A serious look at whether we can be good without God

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 26, 2019

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Religion, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here’s an odd program for Canada’s government broadcaster, the CBC, to sponsor:

Christian Smith is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Notre Dame, and is the author of Atheist Overreach: What Atheism Can’t Deliver. In the book, Smith addresses three main claims made by atheists: that science can determine whether God exists; that human beings are not naturally religious; and — the focus of this IDEAS episode —that human beings can be good without God. Not just good as individuals, but capable of a collective morality that can redress inequality and suffering, and lead to the betterment of all humanity.
Is morality ‘natural’?
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 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? They’re not easy to make happen. They’re not necessarily ‘natural’ to human beings. Paul Kennedy, interviewing Notre Dame philosopher Christian Smith, “How good can we really be without God?” at CBC Ideas

Should be interesting. What’s “natural” is what people happen to want. Absent any higher consideration, virtue vs. vice may come to mean success vs. failure in getting what one wants.

See also: Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

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://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/making-a-mess-of-understanding-eternity/#comment-677339
bornagain77_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

> 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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

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 BlessGCS_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

@
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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

“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_{May 26, 2019
May
05
May
26
26
2019
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply