in-donations-for-charity/article19285920.ece Table of charity per household per religion: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article19285919.ece/ALTERNATES/FREE_960/TH16Air%20Page%201

Of related note is this more in depth look at American charitable giving in particular.

Who Gives Most to Charity? Excerpt: And among individual givers in the U.S., while the wealthy do their part (as you’ll see later in this essay), the vast predominance of offerings come from average citizens of moderate income. Six out of ten U.S. households donate to charity in a given year, and the typical household’s annual gifts add up to between two and three thousand dollars. This is different from the patterns in any other country. Per capita, ­Americans voluntarily donate about seven times as much as continental ­Europeans. Even our cousins the Canadians give to charity at substantially lower rates, and at half the total volume of an American household. There are many reasons for this American distinction. Foremost is the fact that ours is the most religious nation in the industrial world. Religion motivates giving more than any other factor. https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives

bornagain77

Good post, Sev. hazel

EDTA @ 6

What might be more useful than arguing the philosophy behind this is to examine whether, in a practical sense, it is more _probable_ that an atheist or a Christian will actually be good. I know BA77 has posted links showing that Christians are, on average, more generous with their money. Perhaps we can pursue it along these lines: who is more likely to be good, unselfish, sympathetic, able to give another person hope, etc.

You could only decide that by comparing like with like. Christianity is comprised of a number of organized faiths made up of people who are proud to declare their beliefs. They advocate virtues such as love, compassion and charity towards others. Yet even within Christianity there is a history of bloody conflict between different versions of the faith in which practice of the proclaimed virtues was largely ignored. Although there are many philosophies and political ideologies that are atheistic, there are no large-scale organizations of atheists in the same way that there are religions. In fact for centuries past it was unwise - to say the least - to profess atheistic beliefs openly as that was to invite public opprobrium, punishment and even death - from all of the major faiths. If the so-called New Atheists achieved anything it was to make atheism more acceptable in the public square. I believe that human beings are basically the same the world over - although they differ widely in their cultural 'overlays'. We are all capable of the same virtues and vices. The problem with religion is that it seems to amplify both. It can inspire people to great acts of courage, compassion, generosity and kindness. But, unfortunately, in the minds of some, it can justify all manner of atrocities in pursuance of their 'one true faith'. It wouldn't surprise me to find that Christians are more generous with their money. You could probably find the same of Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists. Sadly, I also not surprised to find that there are self-proclaimed Christians - such as the prosperity gospelers - who think that receiving is greater than giving, who believe that expensive clothes, mansions and private business jets are God's blessing on them rather than evidence that they are basically fleecing their followers. The problem is not belief or lack thereof, the problem is people - us. Seversky

Atheistic objections to a moral code originating in God seem to be along the following lines: "We are supposed to behave in a certain way, because some old bearded dude in the sky has written a list of 'rules' in his Big Book. "I reject that notion. Firstly because this God is obviously a petty tyrant who issues his demands under threat of hellfire, and I have no intention of being pushed around by such a being. Secondly, the notion that we can't have goodness without this supernatural control freak is offensive to humans; it suggests we lack the innate capacity to know right from wrong". Perhaps there's another way of looking at it. Perhaps the whole nature of God is Love. Perhaps we are not separate from this God but are part of Him/Her/It. Individuated fragments of God who are nonetheless part of God. Perhaps God has 'fragmented' itself in order to gain self awareness and to evolve. If that were the case, then humans would instinctively know the nature of weight and wrong. Good is the presence and practice of Love. Evil is the denial and negation of Love. We know this, because we are part of a Being, a Mind, a 'Vast Active Living Intelligent System' (Philip K. Dick) - call it what you will, WE are part of IT, and IT encompasses US. Hence, as individuated fragments of a Being whose essential nature is Love, we know instinctively when we are in tune with that essential nature. Any EVIDENCE for this? Yes, the experience of mystics throughout recorded history - whether the 'mystic' is a monk trying to achieve 'gnosis' of God through prayer and fasting, or a modern housewife who suddenly, and unintentionally, encounters the Ultimate Nature of Reality whilst negotiating her supermarket car park. (True story!) I have been reading such accounts for the last 40 years, and they all seem to be pointing towards the same reality. Charles Birch

B Brian or any other atheist/materialist before you can do good or evil right or wrong can one of you please give a definition of what criteria you use to define good and evil , and how you know you are correct. Marfin

