If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[exnihilo]

Why does deciding that a religion does not offer something of value to one’s self considered pride?

If God truly does exist and if you refuse to believe in Him and honor Him and if that refusal is because you think that you are able to be good on your own then this would be pride.

The sin of pride is rampant. You can also see it in how many people view the past. Man tends to think that his time is the best morally. He tends to think that his time has finally adjudicated as wrong the true evils of the world. He tends to look at the past as being ignorant not only in scientific knowledge but moral knowledge.

From the public reaction I see every time there is a suggestion to raise taxes to assist the underprivileged I’d say your right. Though taxes don’t rob one of the ability to be charitable, nor is money the only thing that can be offered for charity (there’s also time and effort).

With government ‘charity’ the people want to be charitable with other peoples money. Thus they want the good deeds but paid for by everyone but them. I would say that taxes do rob you, literally, of the ability to be charitable. They are robbery because it is being taken without consent. And it does limit your resources, from which you can truly give. I agree that time is something you can give but time has been taken from you in as much as you spent time working only to have the product of that work, money, taken from you.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If God truly does exist and if you refuse to believe in Him and honor Him and if that refusal is because you think that you are able to be good on your own then this would be pride.

“Refuse” sound like a misrepresentation (at least it doesn’t represent my stance). “have not been convinced” seems like a better fit. I can understand on the outside looking in how one might think of an unconvinced person as actively refusing, and I have no doubts that there are people that refuse. But the absence of a belief of a deity is the only requirement to be an atheist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**But the absence of a belief of a deity is the only requirement to be an atheist. **

Yes, as close to philosophical bankruptcy as one can get with that “only requirement.”

 

[exnihilo]

“Refuse” sound like a misrepresentation (at least it doesn’t represent my stance). “have not been convinced” seems like a better fit. I can understand on the outside looking in how one might think of an unconvinced person as actively refusing, and I have no doubts that there are people that refuse. But the absence of a belief of a deity is the only requirement to be an atheist.

I would agree that most people would characterize their lack of faith as not being convinced. However I do feel that at the very least sometimes this lack of faith is an unwillingness to believe. And accusations of refusal to believe are made from all directions.

A staunch atheist that is also a staunch evolutionist might claim someone who denies evolution is refusing to accept facts. We can imagine situations where we are told a person we think we know well did something that is out of character. In that case many will refuse to believe the accusations.

Why we believe what we do is very fascinating to me and I dont claim to fully understand it myself. But I do believe that stubborn refusal to accept truth is something that humans are pretty good at.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I would agree that most people would characterize their lack of faith as not being convinced.

I’m not sure what limits I should apply to the word “faith” in this context. I want to make sure that one perception of it isn’t being used here. Atheism doesn’t always imply the absence of faith (and I am talking about faith in the immaterial, not faith in the broad sense which is similar to confidence). I’ve got three friends that have no beliefs in any deities but they also have faith in an immaterial existence. There are also forms of Buddhism that are considered atheistic since they acknowledge no belief in deities (Buddhism doesn’t restrict one from believing so there are forms that have been assimilated into other religious groups).

I should have also paralleled my disposition to some of the non-Christians religions since both some of the Christians and non-Christians may be able to relate to this. Among other books I’ve got a Koran, a Bible, a Bhagavad-Gita, and a book of Norse, Greek, Egyption, and other deities(^). What I think we have in common is we are not convinced of the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, or of the book with the Norse, Greek, and Egyption deities. Where we differ is whether or not we are convinced of the Bible. For me the Bible is grouped with the other books.

A staunch atheist that is also a staunch evolutionist might claim someone who denies evolution is refusing to accept facts.

It sounds like a quick summary description that will carry with it associations of disharmonious interactions. But since we are talking about belief we need to consider the cognitive processes behind the interactions.

We can imagine situations where we are told a person we think we know well did something that is out of character. In that case many will refuse to believe the accusations.

No need to imagine. I can recall similar and relevant situations. The motivations behind the apparent refusals varies:

**(1)**I’ve got a friend that studied law. She changed her mind about getting into criminal law because she had moral problems with the possibility of defending a person she thought was guilty. She talked about having to maintain behaving as though some one was not guilty and make the opposing witnesses seem questionable even if she believed their statements to be accurate. From the outside looking in such behaviour would appear to be a refusal to believe the opposing side.

