Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[nmgauss]

Do we need God in order to be good?

slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2008/11/does_religion_make_you_nice.2.html

Many Americans doubt the morality of atheists. According to a 2007 Gallup poll, a majority of Americans say that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified atheist as president, meaning a nonbeliever would have a harder time getting elected than a Muslim, a homosexual, or a Jew. Many would go further and agree with conservative commentator Laura Schlessinger that morality requires a belief in God—otherwise, all we have is our selfish desires.

But a promising approach is to look at empirical research that directly addresses the effects of religion on how people behave.

In a review published in Science last month, psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff discuss several experiments that lean pro-Schlessinger. In one of their own studies, they primed half the participants with a spirituality-themed word jumble (including the words divine and God) and gave the other half the same task with nonspiritual words. If you think about God, you believe someone is watching. This argument is bolstered by other research that they review showing that people are more generous and less likely to cheat when others are around. More surprisingly, people also behave better when exposed to posters with eyes on them.

Maybe, then, religious people are nicer because they believe that they are never alone. If so, you would expect to find the positive influence of religion outside the laboratory. And, indeed, there is evidence within the United States for a correlation between religion and what might broadly be called “niceness.”

In general, you might expect people in less God-fearing countries to be a lot less kind to one another than Americans are.

It is at this point that the “We need God to be good” case falls apart. Countries worthy of consideration aren’t those like North Korea and China, where religion is savagely repressed, but those in which people freely choose atheism. In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don’t go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don’t believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they’re nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

Denmark and Sweden aren’t exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.

The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don’t believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved.

American atheists, by contrast, are often left out of community life. The studies that Brooks cites in Gross National Happiness, which find that the religious are happier and more generous then the secular, do not define religious and secular in terms of belief. They define it in terms of religious attendance. It is not hard to see how being left out of one of the dominant modes of American togetherness can have a corrosive effect on morality. As P.Z. Myers, the biologist and prominent atheist, puts it, “cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them.”

The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one.

 

[PRmerger]

Do we need God in order to be good?

No.

Well, at least, belief in God is not required to be good.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally, I like the metaphor “one light, many windows…”.

I like it, too.

However, the light cannot be reflecting through one window “[A] is true” while reflecting through another window “[A] is not true”

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe, then, religious people are nicer because they believe that they are never alone. If so, you would expect to find the positive influence of religion outside the laboratory. And, indeed, there is evidence within the United States for a correlation between religion and what might broadly be called “niceness.”

While there are many an atheist that I’d rather have my back than a Christian, I propose that there is no such thing as a saintly atheist.

Nice atheists? Certainly.
Good atheists? Sure.

Even heroic atheists? Indubitably.

But an atheist who is of the caliber of a human being as Maximilian Kolbe…

nope.

No atheist I have heard of has ever given his life in the stead of a complete stranger, out of love for this stranger.

You need to be a Christian in order to do this.

 

[Tomdstone]

While there are many an atheist that I’d rather have my back than a Christian, I propose that there is no such thing as a saintly atheist.

Nice atheists? Certainly.
Good atheists? Sure.

Even heroic atheists? Indubitably.

But an atheist who is of the caliber of a human being as Maximilian Kolbe…

nope.

No atheist I have heard of has ever given his life in the stead of a complete stranger, out of love for this stranger.

You need to be a Christian in order to do this.

I think that there might be nonChristians who give up their lives for others. One example comes to mind of Liviu Librescu who sacrificed his life in the Virginia Tech massacre so that students could escape through a window.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that there might be nonChristians who give up their lives for others. One example comes to mind of Liviu Librescu who sacrificed his life in the Virginia Tech massacre so that students could escape through a window.

As I said, I’m not talking about heroic deeds.

I am talking about saintly deeds, in the manner of Maximilian Kolbe,

 

[mafh]

While there are many an atheist that I’d rather have my back than a Christian, I propose that there is no such thing as a saintly atheist.

…

No atheist I have heard of has ever given his life in the stead of a complete stranger, out of love for this stranger.

You need to be a Christian in order to do this.