America's Blessings: How Religion Benefits Everyone, Including Atheists https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Blessings-Religion-Benefits-Including/dp/159947445X buffalo

EDTA, I believe these may be some of the links that you are referring to:

Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism” - Nov. 2016 Excerpt" "where are the army of atheists humanitarian traipsing about Africa and Asia giving hope to the poor and disadvantaged? Certainly none of the famous atheist polemicists have ever done so. Christopher Hitchens was asked on multiple occasions if he or other atheists who similarly had a poor opinion of St. Mother Teresa have actually gone to India and rolled up their sleeves to bathe lepers. I've asked many atheists including P.Z. Myers, Patricia Churchland and Christopher Hitchens and none have responded in the positive. Madalyn O'Hair never mentioned having done so. Mao and Stalin were busy killing tens of millions of their compatriots by engineering famines in their respective countries so it's hard to imagine they also helped poor people. When I volunteered at Mother Teresa's street clinics in Calcutta, I never met an atheist doing the same work but I routinely met Catholics doing so." http://www.ncregister.com/blog/astagnaro/atheist-myth-no-one-has-ever-killed-in-the-name-of-atheism Who really cares? The fallacy of charitable secularism – Dec 18, 2017 Excerpt: “Charitable”? “Giving”? Really? The most laughable part comes when Sam (Harris) begins arguing about “charitable giving.” He knows he cannot honestly claim that atheists give more to charitable causes than religious folk, so he uses the word “charitable,” but narrows the definition of the word almost into nothingness. He says, “Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world.”2 Such a fact might shock the average casual reader until he sniffed out Sam’s fishy “terms.” Then we, together, have a good full belly-laugh. If by “devote” and “give” Sam means “devote through government confiscation, and give by forced taxation,” then he can hardly call it charity. Is this the charity of atheism? “Giving” when you may not want to, an amount you may not want to, and to be spent somehow you may not care for? What a blessed assurance! My, how charitable our atheist is with other people’s money. No, charity is voluntarily given. If it’s tax-generated, it ain’t charitable. Besides, boasting that less religious countries take more in government welfare reveals about as much as pointing out that Christians put more in church offering plates than atheists do. What? Really? Get outta here! If, however, Sam means “devote” and “give” in the true sense of “charity,” then his claim is so embarrassingly bogus that not even a third-world tax bureau would accept his tax returns. Unfortunately for Sam, he wrote this nonsense in his Letter to a Christian Nation just a few months before the actual science was done on charitable giving. November 2006 saw the release of the definitive in-depth study on the subject of charitable giving: Who Really Cares? by Syracuse professor Arthur Brooks. Results? Across the board, in every category, accounting for every variable, no matter how you slice the pie, the single biggest factor behind charitable giving is . . . religious faith.3 The amount of private charitable giving from American individuals alone (not including foundations, corporations, etc.) could easily finance the entire gross domestic product of Sam’s more “atheistic” nations, Sweden, Norway, or Denmark.4 The results must be alarming for all secularists. The working poor in America give more than the poor on welfare who have the same income. In fact, the working poor give a larger percentage of their income than the middle class. Two-thirds of American private donations go to other than religious activities (in other words, about 70% in places other than church offering plates). Yet, religious people are more likely to donate even to secular causes than non-religious people are. America gives as much to foreign aid as other nations do, the difference is that we do it mostly through private charity and not government aid. We give it freely—not through socialist government compulsion. No European nation comes close to us in freely-given charitable donations. https://americanvision.org/1820/who-really-cares-the-fallacy-of-charitable-secularism/

Verse:

Matthew 6:19-21 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust consume, and where thieves break through and steal: 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth consume, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21 for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.

Of related note as to what the physical reality of this 'higher dimensional eternal dimension', (i.e. the "heaven" that Jesus refers to in that passage), is actually physically like ,,,

(May 2019) As we know from special relativity, time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop for a hypothetical observer travelling at the speed of light.,,,, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/philosophy/making-a-mess-of-understanding-eternity/#comment-677339

bornagain77

> powerful sociopaths will continue to gain more and more power on this planet, until all of humanity is enslaved by them It is worth nothing though that the sociopaths are produced at a rate of about 2-5% of the population. This is about the same rate as for the high IQ people. We seem to assume that the latter are "good" people, while the former are "bad" or to a certain degree are "defective" people. However, given the complexity of the underlying "technology" used for making life, it is very unlikely that it would come up with a rate of "defects" at 2+%. Hence, I suspect the sociopaths are here for a reason. We just do not know what the reason is. Maybe the reason for our own existence is a simulation for a certain ratio of distribution of various "good" and "bad" traits in a human population... Eugene

