Parchment and Pen » Is this Possible?

Is this Possible?

~ C Michael Patton ~

(HT: Bring the Noiz)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

No Responses to “Is this Possible?”

ChestertonianRambler on 13 Nov 2008 at 12:55 pm #

Practically, yes.

Theoretically, no, unless you set up some other objective standard that is, like God’s commandments, beyond question. (It doesn’t need to be a lot, mind you, but something fundamental.)
LAL on 13 Nov 2008 at 1:09 pm #

No

If there is no God, then what is “good”? Is “good” an evolutionary product of the human psyche? How can we know for sure what is good? Who will determine what is good. Is there a different “good” for you and me? If so, what if my good conflicts with yours?
KWK on 13 Nov 2008 at 1:19 pm #

Yes.

We all, even atheists, are made in the image of God. Thus, anyone can be “good”, regardless of whether or not that person acknowledges the ultimate ground for their goodness. Of course, none of us, not even Christians, can be “good enough”.
LAL on 13 Nov 2008 at 1:59 pm #

” Just be good for goodness sake”

When I was a child my mother told me it was not “good” to mix the races. Thank God I understood long ago that her good was not God’s good. So was she wrong? Well, if we all just do whatever is good in our own eyes it won’t be long until people are fighting and killing each other trying to do good and stamp out evil. With the world view expressed on the bus good-doing and evil-doing will be defined by whatever side you happen to be on at the time.
Ruben on 13 Nov 2008 at 3:53 pm #

I think you can try your best to live a moral life and “be good” without
acknowledging God, yet by definition “good” is personified in God Himself.
The things we call good are a reflection of Him, therefore if an atheist or
agnostic aims for the good they are getting dangerously close to God.
Scott Ferguson on 13 Nov 2008 at 4:42 pm #

If you redefine “good” as only coming from God, then aren’t you further separating yourself from the world, those who use common words like good, believe, faith and truth in their everyday sense. The word “good” is already taken and appropriating it for theological purposes only sows confusion. “Holy” may be a bit strong but perhaps a word like “righteous” could be invoked to distinguish between colloquial “good” and the heavy duty God “good.” Otherwise one cannot hold a normal conversation without getting into thick philosophical soap. (badly mangled metaphor alert!)
Lisa R on 13 Nov 2008 at 5:07 pm #

I concur with KWK. In fact, I think sometimes non-believers can be “gooder” than believers in the sense of performing good and kind deeds. But I also think that this performance is product of the fall that seeks to establish a moral righteousness that is independent of God’s righteousness. So being good is not the issue, because we can never be good enough. The problem is independence and self-reliance and unawareness of our sinfulness.
Chuck Thomas on 13 Nov 2008 at 8:55 pm #

Romans 3: 10-12 (and following) has an answer.
J.R. on 13 Nov 2008 at 9:36 pm #

NO!

I think some of us are missing the point. The statement on the bus is “Why believe in god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

For the atheist, God does not exist. Therefore there is not an image of God in human beings. Not one single attribute of God exists in mankind. There is no God. Love, hate, good, evil, right, and wrong are now left solely to human reasoning. There is not one single governing principle by which good can be established. Mankind is hopelessly left to the precepts of their own reasoning based on their up bringing, culture, whether they are male or female, ethnicity, or life changing events. Any imposition of your good upon another is not good by human rational.

If God does not exist, how can laws be established to exact retribution and punishment? How can a society without an external moral compass do what is good when good is basically in the eye of the beholder? What is good for me is good for me and what is good for you is good for you where both are opposite. Good is now a contradiction of good.

Yes an atheist or agnostic can do acts of goodness but by what criteria are these acts judged by? The Christian my judge them by what he or she knows of God but the atheist judges them by human nature not by the nature of God. Therefore there is no acknowledgement of God guiding the act. Without an acknowledgement of God guiding the act of goodness can anything truly be called good?
Jason on 13 Nov 2008 at 10:57 pm #

Since the atheist is the only arbitrator of what is good for him or herself “good” is whatever the atheist thinks it is.