I doubt that Catholic doctrine supports this view. After all, the Catholic definition of a saint is someone that is in heaven. I assume, in order to be in heaven, you have to engage in saintly behavior on earth (at least on balance), or you have to be an innocent. The church recognizes the possibility, even the probability, of non-Catholics and even non-Christians in heaven, and this would presumably include atheists. From the Catholic perspective, non-Catholics and even atheists have the opportunity to gain heaven on the basis of their response to that portion of God’s grace that they do understand (however little this may be), despite the fact that they didn’t understand the fullness of the truth. The church, as a rule, doesn’t canonize non-Catholics because part of the reason for canonization is to provide role models for living Catholics. The fraction of saints that are canonized is probably relatively small – surely Catholics believe there are many non-canonized saints, and among them are surely people who were saintly non-Christians on earth. (I assume that the Catholic view is that everyone is a Catholic once in heaven.)

 

[mafh]

I doubt that Catholic doctrine supports this view. After all, the Catholic definition of a saint is someone that is in heaven. I assume, in order to be in heaven, you have to engage in saintly behavior on earth (at least on balance), or you have to be an innocent. The church recognizes the possibility, even the probability, of non-Catholics and even non-Christians in heaven, and this would presumably include atheists. From the Catholic perspective, non-Catholics and even atheists have the opportunity to gain heaven on the basis of their response to that portion of God’s grace that they do understand (however little this may be), despite the fact that they didn’t understand the fullness of the truth. The church, as a rule, doesn’t canonize non-Catholics because part of the reason for canonization is to provide role models for living Catholics. The fraction of saints that are canonized is probably relatively small – surely Catholics believe there are many non-canonized saints, and among them are surely those people who were non-Christians on earth. (I assume that the Catholic view is that everyone is a Catholic in heaven.)

 

[LisaA]

Do we need God in order to be good?

It is at this point that the “We need God to be good” case falls apart. Countries worthy of consideration aren’t those like North Korea and China, where religion is savagely repressed, but those in which people freely choose atheism. In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don’t go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don’t believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they’re nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

Denmark and Sweden aren’t exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.

The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don’t believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved.

American atheists, by contrast, are often left out of community life. The studies that Brooks cites in Gross National Happiness, which find that the religious are happier and more generous then the secular, do not define religious and secular in terms of belief. They define it in terms of religious attendance. It is not hard to see how being left out of one of the dominant modes of American togetherness can have a corrosive effect on morality. As P.Z. Myers, the biologist and prominent atheist, puts it, “cattered individuals who are excluded from communities do not receive the benefits of community, nor do they feel willing to contribute to the communities that exclude them.”

The sorry state of American atheists, then, may have nothing to do with their lack of religious belief. It may instead be the result of their outsider status within a highly religious country where many of their fellow citizens, including very vocal ones like Schlessinger, find them immoral and unpatriotic. Religion may not poison everything, but it deserves part of the blame for this one.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful but this argument borders on laughable. Why is it when we must trot out the “good without God” meme, we always point to a couple of small Scandinavian countries? Realize that the tiny size, the small population, and the (up to recently with the Muslim invasion) homogeneous population and geography makes a huge difference in levels of violence, elements of mutual cooperation, and peaceful existence.

You cannot conflate Sweden with America and its massive population, incredible diversity, variances in geography, ethnicity, active immigration from all over the world, societal differences and diversity of religious practice. THESE are the elements the create social problems. Sweden doesn’t have our black gangs in Chicago or history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, or in the West Coast the terrible legacy of anti-Asian attitudes.

So let’s leave that silly idea in the dust of the Ivory Halls where it belongs. It doesn’t reflect real life.

Further that atheists are less likely to be “good” as a function of feeling ostracized…are you KIDDING? With one voice the Left comments on the diminishing attendance at churches and then claims because atheists are “excluded” from church (by their own choice!) makes them feel bad and thus they hit Granny over the head and steal her purse.

Let’s look at reality. The atheists who commit crimes and do violence are not the lofty intellectuals who have studied religion and rejected it but far more likely an individual who grew up in a chaotic environment, perhaps a single mother with multiple partners over the years, who dropped out of school, likely became enmeshed in substance abuse and this resulted in a life of violence and self destruction. These are not atheists, they are simply IGNORANT of any sort of ethical or moral code.

Many of us get our ethical and moral background from parents, churches and to a lesser extent schools (I guess good citizenship has been forsaken for queer studies in public schools). Those who get NO ethical or moral teaching due to parental ignorance or neglect are the ones who end up in prison.

BTW this is not just a “black” problem as the profile of a mass shooter is a young white male who has come from a broken home with little or no religious background. It’s not the Mormon kid on his bike blowing friends away but disaffected and unmoored young males who have no context to understand the meaning of their evil acts.