**(2)**In another case I think a person thought the bad news being delivered was plausible and wanted to preempt being exposed to further information. There was a legal liability issue in this situation and consequences could arise if the person could be shown to have knowledge of a certain situation. Though I also think the person thought the direction in which the information was pointing was plausable and didn’t want to be exposed to enough information to move them from their current position. The situation I have in mind may come close to matching your example.

**(3)**In a third situation after some one died I had to call his family in German and the USA to let him know. His daughter and his aunt by their own words could not believe the news when I first broke it to them. I had to restate the events that lead up to his death several times before it sank in. Even after seeing his decomposed body and and after the funeral his daughter would occasional slip from the mental state of thinking he was dead to thinking he was alive and do things such as try to call him to share an interesting story until the disconnected message reminded her that he was no longer among the living. She seems to have settled on believing that his spirit is still on earth and interacts with her both emotionally and physically. Last week she told me how he prevented her from being injured badly during a fall.

In all three of these situations one could describe them as refusing to believe. Though if one examines the behaviours and motivations further the apparent refusals to believe expand to something that isn’t implied from the word “refusal” alone. In the lawyer’s scenario there’s no actual refusal to believe, but external behaviour being motivated by the goal to project a certain perception (acting). The second situation may involve some acting, or avoiding liability, or even trying self deception. The friend with the deceased rather appears to genuinely have a difficult time integrating the termination of her father’s life into her model of reality.

Why we believe what we do is very fascinating to me and I dont claim to fully understand it myself. But I do believe that stubborn refusal to accept truth is something that humans are pretty good at.

I’m trying to improve my understanding myself. I’ve been reading the book “Neuroconstructivism: How the Brain Constructs Cognition” (Volume 1, 2009 edition) and “Brain, memory, and belief” by Schacter and Scarry. I think these books have some relevant insight. “Brain, Memory and Belief” presents information on both sub-conscience and conscious processes that impact what one believes and doesn’t believe. It also shows how processes in a healthy brain can lead to distorted beliefs (one of the authors of this book also write a book on on how these processes can cause memory errors in “The Seven Sins of Memory”). “Neuroconstructivism” had a section on what happens when some one encounters information that doesn’t fit previous expectations that may have some relevance to belief, but the book gives more attention to child cognitive development so right now I see it as possibly applicable to adults.

 

[Spock]

I think there really is objective morality so strong atheists who act morally are conforming to reality. However, I think if they logically followed through with their belief in lack of punishment then they would not be inhibited from doing evil. Since objective morality and the human conscience do exist it is not surprising that they will often live morally.

No one denies the existence of objective morality, only the existence of absolute morality. Of course conscience exists.

But these things point to God since these things cant be products of a purely material world.

Hogwash. Prove it.

There are many arguments, thoroughly explained, that demonstrate how to get to God from the world we experience using our reason.

Not one. If there would be one, the Catholic Church would declare it loud and clear, and there would be no rational atheists. By the way, the catechism states exactly (III.36): “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” That is all. No details. However, there is a glaring logical error in the sentence above. It is pretty funny that the sentence which talks about “the natural right of human reason” contains a logical fallacy. The writer(s) of this sentence could have benefited from an elementary course in simple logic.

All the purported proofs of God’s existence contain some logical fallacy, sometimes more than one.

I think this is hard to measure. But if we said the acts of the Soviet Empire are due to their espoused atheism then it would be hard to make a claim that atheists tend to be just as good as theists.

What a joke. If I would claim that Catholics are evil and point to the actions of the Inquisition, you would be upset that I incorrectly project the acts of some Catholics unto all of Catholicism. But you do not have any problem of doing the same when you project the acts of miniscule number of monstrous atheists and paint atheism with same brush. Shame on you!

 

[exnihilo]

“Neuroconstructivism” had a section on what happens when some one encounters information that doesn’t fit previous expectations that may have some relevance to belief, but the book gives more attention to child cognitive development so right now I see it as possibly applicable to adults.

