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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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’.

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.

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.