Lisa

 

[mafh]

I don’t mean to be disrespectful but this argument borders on laughable. Why is it when we must trot out the “good without God” meme, we always point to a couple of small Scandinavian countries? Realize that the tiny size, the small population, and the (up to recently with the Muslim invasion) homogeneous population and geography makes a huge difference in levels of violence, elements of mutual cooperation, and peaceful existence.

You cannot conflate Sweden with America and its massive population, incredible diversity, variances in geography, ethnicity, active immigration from all over the world, societal differences and diversity of religious practice. THESE are the elements the create social problems. Sweden doesn’t have our black gangs in Chicago or history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, or in the West Coast the terrible legacy of anti-Asian attitudes.

We need to remember that the Scandinavian countries are less religious mostly because the Roman Empire didn’t extend that far, and it was the vector responsible for Christianity’s early spread. It’s not because of something intrinsic to, say, Swedish people.

Also, the Scandinavians are pretty much on the leading edge of progressive, liberal social policy. The social changes you see in the Scandinavian countries tend to precede changes you see in other countries by a decade or more. These countries seem to be either the originators or the test beds for liberal social policy. What is happening there now, happens here in 10 years or so.

I do not know whether this feature is caused by their lack of religiosity or is simply coincidental to it. I suspect that it is somehow linked to it, but solely because religions tend to resist social change. Religions tend to want to preserve the social status quo. Maybe by being less religious, the Scandinavians are more willing to partake in social experiments.

One of these social experiments was to significantly reduce the income gap between the highest and lowest earning members of society, which has virtually eliminated poverty. Poverty is, of course, a key element that contributes to crime. You are right that we have some particular problems in this area, due to our history. However, we also haven’t really tried this social experiment either, at least not to the extent of their implementation. You can see some of the same principles in action in Canada – supposedly, there are no slums in Canada. The price you pay for this is possible future insolvency due to the high cost of such government programs (one US argument against this experiment).

So, in conclusion, I would say that yes, you could say that irrreligiosity has led to a stable, and productive society in Sweden. But, I’m not sure that it’s based on the merits of being non-religious, other than the fact that maybe it leads to people being more willing to experiment with the social order.

Side note:

You are probably right that they are a lot more homogeneous (demographically speaking) than the US, though I do think foreigners tend to assume any given country is more homogeneous than it in fact is. However, I think that demographics are not really the whole story here. While individual European countries may be more homogeneous than the US (though some may not be), Europeans tend to have a worldview that is more multicultural in character. This is due to their countries being neighbors with many other cultures and peoples that speak different languages, have different customs, etc. They very much see themselves as citizens of Europe, in all it’s infinite variety and diversity. In contrast, we have a quite monolithic and isolationist culture, spread by a common language. For this reason, I have heard Europeans characterize the US as being far more homogeneous than their own countries, despite what statistical data may state. I suppose the essence is that while we may have diversity in skin color and ethnicity, the European countries (even, I think, individually) have greater diversity in worldview and culture.

 

[LisaA]

We need to remember that the Scandinavian countries are less religious mostly because the Roman Empire didn’t extend that far, and it was the vector responsible for Christianity’s early spread. It’s not because of something intrinsic to, say, Swedish people.

Don’t conflate “religion” with Christianity. The Scandinavian countries had a very strong religion based on its own story and history. In fact it’s thought much of LOTR by Tolkein was based on Scandinavian religion.

Christianity did extend that far north and there are many beautiful churches in the Scandinavian countries. But unlike America which was basically FOUNDED on religious principles, it was never so inculcated into the lives of the people as in America’s early settlers.

Also, the Scandinavians are pretty much on the leading edge of progressive, liberal social policy. The social changes you see in the Scandinavian countries tend to precede changes you see in other countries by a decade or more. These countries seem to be either the originators or the test beds for liberal social policy. What is happening there now, happens here in 10 years or so.

Golly I sure hope NOT. I do not consider progressive and liberal social policies as a positive thing. Let’s see…sexual liberation, now we have total destruction of the black family, unwed motherhood, rampant STDs, and millions of abortions. This is “progress?”

I do not know whether this feature is caused by their lack of religiosity or is simply coincidental to it. I suspect that it is somehow linked to it, but solely because religions tend to resist social change. ***Religions tend to want to preserve the social status quo. *** Maybe by being less religious, the Scandinavians are more willing to partake in social experiments.

Are you a college student? This sounds like something right out of Sociology 101.

Are you aware that it was CHRISTIANITY that helped eradicate the evil of slavery. The Civil Rights movement was a RELIGIOUS movement. They try to forget it was REVEREND Martin Luther King Jr. He was a minister, not a college professor.