Whether it be a commitment to social Darwinism/eugenics, as epitomized by Margaret Sanger, or the decision to sell food crops to obtain technology (whilst ensuring the starvation of his people) made by Mao Zedong every decision an atheist makes is “good”.

Of course it renders the word “good” meaningless, but what do you expect from such a crackpot philosophy?
J.R. on 13 Nov 2008 at 11:18 pm #

Lisa R.,

I believe you may be judging your “gooder” of the non-believers based on Christian world views. But the non-believer is basing their good on a humanistic world view which does not transcend time. Their act of good today may be an act of hatred or evil tomorrow. God’s goodness transcends time. What is good in eternity past is good in eternity future. We must be carful not to judge atheistic world views by Christian presuppositions.
Lisa R on 13 Nov 2008 at 11:36 pm #

JR, my point is that the good performed by atheist IS their moral righteousness; it is their justification of a moral existence apart from God. So in this sense, it is from the atheist’s perspective.
LAL on 14 Nov 2008 at 8:41 am #

I agree with J.R.
The point is:

The atheist statement on the bus opens up the discussion of the concept of morality and the moral argument for the existence of God.

How do we even talk about “good” if we can not define it?
How do we recognize it when we see it? For the athiest to talk of good or bad they must have a source and standard by which to define these terms. What is this source and is it objective and absolute? The athiest may be left with a subjective, arbitrary source of “good”. And if it is subjective and arbitrary, how can they even consider the concept of good. It can only be defined socially, situationally, culturally – so one person or culture’s good is seen as evil by someone else. The athiest concept of good is illogical and irrational.

However, if we admit God into the discussion, we can appeal to what God says is good or evil, and we can even go to the character and nature of God Himself to know what good really is. God is the source of good. God is the judge of good and evil.
Matt Turner on 14 Nov 2008 at 9:25 am #

To man: Yes.

In Scripture: No.

That seriously leaves open the question of “Well, what is considered good?” If you leave God out of the equation, you will have a slew of responses on humanistic ‘goodness’ and perhaps somethings will be ‘good’ in man’s eyes (probably borrowing from the Bible without looking like it) but who’s to say one persons standard of ‘goodness’ is just as good or worse than the other? Thank goodness that God gave us the Bible and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit through Jesus to determine what is ‘good.’ While this scripture assumes that there is a God (to an atheist), I think of what Jesus said to the Rich Young Ruler (Matt. 19:16-17, NASB): “‘Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?’ And (Jesus) said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’” I love how Jesus took the concept of ‘good’ and put it on God and no one or thing else and emphasizing the sovereignty of God.
paulj on 14 Nov 2008 at 12:24 pm #

LAL wrote:
“When I was a child my mother told me it was not “good” to mix the races. Thank God I understood long ago that her good was not God’s good”

Where did your mother get this idea? Was it her atheistic world view, or was it the teaching of her (Baptist) church? Maybe it was from the Bible itself. Where does your understanding of God’s good come from? Special revelation, or a culturally defined reading of the Bible?

“it won’t be long until people are fighting and killing each other trying to do good and stamp out evil.”

I’m trying to decide whether that statement is meant to be ironic or not. The wars at the start of the Protestant Reformation come to mind. Both sides thought they were doing God’s will. Come to think of it, there was a third side, the Anabaptists. Both sides in the American Civil War believed God was on their side. Even German solders had belt buckles saying ‘Gott mit uns’.
Topher on 14 Nov 2008 at 12:52 pm #

“God is the source of good”

What does this mean? It seems even if god is the source of goodness how does that help us define it? It is evident that what is considered ‘good’ and ‘evil’ has changed among Christians as often as it has among non-believers. Just to take one example, Some Christians viewed as ‘good’ the killing of heretics because through their teaching they lead others astray. And certain OT passages can be used to justifiy this practice. Now the idea of killing someone for writing a controversial book is not viewed as a justification for killing the author. It is considered not-good.
And in the future things that we view as fine or good could be considered not-good in the future, i.e. testing on chimpanzees may be viewed as cruel and wrong in the future just to name one thing. And I am sure the bible could be used to justify this practice.
So this is my question, how does saying that god is the source of all good really give us any new information to help make decisions about questions of good and evil?
J.R. on 14 Nov 2008 at 1:48 pm #

Amen, LAL

Can man be good for goodness’ sake?

Part of this I’m about to say shames me to speak of but here I go.

Being honest with myself and fellow bloggers I must say in my youth and sin filled days my friends and I would say we were doing “good” every Friday and Saturday night if we put on a good buzz (inebriated) at a local watering hole and found a female to take home to sleep with.

Many atheists/non-Christians (A/NC) would probably agree and disagree to my Friday and Saturday night forays.

A/NC 1 – would agree because he or she enjoys it, likes the feeling of the buzz or has affection to sex.

A/NC 2 – may disagree because he or she is concerned with driving drunk, getting STD’s or the person pregnant.

A/NC 1 – may change their minds because of the argument of A/NC 2.

A/NC 2 – may change their mind because they have a designated driver and safe sex protection.

But neither one of them has a governing moral high ground to convince the other they are not doing good. Their moral high ground is founded on what they perceive to be good, they have established it, no one else. Therefore both are good and both are not good.

Obedience by the mercy of God’s will through the blood of Jesus Christ changed my mind. I was incapable of making this choice. I would have wavered between A/NC 1 and A/NC 2 all my life.

I believe God’s good is good for all peoples for all times everywhere. If this criterion can not be met it is not part of God’s goodness. This is why we as Christians struggle with doing good, because it is impossible to meet in this life time. This does not mean we don’t strive to achieve it. All of us should desire to image that which we worship to the secular would. Yes we have fallen short of the glory of God but He has revealed to us His standards by which all will be judged. This way we know what’s good for goodness’ sake even though we do fall short.
Mary B. on 18 Nov 2008 at 1:08 pm #

Apparently, I’m the only atheist reading the blog willing to tackle this question! (And my philosophy is not “crackpot”, any more than yours is blind and deluded.. )

I think it’s easy enough to arrive at a standard of situational ethics based on individual and communal needs, without ever really having to involve religion. For example, if you agree with the idea that humanity is, in its basic nature, a communal species which generally requires a community for the best chances of survival, then you can state that in general, what harms the community is “bad” and what helps the community is “good”. And if you then take into account that humans are conscious creatures and take into account individuality, then you can expand and balance your idea of morality with respect to each individual.

For example, murder is nearly always bad because it usually harms the community – by decreasing mutual trust, depriving people in the community of those they love, etc. etc. It also harms the individual – obviously, it harms the one who dies, but it harms the person who commits the act by opening him up to retribution. Most people want to survive, and murdering another human being is a pretty good way to decrease your chances of survival (or at least your freedom, if you happen to live in the developed world these days).

It does open up the problem of differing views of good – but perhaps what’s clear to me, as an outsider to religion, isn’t so clear to you on the inside: God doesn’t solve that problem. I’ve seen so many Christians arguing minor points of theology between themselves that I can only laugh at the idea that having a shared view of God gives them a totally shared morality. Sure, it might give you the basics, like the Ten Commandments, but most atheists ALSO would agree that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good rule of thumb…however they came to set up their belief system.

There is a lot more I could say, but I lack the access to some of the documentation I want and I have a schedule to keep, so it will have to wait for later.
prjct on 18 Nov 2008 at 6:34 pm #

Great comment Mary -

Some of the nicest, even goodest, people I know, are good without God. I hope each of you have such friends, or people you know, who do practice what others preach, without the need to be preached to. It’s good to see, and to know. These folks, just like each of us, simply are who we are…..each capable of good, and bad at any given moment.
Scott Ferguson on 19 Nov 2008 at 10:50 pm #

Mary, you bring to the fore some important perspective. You have brought out for me the fact that, yes, there are common themes of “goodness” but let us not gloss over the differences. Are honor killings considered “not-good” in cultures where they are practiced. Do the neighbors of the perpetrators of an honor killing shun them or do they nod silently and agree that it had to be done for the “greater good” of the family.

It seems to me the differences like these are just as important as the much ballyhooed commonalities. This is because this very situation is exactly what one would expect from a communal species which transmits it’s expectations via culture. You would expect some basics – protection against theft, admonition against random violence, group cohesion against outsiders – along with great variation in the details and boundaries.
Layton on 21 Nov 2008 at 1:21 pm #

If we say (and I am not) that, “survival is the greatest good” then we have an ethics of survival. Under this ethic we can justify cannabalism, or theft of goods in order to survive. But it is only good if you are the one surviving. The one being sacrificed or eaten or left destitute would rarely do so voluntarily.

Also, how can we be sure that we are saving the species by doing what we think is commonly held to be good at the time? Witness the Jonestown community. What we consider to be good may actually lead to the destruction of the community.

The culture of terrorism includes motives such as survival, honor, blessing. Most of society would declare terrorist tactics to be morally out of bounds (eg. the killing of innocent babies). But with an ethic of survival whose survival are we talking about?

If the aged are too much of a burden on society, we could justify thier elimination.

I cant go for that kind of ethic.
J.R. on 21 Nov 2008 at 2:17 pm #

Mary B.,

First, let me state I’m not a good person. I’m not a theologian in the academia sense nor do I believe Christians hold any since of a transcendence moral high ground in acts of “goodness”. Our history and present day actions clearly reveal that.

I believe the premise to you argument is:

“If you agree with the idea that humanity is, in its basic nature, a communal species which generally requires a community for the best chances of survival, then you can state that in general, what harms the community is “bad” and what helps the community is “good”. And if you then take into account that humans are conscious creatures and take into account individuality, then you can expand and balance your idea of morality with respect to each individual.”

If I understand this, humans are a conscious creature who understands right and wrong, good and evil.

And, what harms (evil) the community is bad and what helps (right) the community is good.

I’m sorry but I would have to disagree with this premise.

We need to further define humanity in its basic nature.

1. Are we talking survival of the fittest?
2. Are we talking Aryan Nation (Nazi)?
3. Are we talking utopia?
4. or are we talking restored humanity?

1. If one holds to the survival of the fittest. The strong overcome the weak. Only the strongest, smartest, best hunter/gather survives. Each community is eventually overtaken by the stronger community out of survival instincts.

2. In the 1930’s and 40’s the world witnessed a conscious community define what was good and what was bad. This community decided a “pure” race was needed. The wholesale slaughter of Jews, Gipsy’s, the simple minded, those with deformities and anyone who did not necessarily image the Aryan race.

3. Ah, utopia a perfect place especially in its social, political, and moral aspects. Maybe this is what your premise is based on. This place sounds wonderful, who wouldn’t want to be there. BREAKING NEWS, terrorist have flown planes into the World Trade Center Towers. Thousands have perished.

In these three examples we see survival, ideology, and religion.

The basic human nature (instincts) is to survive, any way we can. Our ideology dictates how we survive and something governs rightly the individual’s ideology. Our community can’t, nor can a government, and we as individuals will always have differing opinions.

But, I know of an individual who was governed by perfect instincts, one who looked forward to the greater good of his community. Sure, he contemplated what was about to happen but he prostrated himself in obedience for the greater good of humanity. He personified love, through his obedience and action to restore those who call upon His name.

I do not know of any Christian who would call themselves good or righteous. We would state all, including Christians are sinful, worthy of wrath, but by the will of God through the Blood of Jesus Christ we now stand redeemed before God. Earnestly awaiting the day we my fully image love the way love was shown for us.