Can atheists do "good?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter _AnnoDomini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The teaching of the Fathers is in substantial harmony with Sacred Scripture. Thus St. Jerome, speaking of the reward which Yahweh gave to Nabuchodonosor for his services against Tyre (Ezekiel 29:20), says: “The fact that Nabuchodonosor was rewarded for a good work shows that even the gentiles in the judgment of God are not passed over without a reward when they have performed a good deed.” In his commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians the same holy Doctor observes: “Many who are without the faith and have not the Gospel of Christ, yet perform prudent and holy actions, e.g. by obeying their parents, succoring the needy, not oppressing their neighbors, not taking away the possessions of others.”

Fr Pohle then quotes St Augustine who also discusses naturally good acts (done without and without a supernatural motive):

St. Augustine (from “On the Spirit and the Letter”):

“If they who by nature do the things contained in the law, must not be regarded as yet in the number of those whom Christ’s grace justifies, but rather as among those whose actions (although they are those of ungodly men who do not truly and rightly worship the true God) we not only cannot blame, but actually praise, and with good reason, and rightly too, since they have been done, so far as we read or know or hear, according to the rule of righteousness; though were we to discuss the question with what motive they are done, they would hardly be found to be such as to deserve the praise and defense which are due to righteous conduct.”

St. Augustine (from sermon 349, “On Charity”):

“Love is either divine or human; human love is either licit or illicit… I speak first of licit human love, which is free from censure; then, of illicit human love, which is damnable; and in the third place, of divine love, which leads us to Heaven… You, therefore, have that love which is licit; it is human, but, as I have said, licit, so much so that, if it were lacking, [the want of] it would be censured. You are permitted with human love to love your spouse, your children, your friends and fellow-citizens. But, as you see, the ungodly, too, have this love, e.g. pagans, Jews, heretics. Who among them does not love his wife, his children, his brethren, his neighbors, his relations and friends? This, therefore, is human love. If any one would be so unfeeling as to lose even human love, not loving his own children, … we should no longer regard him as a human being.”

continued….
 
St Augustine then discusses “illicit” human love (e.g. fornication, adultery) and then divine love:

Love your children, love your wives, even if it’s only in worldly matters and in a worldly way. Because of course you ought to love them with reference to Christ, and take thought for them with reference to God, and in them love nothing but Christ. … Such, you see, is that divine sort of charity. What good, after all, would be done in them by your fleeting and mortal charity? Still, when you do love them in a human way, love Christ more. I’m not saying you shouldn’t love your father, not saying you shouldn’t love your children, but love Christ more. Listen to him saying it himself, in case you should suppose these are just my words: Whoever loves father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me (Mt 10:37).

Fr Pohle also notes that a Christian usually (without a special revelation from God) does not know when an act they perform is a “supernatural” or “natural” act:

It may be asked: If the salutary acts which we perform are supernatural in substance, why are we not conscious of the fact? The answer is not far to seek. Philosophical analysis shows that the intrinsic nature of our psychic operations is no more a subject of immediate consciousness than the substance of the soul itself. Consequently, sanctifying grace cannot reveal its presence through our inner consciousness. Having no intuitive knowledge of our own Ego, we are compelled to specify the different acts of the soul by means of their respective objects and their various tendencies (cognition, volition). To our consciousness the supernatural love of God does not present itself as essentially different from the natural.

Fr Pohle’s work is available for free here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29540/29540-h/29540-h.html#toc17

Catholic Encyclopaedia, merit;

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
 
TominAdelaide said:
40.png
Freddy:
If I do something today then it has no merit. But if I then believe in God and do exactly the same thing then it does.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Encyclopedia (under its article on “merit”) notes that for a work to have “supernatural merit”…
Click to expand...
That’s obviously not applicable to an atheist. So if ‘good’ is defined as having supernatural merit then the question makes no sense.
 
Freddy said:
That’s obviously not applicable to an atheist. So if ‘good’ is defined as having supernatural merit then the question makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I’m repeating my previous post, but the jist of what I was saying was:

Naturally good acts (done without a supernatural motive) will get naturally good rewards from God on earth (eg temporal prosperity, money, career promotions, etc)

Naturally good acts (done with a supernatural motive) will receive a supernatural reward from God in Heaven (eg Beatific Vision)

So if one was to avoid doing good acts one would miss out on either temporal or supernatural rewards depending on the person’s intention when performing the act….
 