I don’t know what ‘social experiments’ you refer to but I think destroying the status quo of owning and enslaving people was rather more significant than suggesting people job share…

One of these social experiments was to significantly reduce the income gap between the highest and lowest earning members of society, which as virtually eliminated poverty. Poverty is, of course, a key element that contributes to crime. You are right that we have some particular problems in this area, both due to our history. However, we also haven’t really tried this social experiment either, at least not to the extent of their implementation. You can see some of the same principles in action in Canada – supposedly, there are no slums in Canada. The price you pay for this is possible future insolvency due to the high cost of such government programs (one US argument against this experiment).

No it is not. Depravity, lack of character, lack of moral and ethical background causes crime. Yes there is both poverty and crime in the inner cities here. But what came first? Compare this to countries like India where people are extremely poor. They do not have the level of violence that we do. Once again, Sociology 101.

In America, crime is mostly drug related and in fact has dropped substantially although the poverty rates have not budged over the past decades. In fact you can look at the poverty rate pre and post “War on Poverty” which is having it’s 50 Year Anniversary, and the needle hasn’t changed much at all. Crime OTOH has ebbed and flowed over the years. You are probably not old enough to remember but there were years when the crime rate was a big issue in Presidential campaigns.

Anyway the Utopian view of equality above all has been an utter failure when writ large such as in the Soviet Union and China. Leveling the playing field is admirable. Leveling the opportunities feeds the worst in our nature.

Lisa

 

[mafh]

Don’t conflate “religion” with Christianity. The Scandinavian countries had a very strong religion based on its own story and history. In fact it’s thought much of LOTR by Tolkein was based on Scandinavian religion.

Christianity did extend that far north and there are many beautiful churches in the Scandinavian countries. But unlike America which was basically FOUNDED on religious principles, it was never so inculcated into the lives of the people as in America’s early settlers.

Golly I sure hope NOT. I do not consider progressive and liberal social policies as a positive thing. Let’s see…sexual liberation, now we have total destruction of the black family, unwed motherhood, rampant STDs, and millions of abortions. This is “progress?”

Are you a college student? This sounds like something right out of Sociology 101.

Are you aware that it was CHRISTIANITY that helped eradicate the evil of slavery. The Civil Rights movement was a RELIGIOUS movement. They try to forget it was REVEREND Martin Luther King Jr. He was a minister, not a college professor.

I don’t know what ‘social experiments’ you refer to but I think destroying the status quo of owning and enslaving people was rather more significant than suggesting people job share…

No it is not. Depravity, lack of character, lack of moral and ethical background causes crime. Yes there is both poverty and crime in the inner cities here. But what came first? Compare this to countries like India where people are extremely poor. They do not have the level of violence that we do. Once again, Sociology 101.

In America, crime is mostly drug related and in fact has dropped substantially although the poverty rates have not budged over the past decades. In fact you can look at the poverty rate pre and post “War on Poverty” which is having it’s 50 Year Anniversary, and the needle hasn’t changed much at all. Crime OTOH has ebbed and flowed over the years. You are probably not old enough to remember but there were years when the crime rate was a big issue in Presidential campaigns.

Anyway the Utopian view of equality above all has been an utter failure when writ large such as in the Soviet Union and China. Leveling the playing field is admirable. Leveling the opportunities feeds the worst in our nature.

Lisa

First, I am not a college student. I am a professional woman who is nearly 40.

Second, I am fully aware of the historical indigenous religion in Scandinavian countries, and of Tolkien’s usage of this mythology in his books. This religion is no longer practiced, except possibly by a handful of pagans and medievalists.

Third, Christianity did not replace this indigenous religion to the same extent as in other Western countries (note that this does not preclude the existence of churches) because the Roman empire did not extend that far. This is a historical fact. You can look at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_Roman_Empire

to see the borders of the Roman Empire for yourself.

Fourth, when I was talking about the Scandinavian countries being a test bed for social change, I was merely describing the actual facts of the case. You can find quite a lot of literature documenting how social changes have started there and then propagated to other countries. In my message, I was not advocating either for or against social change. I was merely conjecturing that a lack of religiosity may have led to greater willingness to pursue social change, for good or ill.

Fifth, I am fully aware that Christianity has made positive contributions to society from a History of Ideas perspective, whether or not it is correct in the existence of God. It has made significant contributions in the areas of morality, ethics, and human rights. (And then there are its many contributions to art, music, literature, history, etc.) In fact, if you had not sent this reply, I was going to post an addendum in which I described how Sweden et al. had been influenced by Christianity (due to the European worldview, etc) even if it has not internalized it to the degree of other countries.