Seversky, One major problem is that "fairness" is extremely subjective. What is the final arbiter and enforcer of "fairness" and "justice?" Democratic vote? (As if that could ever be "fair.") I offer no solution, except to say that if there is a Creator (or some kind of Overlord), eventually he, she, it, they, will have to show up and enforce it's will. The alternative is that powerful sociopaths will continue to gain more and more power on this planet, until all of humanity is enslaved by them, and they will enforce their will. Either way, it won't end up being some democratically decided morality. Democracy is becoming more and more illusory right before our very eyes. Too many people are too easily manipulated. mike1962

What might be more useful than arguing the philosophy behind this is to examine whether, in a practical sense, it is more _probable_ that an atheist or a Christian will actually be good. I know BA77 has posted links showing that Christians are, on average, more generous with their money. Perhaps we can pursue it along these lines: who is more likely to be good, unselfish, sympathetic, able to give another person hope, etc. (I know the atheists will win when it comes to showing others how to have a good time and live for the moment; I'll just grant that one up front and get it out of the way. ;-) EDTA

When ever a read something like “a Serious Look At Whether We Can Be Good Without God“, I know that it is not going to be a serious look. Brother Brian

This is again nonsense. "Good" and "Bad" are CULTURAL standards of conduct that arise from the local community. And the standards within a community change over the years, so that what was "good" last year is now "bad". The Nordic folk considered Thor's Day (Thursday) the "day of rest": it was the day you did not plow. I'm sure there must have been some pushing and shoving about which day to take off when the Christians showed up and insisted Sunday was the "day of rest". [Note that the Christian leadership, always out to make an easy win, changed their day of rest to Sunday after the "pagan" Romans changed THEIR day off.] So was Thursday ALWAYS "bad"? Or Saturday (measured from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset)? And of course the whole thing breaks down if you don't use 7-day weeks. But I guess some people just have a NEED to beat a dead horse. vmahuna

Severski (#2), Thank You for your comments. It appears to me that you make a common error which can apply to other theists but not to Christians. I understand that following philosophical arguments one can get to a single theistic god (source of all, whatever you wish to describe it). While an argument can be made that this god must be good, the question can always remain whether god is arbitrary. A god who could be arbitrary on moral issues can cause problems. The Christian has the solution. God is a Trinity. Because God is a Trinity we know that God is Love. Love can never do anything harmful and Love is the core of God's nature. We can trust God's actions to always be the best. We just do not have the information and understanding of the total picture that only God has. Of course one does not have to believe - we all have absolute free will. I can only say that when you choose to believe the world becomes different - not because the world changes, but because you see it differently. Thank You and God Bless GCS

@

One of the key problems with atheist arguments for universal benevolence, according to Smith, is the contention that we live in a “naturalistic” universe, in a realm that simply came to be, with no creator. So how can naturalistic atheist thinkers claim any rational basis for the high moral standard they’re reaching for?

How can Christians claim any rational basis for their moral beliefs? According to them, God has decided these matters for them. They do not know if something is morally right or wrong until they are told by their God. The only basis for their moral beliefs is their faith that their God is an infallible arbiter of such questions. Since they would have no basis for believing in the authority of God's moral pronouncements if He had decided them by a divine toss of a coin, they have to assume He decided them rationally. But if He decided them rationally, what is to prevent us, as rational beings created in His image, from working these things out for ourselves?

How do you get from a naturalistic universe to the commitment that every human being on earth possesses an innate dignity — no matter how terrible, empirically, of a person they are, by the way — that human beings whom you will never meet, on the other side of the world… should matter to you … and that everyone has human rights to X, Y, and Z that we can spell out. Where does that come from? What is the basis of those moral commitments?

Intersubjective agreement on our common interests as human beings. We exist (as far as we can tell). Most of us would like to continue to exist for as long as we possibly can. We would like that existence to be as secure as possible while allowing each of us to enjoy and explore our existence in any way we choose. Because our chances of a safe, continued existence are better in society with our fellow humans, we need rules of behavior which further those shared interests. That, in my view, is a perfectly rational, atheist basis for morality. Seversky

“that human beings are not naturally religious” I think certain atheists try to take the position that religion is instinctual to attempt to invalidate any Intellectual validation religion and or belief in god might have. AaronS1978