Children are an interesting case. They have a tremendous openness to new ideas. They also have a tendency towards consistency. There are plenty of stories of children questioning an adult’s lack of consistency.

 

[exnihilo]

No one denies the existence of objective morality, only the existence of absolute morality.

What do you mean by absolute morality?

Hogwash. Prove it.

There are plenty of arguments. If you dont find them satisfying that is another matter.

Not one. If there would be one, the Catholic Church would declare it loud and clear, and there would be no rational atheists. By the way, the catechism states exactly (III.36): “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” That is all. No details. However, there is a glaring logical error in the sentence above. It is pretty funny that the sentence which talks about “the natural right of human reason” contains a logical fallacy. The writer(s) of this sentence could have benefited from an elementary course in simple logic.

And what is that error?

What a joke. If I would claim that Catholics are evil and point to the actions of the Inquisition, you would be upset that I incorrectly project the acts of some Catholics unto all of Catholicism. But you do not have any problem of doing the same when you project the acts of miniscule number of monstrous atheists and paint atheism with same brush. Shame on you!

I wouldn’t mind so much if you did that because the body count is so high for the atheist communists that you’d lose in such a contest. The Inquisition is inconsequential in terms of number of deaths. At most 5,000 were sentenced to death in the Inquisition and many for serious crimes they most likely did commit. The Soviets alone killed probably 60,000,000 people.

How is it you can claim that atheists and religious people are equal in their good and bad acts? Has there been any such study across time and cultures?

 

[Curious_Seed]

This occurred to me just now. Have any philosophers (either theists/atheists) answered this question?

Powerful question; but, too much undefined.

What do you mean by: God, existence, point, or good.

Still, too much fun; so, I’ll take my own twist on it all.

Without God, the meaning of good becomes relative.

Relativism, in society, is regulated by laws, as defined by the government of the day.

So, the point no longer is what is good, but what is the law, in the conduct of oneself.

 

[Spock]

What do you mean by absolute morality?

A set of rules which are unchanging across all times, places and cultures. (Example: “stealing is always wrong”…)

There are plenty of arguments. If you dont find them satisfying that is another matter.

Arguments are dime a dozen. Here are a few for your pleasure: arguments… and, no, these are not caricatures, they are the actual “arguments”, in a somewhat playful form.

And what is that error?

Pretty obvious. Loot at the phrase: “from the created world” which presupposes what it wishes to prove. Circular argument… DUH!

I wouldn’t mind so much if you did that because the body count is so high for the atheist communists that you’d lose in such a contest. The Inquisition is inconsequential in terms of number of deaths. At most 5,000 were sentenced to death in the Inquisition and many for serious crimes they most likely did commit. The Soviets alone killed probably 60,000,000 people.

The ratio of the killed compared to the population is more indicative. But that is not the point. The people who committed these atrocities (on both sides) are very small percentage. It is ridiculous to generalize. As a matter of fact, this is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

How is it you can claim that atheists and religious people are equal in their good and bad acts? Has there been any such study across time and cultures?

All you have to look is the prisons. There is a higher percentage of believers in prison than there are atheists. Just Google “prison population by religion” and enjoy the result.

 

[Ender]

This is the pertinent part. How does the knowledge that God does not exist (and thus that there is no punishment in the hereafter) logically lead to “everything goes”?

What logical argument can be made for doing anything not in ones best interest? Why, for example, would I ever donate money to alleviate the suffering of people I don’t know, will never meet, and who will never be able to repay my gift?

Strong atheists are certain that the Christian God cannot exist (because the definition is logically incoherent), and yet there is no epidemic “let’s kill, rape and torture” among them.

That there may be no moral reasons to avoid these behaviors doesn’t meant there are no reasons of any kind. Clearly the threat of civil punishment is sufficient to deter most of those inclined to these actions.

they accept that there is objective right and wrong, even if there is no absolute right and wrong.

I don’t understand this distinction. What is the origin of objectively true moral values, in what way are they different from absolute values, and how do we know what they are?

And for normal people the idea of “rape, kill and torture” is not a path to pleasure. Only mentally sick people find these activities “pleasurable”.