Last edited:
Please, notice my first message, though…

Even if an atheist desire to do good, it doesn’t mean they achieve it because, in the end, they end up doing terrible evil by denying the source of Goodness Himself.

Besides, to do natural good deeds is not enough (even tho necessary).
 
Last edited:
Anyone can do good but that good will only merit things in heaven if they are baptized and in a state of grace.
 
Aulef said:
Please, notice my first message, though…
Click to expand...
Oh yes, wasn’t claiming agreement in full, just that you allowed there might be a rational reason, wanting to live in a better earthly world, that would (and does) motivate atheists to do good acts, which I appreciate as it’s not universal for people to do so.
 
Last edited:
My understanding of Christian views on doing good is that the atheist gains no salvation merit for doing good. It’s just doing good for this life. If that’s the view, I’m good with that. That’s the good I want to do. Since I don’t believe in God or salvation, it’s meaningless to me what others say that God thinks about it.

If God appreciates my good works even though He doesn’t give me heavenly credit, that’s fine with me, too. If I knew that God was specifically doing something good, I’d be glad to thank Him as well. Since we don’t seem to communicate, I’ll just stick with doing good for goodness’ sake.
 
TominAdelaide said:
40.png
Freddy:
That’s obviously not applicable to an atheist. So if ‘good’ is defined as having supernatural merit then the question makes no sense.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I’m repeating my previous post, but the jist of what I was saying was:

Naturally good acts (done without a supernatural motive) will get naturally good rewards from God on earth (eg temporal prosperity, money, career promotions, etc)

Naturally good acts (done with a supernatural motive) will receive a supernatural reward from God in Heaven (eg Beatific Vision)

So if one was to avoid doing good acts one would miss out on either temporal or supernatural rewards depending on the person’s intention when performing the act….
Click to expand...
Why would good acts just result in positive outcomes? Someone could sacrifice themself in saving someone’s life with no expectation of any reward. But you could sacrifice yourself with the expectation of a ‘supernatural reward’.

Who is the person who gives the most?
 
Freddy said:
Why would good acts just result in positive outcomes? Someone could sacrifice themself in saving someone’s life with no expectation of any reward. But you could sacrifice yourself with the expectation of a ‘supernatural reward’.

Who is the person who gives the most?
Click to expand...
Yes, doing good acts without any expectation of reward is a topic one of my university friends raised with me once: “Is true altruism possible?” She said she studied the question at university. In Catholic terms, this concept is expressed as a Catholic performing a good act with the greatest possible “purity of intention”. Fr Hardon (in his “Catholic Dictionary”) defines purity of intention as “the perfection of one’s motive inspiring human action. An act is more or less pure depending on the degree of selfless love of God with which it is performed.” Fr Dion (in his work “The Handbook of Spiritual Perfection”) described purity of intention as “simply as having one aim, one intention, and one motive in everything we do: to please God.”

 
Forgive me if I am repeating someone else’s remarks; I only had time to skim through the discussion.

Veritatis Splendor by St John Paul IIis a good place to start for these questions. He has a fairly concise discussion of moral theology, so I think he touches on this issue while incorporating insights from Gaudium et Spes and other documents from Vatican II.

Every person has a relationship with God; the natural law is written on every heart and seeking to know and fulfill that law is to do good. Any person can do good because God has made them to do good.

Atheist can mean different things. If it means he has nothing from God, then Catholics probably do not believe such people exist. If it means they do not acknowledge God, that does not mean God has not given them “grace.” They can look at what they have, and discern what is good and what is evil. I think they would discern more clearly if they acknowledged God, but they probably do not agree with me. By acknowledging what is good, the common good beyond themselves or the intrinsic worth in every person, I believe they honor the grace God has given them. Whether they believe God gave it to them does not matter; it is what I believe.

