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

[ThinkingSapien]

Spoken like someone who believes truth is relative, or so it sounds.

If you want to know about a specific belief I have or don’t have you can ask, there’s no consequence for asking. I’ll either answer to the best of my ability or if I feel the question is inappropriate I’ll let you know.

I must express that I do wish you had commented on the content on the strength and validity of my arguments, examples, and statements and pointed out where my thinking may have been flawed and in what way. I do enjoy exchanging ideas with others here and even if we don’t agree with each other on how we see the world I think we can all learn from each other.

I would say anyone without the one True God is an animal.They carelessly seek one prey after another trying in vain to satisfy the hole within them.

Thanks for qualifying that. I think that comment is worthy of a discussion thread of its own. I don’t want to drive this discussion thread too far off topic so I’ll hold off on elaborating here.

 

[mcteague]

Athough I think the original poster was really asking whether people would act in ways we call good if the threat of Gods punishment or the reward of God’s love were taken out of the equation, many people have raised question of whether the idea of morality can be understood or defined without some objective standard. In someways that seeking definition is helpful, but in others it distorts the issue. It seems clear to me that if you start with the presumption that our definition must be objective. Doing this pretty much dictates the conclusion that without God or a supreme authority, a true knowledge of morality is impossible. But as I said they are rigging the jury.

I think people who are suggesting various definitions, “do on to others…etc” mean well, but are not addressing the essence of the questions. And those arguments are to easily defeated because all one has to do is not agree and the definition is no longer objective or universal. Which is the point of the moral knowledge only from God arguer, so they have no interest in agreeing.

So I want to get to what this discussion is really about. It is not about morality, or God, or any of that stuff. We are really asking important and fundemental questions concerning ontology and epistimology. Morality is an intangible. We are asking do intangibles exist as a category of being? And if we think that they do, we are asking how can we know this?

I try to be intellectually honest and consistent. We can, and should apply the same ontological and epistimoligical standards to the idea morality as we would to anyother intangible. It is knowable to us in the same way. Those who argue the neccessity of God to define the intangible morality seem to ignore that God is intangible. At least for most people, and in a primarliy philosophical sense. This does not make God any less real. But those people arguing that the intangible “morality” can not be said to exist if our knowledge of it excludes God are arguing that an intangible can only be known through another intangible. It is fairly easy to see the problem in that propostion

I don’t think we need uniform objective definitions of intangibles that derive from the tangible for to consider them to exist. But if one is going to take that position regarding morality then one really is forced to apply that to all intangibles. Which as I said would include God. I don’t agree with this thinking, but it is honest and consistent Where some of the arguments here really are not.

 

[Nooj]

God made us free so that we might choose between good and evil. Thus we are destined either for glory or for shame … the choice is ours, not God’s.

Why did he? Why should we choose between good and evil? Why not create us so that we always choose the good?

 

[fhansen]

Why did he? Why should we choose between good and evil? Why not create us so that we always choose the good?

Because a being who chooses the good on his own must be greater than one who really has no choice because he’s been created to choose one way only.

 

[Ender]

So I want to get to what this discussion is really about. It is not about morality, or God, or any of that stuff.

You are right that the discussion is not about God since the OP explicitly said “If God does not exist…” That is the starting point for the discussion: God does not exist. You go too far, though, when you say the discussion is not about morality since (again) that was the specific point the OP wanted to debate.

We are really asking important and fundemental questions concerning ontology and epistimology. Morality is an intangible. We are asking do intangibles exist as a category of being? And if we think that they do, we are asking how can we know this?

I don’t have a warm feeling about this turn in the debate, but anything that deters you from bringing God back into the discussion is welcome. Where are you going with this?

Ender

 

[Spock]

Because a being who chooses the good on his own must be greater than one who really has no choice because he’s been created to choose one way only.

Two problems here. What the heck does “greater” mean? And even if you could define “greater”, what you said is just an opinion.

My opinion (nothing more, just opinion): If “greater” would mean more reliable, more consistent, more in line with the creator’s desires, then the the being who is designed to do “good” is much “greater”. The creation is safer, because there will ne no unintended “mishaps”, due to errors (intentional or otherwise).

What does your “greater” mean?

 

[a_theist91]

Is god and his impending punishment or reward the only thing keeping you from sneaking into your neighbors house in the dead of night to make off with his wife and possessions?

If your answer is yes then your religious/moral belief is disingenous because it is only entertained because you seek benefits for yourself in the form of cosmic reward.

If its no, congratulaions, you aren’t a sociopath.