On what ground do you define these actions as sick?

The relatively constant level of of “good behavior” between the believers and atheists definitely contradicts that expectation.

The fact that theists and atheists occasionally agree on what constitutes “good” behavior is no argument that either of them is correct. Clearly each believes the other is mistaken in his core belief so where is the logic in saying they are both correct simply because they happen to agree (about the moral nature of a particular act)?

Ender

 

[fhansen]

Lets grant that we are the ones who choose. But why and how do we choose? The issue seems to be quite complex. You say when we cooperate, God helps us make the choice. Well why do we cooperate? Because God gives us sufficient grace, in order that we have the ability to make that choice. And why do we make the right choice in particular? Efficacious grace. All from God. If God wills the salvation for all, I don’t know why he doesn’t send efficacious grace to everyone.

But complex theological questions aside, the very fact that we are tainted and have a natural predisposition towards evil should be evidence enough that we are not totally free. The odds are unfairly stacked against us from the start when our nature tends towards sin. Why couldn’t God have made it the other way around, so that we tend to choose the good? Instead of original sin, it would be original holiness. If original sin doesn’t destroy our free will, original holiness shouldn’t destroy it either.

We can’t be trusted with free will, we should never have been given it. I firmly believe that, since the consequences are so steep.

What I know is that human pride/arrogance/self-righteousness is responsible for all human moral evil. To the extent that we’re certain, confident, sure of ourselves and our moral stance we’re also all the more capable of perpetrating the most horrific crimes against humanity, whether we’re an autocrat, a serial killer, or a soldier in a war of genocide. And this principle also holds true for the myriad of small ways humans treat each other badly in ordinary everyday life. Whether we profess faith in God, and even claim to be acting in his name or whether we’re ardent atheists, human self-righteousness rules- and often ruins- the day.

Evil stands out to me like a sore thumb-something that should not be-because of its sheer unreasonableness, because the most savage animal lacks the angry, malicious, viciousness and selfishness that otherwise ordinary humans sometimes demonstrate. There’s an imbalance-way too much fear and anger and cynicism and pride in the world-in us- in general.* Innocence lost* is not an empty concept-something really is off-base with humanity. Even everyday human shame points to this fact-to a dissatisfaction with who we really are.

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells of another attitude-that of humility. This virtue doesn’t seem to garner much popularity-it’s something most of us can be moderately to violently repulsed by in fact -but maybe we should ask ourselves why. I can’t help but think that the worst of human behavior would magically disappear to the degree we possesses even a bit more of this trait.

Maybe we’d be better off as robots-but I think then it wouldn’t really matter if we existed at all. The freedom that gives us the possibility to commit evil is the same freedom that gives us the possibility to do good. It means that we choose whether or not we’ll be noble, courageous, truthful, wise, loving, selfless, often in the face of obstacles, in a world that often seems bent on thwarting such virtues. To me that means we live in a world where time and testing can produce something better-or not. For myself it’s worth it-I see light at the end of the tunnel-and that light has happened to have been confirmed to me in most dramatic ways. Maybe we can’t learn to appreciate the light without the tunnel-and without the freedom to choose or reject the light.

In the end I believe the playing field is made absolutely level for us all. Luke 12:48 points to this concept, IMO: “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.”

 

[exnihilo]

A set of rules which are unchanging across all times, places and cultures. (Example: “stealing is always wrong”…)

Then I dont understand the distinction between objective and absolute morality. Objective morality would be consistent rules across culture, place, time etc.

Pretty obvious. Loot at the phrase: “from the created world” which presupposes what it wishes to prove. Circular argument… DUH!

I dont think the catechism is making a tight logical argument. You could take out created and it would not make any difference.

The ratio of the killed compared to the population is more indicative. But that is not the point. The people who committed these atrocities (on both sides) are very small percentage. It is ridiculous to generalize. As a matter of fact, this is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

Not really an argument just a point of consideration.

All you have to look is the prisons. There is a higher percentage of believers in prison than there are atheists. Just Google “prison population by religion” and enjoy the result.

I Googled that. You’ll need to provide more information to make a convincing argument. What I came across was apparently from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which would just be federal inmates. The statistics say ‘religious affiliation’. What does that mean? Does that mean affiliation while incarcerated? Atheists might seek religion after incarcerated. Also what I saw was from 1997 when many people still had a religious upbringing. Is affiliation upbringing or current belief? Atheists might tend to be smarter and wealthier which means they can better avoid incarceration.

The biggest flaw is this only looks at crimes against the state. It excludes former moral crimes that atheists have helped to make licit. And it does not consider positive acts such as charity.

 

[Ender]

A set of rules which are unchanging across all times, places and cultures. (Example: “stealing is always wrong”…)

This is not the example you’re looking for since few cultures ever disapproved of stealing. What they didn’t accept was stealing within their own clan, but they not only approved of but celebrated stealing from “others.” I think you need a better example because almost no society ever taught that stealing was always wrong.

All you have to look is the prisons. There is a higher percentage of believers in prison than there are atheists. Just Google “prison population by religion” and enjoy the result.

Not exactly. There is surely a higher number of believers than atheists in prison but there are much higher numbers of believers than atheists in the general population. Unless you know the ratio of theists to atheists in the country as a whole you have no idea whether the percentage in prison is higher or lower than their ratio outside of prison.

Ender

 

[Equites_Christi]

I think the only point to maintaining morality in an atheistic universe is, essentially, self-preservation and the pursuit of hedonism.

Usually the morality I hear from non-believers centers around harming others. If there is harm done, it is immoral. No harm done, moral. That’s nice because it prevents me from experiencing the displeasure of being harmed, and also the displeasure from having anyone I care about harmed. Since many of the things that give me pleasure don’t cause harm to others, I am otherwise free to do as I please.

Then the question comes, what if I take pleasure in inflicting harm? Does the fact that displeasure is a product cancel out the validity of my pleasure? If so, why? What if I take great pleasure in giving only a small pinch? Do we eventually have to say “It is wrong to harm others because I said so”?

 

[Spock]

What logical argument can be made for doing anything not in ones best interest? Why, for example, would I ever donate money to alleviate the suffering of people I don’t know, will never meet, and who will never be able to repay my gift?

Are you guys really that dense? What is in my best interest on the short run is not necessarily in my best interest on the long run. Only really dumb people do not realize that distinction. Only very dumb people do not realize that we are are both individulas and social beings, that we must compromize in order to balance these aspects of our nature. Sometimes one must accept a sub-optimal short-term solution to gain a long-term benefit. Only dumb people think that steamrolling over others is an optimal strategy to maximize one’s own well-being. One can give to others, even if there is no short term benefit, knowing full well that spreading good will around will come back - what goes around, comes around.

Why do you think that atheists are all that dumb? There is an old saying, that everyone starts their reasoning from their own starting point. Is that old saying true?

I don’t understand this distinction. What is the origin of objectively true moral values, in what way are they different from absolute values, and how do we know what they are?

Oh, brother. Not again. Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules of proper behavior in a specific society in a specific time. It is objective, because it exists whether it is accepted or endorsed by everyone. But it is not absolute, because it changes from society to society and from time to time.

On what ground do you define these actions as sick?

You can have three guesses.

The fact that theists and atheists occasionally agree on what constitutes “good” behavior is no argument that either of them is correct. Clearly each believes the other is mistaken in his core belief so where is the logic in saying they are both correct simply because they happen to agree (about the moral nature of a particular act)?

They are correct in their own eyes and in the eyes of their counterparts. If you behave in a manner I find “good and decent”, then I will call you a good and decent fellow. I don’t care if you help the homeless to collect brownie points in heaven, or if you help to feel good about yourself, or if you do it, because that is what you feel you should do.

 

[Spock]

Then I dont understand the distinction between objective and absolute morality. Objective morality would be consistent rules across culture, place, time etc.

Nope, that is the definition of absolute morality. Which says (for example) that lying to someone is always wrong, no matter what.

I dont think the catechism is making a tight logical argument. You could take out created and it would not make any difference.

It would not make a compellling argument either way. But at least it would not be logically fallacious. But since the catechism is the cornerstone of all Catholicism, it is reasonable to expect a good, “logically correct” argument.