That is the context for supernatural merit, their prior relationship with God who creates and knows them. Would God be unfaithful to the gifts already given? Those who live by the law God has given to them, as by working for the common good or defending human dignity, will continue to be blessed by God. They may undercut that by their denial of God, but that generally is a separate issue.
 
Damian243 said:
only if you don’t bother to ask the atheist what their reference point of the good is.
Click to expand...
Why bother? If the reference point could be anything then the point de jour will be different tomorrow.
Damian243 said:
Isn’t all religions a system of world view? It has dogmas, tenants, leadership that teaches people what to think and how to interpret geopolitical issues and social issues. That is a world view it seems. It is teaching people what to think about other groups, facts about reality, how to live the good life, etc. None of this exists for atheists because literally the only thing that unifies atheists is their disbelieve in the supernatural. Its like thinking that people have a unifying world view, political view, social view for not believing in the tooth fairy.
Click to expand...
Edited to correct errors:
It has dogmas, tenants, leadership that teaches people what to think and how to interpret geopolitical issues and social issues. That is a world view it seems. It is teaching people what to think about other groups, facts about reality, how to live the good life, etc. None of this exists for atheists because literally the only thing that unifies atheists is their disbelieve in the supernatural. Its like thinking that people have a unifying world view, political view, social view for not believing in the tooth fairy.

Can’t speak for other religions but Catholicism does not impose, only proposes. If after hearing the proposition, one cannot accept, they simply do not join.
 
o_mlly said:
Why bother? If the reference point could be anything then the point de jour will be different tomorrow.
Click to expand...
The moral views of Catholics are as varied as any other group. You can try for the no-true-Scotsman thing if you like but there are Catholics who engage in and support homosexuality, gay marriage, premarital sex, birth control, open marriages, even abortion. Pretty much any teaching of the Catholic Church is ignored by at least some Catholics out there. So in your words, “why bother” calling yourself Catholic?
 
o_mlly said:
Damian243:
Atheists’ reference point of the good can literally be anything …
Click to expand...
Yes. If one’s reference point for the good can be anything then it is no thing.
Click to expand...
So if a theists reference point could be any one of any number of religions and any number of the thousands of denominations within those religions then the same applies.

What you are actually saying is that if someone doesn’t agree with your exact interpretation of your specific faith then their belief system is worthless. Not only are you denigrating everyone who has a different faith but you are also denigrating those Christians who don’t hold to what you believe. And even denigrating fellow Catholics (as we see too often).

You obviously don’t appreciate that most people don’t flip from one belief system to another at the drop of a hat and select what ever happens to be the flavour of the day (you actually use ‘de jour’ to emphasise that). Most people look to ground their morality in something that makes sense to them. Whether that moral teaching is founded on religious beliefs or secular ones.

Personally speaking (because not everyone approaches this the same way), I don’t discount anyone’s views without good reason. So if Plato or Aurelias or Augustine or Jesus or Hume (not you @Hume, the original one) or Bentham or Mills or anyone else has something worth listening to then I’ll listen. And I wont drastically change my system of morals on reading what they have to say. I don’t become a Platonist and then a Christian and then a follower of Mills or Locke.

But what I will do is incorporate what these people have to say into what I believe if it makes sense to me. And a lot of them are very persuassive. And a lot of them make a lot of sense to me. And a lot of what they say seems to have a common basis. What they write (or sometimes what is written about what they are meant to have said) overlaps in many places.

So my sense of morality doesn’t swing around depending on which way the wind blows. But the relatively vague direction it had when I was quite young has been focussed over the years. By listening to Plato and Jesus and Locke etc. And is pretty much fixed now. Not set in concrete - I am always open to new ideas or new ways of looking at life (and recent events have caused me to re-examine some aspects of it).

But yours is fixed. And some find that to be a good thing. An anchor on which they can depend. Something that won’t change as the world around them changes. And I can understand that. But what I cannot understand is you denigrating literally everyone who doesn’t hold to your exact position. Your claims that their sense of morality is frivolous at best. That it has no value. And worst of all, that no thought has gone into it.

I see a lot of disagreement on this forum. I see many arguments. i see a lot of misunderstanding. But I quite often see an acceptance that what the other person believes is genuine and is honestly held, even if it is rejected as being wrong. All I see from you is contempt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top