Sixth, I am not sure what slavery has to do with the Scandinavian countries or this discussion at all.

I’m afraid that I’m going to have to bow out of this discussion with you. I do not feel that you are taking the time to read or appreciate my points, so I don’t see much value in continuing the discussion. Also, it is tangential to the thread’s topic.

 

[LisaA]

First, I am not a college student. I am a professional woman who is nearly 40.

Second, I am fully aware of the historical indigenous religion in Scandinavian countries, and of Tolkien’s usage of this mythology in his books. This religion is no longer practiced, except possibly by a handful of pagans and medievalists.

Third, Christianity did not replace this indigenous religion to the same extent as in other Western countries (note that this does not preclude the existence of churches) because the Roman empire did not extend that far. This is a historical fact. You can look at:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_of_the_Roman_Empire

to see the borders of the Roman Empire for yourself.

Fourth, when I was talking about the Scandinavian countries being a test bed for social change, I was merely describing the actual facts of the case. You can find quite a lot of literature documenting how social changes have started there and then propagated to other countries. In my message, I was not advocating either for or against social change. I was merely conjecturing that a lack of religiosity may have led to greater willingness to pursue social change, for good or ill.

Fifth, I am fully aware that Christianity has made positive contributions to society from a History of Ideas perspective, whether or not it is correct in the existence of God. It has made significant contributions in the areas of morality, ethics, and human rights. (And then there are its many contributions to art, music, literature, history, etc.) In fact, if you had not sent this reply, I was going to post an addendum in which I described how Sweden et al. had been influenced by Christianity (due to the European worldview, etc) even if it has not internalized it to the degree of other countries.

Sixth, I am not sure what slavery has to do with the Scandinavian countries or this discussion at all.

I’m afraid that I’m going to have to bow out of this discussion with you. I do not feel that you are taking the time to read or appreciate my points, so I don’t see much value in continuing the discussion. Also, it is tangential to the thread’s topic.

Nor does the whole subject of Sweden or progressive politics or crime…which you brought up. If you take a thread down a rabbit trail, please don’t complain that someone follows the rabbit and runs it to ground.

I have read your posts and do not agree with your theories. Thus if that is to be considered unappreciative, so be it.

No one has suggested one cannot be good without God. However you seemed to claim that God and religious people were not instrumental in much positive social change. From the days when Christians opposed the killing of infants and abortions in Rome to slavery to the Civil Rights movement, it has been RELIGIOUS people who have worked, protested and paid the price so that others would have the God given rights we have cherished.

Lisa

 

[nmgauss]

In his new book, Society Without God, Phil Zuckerman looks at the Danes and the Swedes—probably the most godless people on Earth. They don’t go to church or pray in the privacy of their own homes; they don’t believe in God or heaven or hell. But, by any reasonable standard, they’re nice to one another. They have a famously expansive welfare and health care service. They have a strong commitment to social equality. And—even without belief in a God looming over them—they murder and rape one another significantly less frequently than Americans do.

Denmark and Sweden aren’t exceptions. A 2005 study by Gregory Paul looking at 18 democracies found that the more atheist societies tended to have relatively low murder and suicide rates and relatively low incidence of abortion and teen pregnancy.

The Danes and the Swedes, despite being godless, have strong communities. In fact, Zuckerman points out that most Danes and Swedes identify themselves as Christian. They get married in church, have their babies baptized, give some of their income to the church, and feel attached to their religious community—they just don’t believe in God. Zuckerman suggests that Scandinavian Christians are a lot like American Jews, who are also highly secularized in belief and practice, have strong communal feelings, and tend to be well-behaved.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful but this argument borders on laughable. Why is it when we must trot out the “good without God” meme, we always point to a couple of small Scandinavian countries? Realize that the tiny size, the small population, and the (up to recently with the Muslim invasion) homogeneous population and geography makes a huge difference in levels of violence, elements of mutual cooperation, and peaceful existence.

You cannot conflate Sweden with America and its massive population, incredible diversity, variances in geography, ethnicity, active immigration from all over the world, societal differences and diversity of religious practice. THESE are the elements the create social problems. Sweden doesn’t have our black gangs in Chicago or history of slavery and Jim Crow laws, or in the West Coast the terrible legacy of anti-Asian attitudes.
Lisa

You are putting more into the research results than intended by the researchers. The question was “Do people need God in order to be good?”