I Googled that. You’ll need to provide more information to make a convincing argument. What I came across was apparently from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which would just be federal inmates. The statistics say ‘religious affiliation’. What does that mean? Does that mean affiliation while incarcerated? Atheists might seek religion after incarcerated. Also what I saw was from 1997 when many people still had a religious upbringing. Is affiliation upbringing or current belief? Atheists might tend to be smarter and wealthier which means they can better avoid incarceration.

At the very least it is objective. These statistics have no “axe to grind”.

The biggest flaw is this only looks at crimes against the state. It excludes former moral crimes that atheists have helped to make licit. And it does not consider positive acts such as charity.

It talks about crimes. Not “moral misdeeds”. Don’t call these “crimes”. The only available statistics are the ones about crimes. And those speak loud and clear.

 

[Spock]

This is not the example you’re looking for since few cultures ever disapproved of stealing. What they didn’t accept was stealing within their own clan, but they not only approved of but celebrated stealing from “others.” I think you need a better example because almost no society ever taught that stealing was always wrong.

That is the point. I cannot even think of any “moral rule” that has been univocally condemned in every society across the ages.

Not exactly. There is surely a higher number of believers than atheists in prison but there are much higher numbers of believers than atheists in the general population. Unless you know the ratio of theists to atheists in the country as a whole you have no idea whether the percentage in prison is higher or lower than their ratio outside of prison.

And you do. The relative proportion of atheists in prison is lower than the relative proportion of atheists among the general population. Now, personally, I do not put a great emphasis on these statistics and I do not try to show that believers are less “moral” than atheists. But they certainly do not support the opposite opinion. They do not support that being a Catholic or a Christian is indicative of higher standards of morality.

 

[Ender]

Are you guys really that dense? What is in my best interest on the short run is not necessarily in my best interest on the long run. Only really dumb people do not realize that distinction.

I made no distinction between long and short term interest; I simply asked if you could make an argument for why I should do something not in my best interest. Huffing and puffing is not an answer.

Only dumb people think that steamrolling over others is an optimal strategy to maximize one’s own well-being.

I’m not sure why such behavior would be that obviously dumb. Drug pushers are seemingly satisfied with their lives lived in comfort at the expense of others. Explain where they’ve gone wrong.

One can give to others, even if there is no short term benefit, knowing full well that spreading good will around will come back - what goes around, comes around.

Ah, so your reason for giving to someone else is the expectation that you will get something in return … as I said, I understand why you would do things in your own interest. This is still no reason for giving without expectation of a quid pro quo.

Why do you think that atheists are all that dumb?

Au contraire - I assumed you would be able to answer a few simple questions.

Morality is the set of written and unwritten rules of proper behavior in a specific society in a specific time.

I think we’ve been down this road before. This would make the rules of golf a moral code. It seems that you equate laws with morals.

It is objective, because it exists whether it is accepted or endorsed by everyone.

So, is the fact that a society has a set of moral values what makes them objectively exist?

But it is not absolute, because it changes from society to society and from time to time.

Is there any way to say that the values of Society X are any better or worse than those of Society Y?

You can have three guesses.

I’m trying to make the point as clear as possible: can you explain what makes murder immoral?

Ender

 

[exnihilo]

Nope, that is the definition of absolute morality. Which says (for example) that lying to someone is always wrong, no matter what.

It seems you are saying that when you talk about absolute morality you mean that lying is wrong in all circumstances, even if it was to, for example, hide someone who is being sought by someone wishing to do hard to them. That could be a definition of absolute morality. Objective morality would still be the same rules across time, culture, and place but it would, quite sensibly, rely on the conditions.

At the very least it is objective. These statistics have no “axe to grind”.

I dont doubt the numbers. I doubt their interpretation.

It talks about crimes. Not “moral misdeeds”. Don’t call these “crimes”. The only available statistics are the ones about crimes. And those speak loud and clear.

Aren’t most crimes moral misdeeds? Of course. All criminal law is founded on the idea that the criminal act is morally wrong. As morality changes so does what is criminal. Modern criminal law reflects modern morality which has more than a healthy does of atheist influence.