Denmark and Sweden were selected as case studies. Nothing else was implied.

Nobody is saying that the United States is bad and Scandinavia is good. No conflating is going on here. To be sure, other factors are involved, but the correlation of low crime and godlessness is presented here. Correlation does not imply cause and effect. It is just an interesting statistical case. Possible factors causing this correlation are mentioned. but no definitive research has demonstrated conclusively that godlessness causes low crime.

 

[LisaA]

You are putting more into the research results than intended by the researchers. The question was “Do people need God in order to be good?”

Denmark and Sweden were selected as case studies. Nothing else was implied.

Nobody is saying that the United States is bad and Scandinavia is good. No conflating is going on here. To be sure, other factors are involved, but the correlation of low crime and godlessness is presented here. Correlation does not imply cause and effect. It is just an interesting statistical case. Possible factors causing this correlation are mentioned. but no definitive research has demonstrated conclusively that godlessness causes low crime.

The conflating is claiming that because a small homogeneous population like Sweden has low crime rates, this can be extrapolated to a large and heterogeneous country like America. And I’m not doing any research. I’m just pointing out facts as opposed to feel good theories.

Now what does any of this have to do with the thread?

Lisa

 

[PRmerger]

I doubt that Catholic doctrine supports this view. After all, the Catholic definition of a saint is someone that is in heaven. I assume, in order to be in heaven, you have to engage in saintly behavior on earth (at least on balance), or you have to be an innocent. The church recognizes the possibility, even the probability, of non-Catholics and even non-Christians in heaven, and this would presumably include atheists.

2 thoughts:

-it is incorrect to state that the CC recognizes the probability of non- Christians in heaven. (Unless you want to proffer a magisterial doctrine that states that it is probable that they are in heaven…that would be helpful). I think you have been poorly informed on this issue.

-as you correctly state: anyone who is in heaven is Catholic. And he is there because he has embraced the Eternal Logos. That is, no one is an atheist who is in heaven.

 

[LisaA]

As I said, I’m not talking about heroic deeds.

I am talking about saintly deeds, in the manner of Maximilian Kolbe,

Latching onto this cogent point, I think one can be “good” without God in that you can live a peaceful life, not raping, robbing or murdering anyone, even if you are an atheist.

I think the difference between the atheist who manages to withstand temptation not to bonk his neighbor over the head and the Christian who follows Christ’s teaching is that the Christian is oriented to self giving, self sacrifice and unselfishness.

You don’t see the Dietrich Bonhoeffers or Maximilian Kolbes among the upper east side secular progressives.

Lisa

 

[mafh]

-it is incorrect to state that the CC recognizes the probability of non- Christians in heaven. (Unless you want to proffer a magisterial doctrine that states that it is probable that they are in heaven…that would be helpful). I think you have been poorly informed on this issue.

Clarification: By non-Christian in heaven, I mean person who was a non-Christian on earth, but made it to heaven regardless. Sorry for any confusion…

 

[mafh]

2 thoughts:

-it is incorrect to state that the CC recognizes the probability of non- Christians in heaven. (Unless you want to proffer a magisterial doctrine that states that it is probable that they are in heaven…that would be helpful). I think you have been poorly informed on this issue.

-as you correctly state: anyone who is in heaven is Catholic. And he is there because he has embraced the Eternal Logos. That is, no one is an atheist who is in heaven.

Somehow my previous reply got eaten.

In any event, what I was trying to say was the Catholic church supports the possibility (and the probability which you disputed) of non-Christians going to heaven (whereupon they would learn the full truth and become Catholics).

By ‘probability’, what I really meant was that the church allows for the possibility, and that it is probable that at least one non-Christian, throughout all of history, made it into heaven.

If I correct the argument to remove ‘probably’, and to clarify that by ‘non-Christians in heaven’ I mean to say people who were non-Christians until they went to heaven, do you accept the conclusion that this hypothetical saintly atheist is possible?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you aware that it was CHRISTIANITY that helped eradicate the evil of slavery. The Civil Rights movement was a RELIGIOUS movement. They try to forget it was REVEREND Martin Luther King Jr. He was a minister, not a college professor.

Yes.

And Catholics were at the forefront.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...ZSIbzdncDmVpU9scnf6Q1GbfgdVb9SJm0IcpMjN22W3Wg

All of this the fruit of the Judeo-Christian ethos that we are made in the image and likeness of God.