Lastly, I’d just like to note that your question “If god doesn’t exist, is there any point in being a good person?” supposes that it is in fact possible to be a good person without god, however pointless you may feel it to be. If it weren’t, your question would merely be stated as " Can you be a good person without god?"

which incidentally, carries a resouding yes as an answer. :bowdown:

 

[christosdavid]

I would suppose that The God is dead generation of the 1870s not so different to the God is dead generation of the 60s.

The entire generation of the first is in fact dead and a significant proportion of the seconf following, if not already there and know better.

If I were not a Christian, would I see it as disingenoius to propose a different social forumal than the one I currently profess?

The answer is definately. My personal crosses do not always combine with philosophy’s. I am more willing if there isnt a God to say things like abortion or infanticide dont matter so much. only my adherence to Christianity makes me think people different from myself have rights. I dont really care about the UN, except that because I am Christian, I care because it forms a legitimate manner to do what Christ commanded, feed the sick, clothe the poor, proclaim liberty.

There is no reason why I shouldnt follow other 20th C athiests such as Stalin, Mao, prob Hitler, himmler or whoever. The idea of the superman may appeal to me - white power, survival of the fittest. We are the supreme race.

My faith says we are all of one blood, equally THE IMAGIO DEI. Therefore, not only is abortion, infanticide wrong but also racism and other forms of hate.

If there were no god…why should I care for my neighbour? after all, only gov law stands in my way, why should I care about philosophy at all? Plato is great (except he is so religious, thought C.S. Lewis before his conversion)

If there were no god, nihilism is what I think would replace it. at best apathy and worst a destructive force.

No. I wouldn’t prob be good if there were no god. BUT because there is a God, I love Him, and my neighbour as myself. I care about others becuse it is a command. It may be deontologically founded but that is valid. some people may seem worth loving, like family or those who are comrades but Jesus critiques this by asking how this position is different from the pagans.

Thank God there is a God!

 

[Spock]

Is god and his impending punishment or reward the only thing keeping you from sneaking into your neighbors house in the dead of night to make off with his wife and possessions?

You know what is the fun stuff? These questions keep returning every once in a while. A few years ago it was posited as “what would you do if God did not exist?”. Some believers said that they would rape, kill, torture others. When asked if they were serious, they affirmed that they were. Others did not go that far, but they asserted that they would be very sexually promiscuous.

But, to be precise, most of the believers said that they would conduct their life exactly as they do now. They said that their behavior is not based upon the expected reward, nor the possible punishment, they hehave as they do, because it is the “right thing to do”. Now, this brings up the next question. If those believers simple pursue a “good” lifestyle because it is the “right thing to do” (even if there would be no God), why are they surprised if atheists behave exactly the same way?

Edited: I have not seen the previous post (by christosdavid) when I composed mine. But it sure is interesting to see them, side by side… you draw your own conclusions.

 

[christosdavid]

You know what is the fun stuff? These questions keep returning every once in a while. A few years ago it was posited as “what would you do if God did not exist?”. Some believers said that they would rape, kill, torture others. When asked if they were serious, they affirmed that they were. Others did not go that far, but they asserted that they would be very sexually promiscuous.

But, to be precise, most of the believers said that they would conduct their life exactly as they do now. They said that their behavior is not based upon the expected reward, nor the possible punishment, they hehave as they do, because it is the “right thing to do”. Now, this brings up the next question. If those believers simple pursue a “good” lifestyle because it is the “right thing to do” (even if there would be no God), why are they surprised if atheists behave exactly the same way?

Edited: I have not seen the previous post (by christosdavid) when I composed mine. But it sure is interesting to see them, side by side… you draw your own conclusions.

draw your conclusions. I was an athiest when I thought those thoughts.

 

[Spock]

draw your conclusions. I was an athiest when I thought those thoughts.

I am an atheist now, and those thoughts are repulsive to me now. If someone is a good guy only because he is scared of the possible repercussions or because he wishes to be rewarded later… then… do I have to spell it out?

 

[christosdavid]

You know what is the fun stuff? These questions keep returning every once in a while. A few years ago it was posited as “what would you do if God did not exist?”. Some believers said that they would rape, kill, torture others. When asked if they were serious, they affirmed that they were. Others did not go that far, but they asserted that they would be very sexually promiscuous.

But, to be precise, most of the believers said that they would conduct their life exactly as they do now. They said that their behavior is not based upon the expected reward, nor the possible punishment, they hehave as they do, because it is the “right thing to do”. Now, this brings up the next question. If those believers simple pursue a “good” lifestyle because it is the “right thing to do” (even if there would be no God), why are they surprised if atheists behave exactly the same way?

Edited: I have not seen the previous post (by christosdavid) when I composed mine. But it sure is interesting to see them, side by side… you draw your own conclusions.

I am not suprised that athiest behave the same way, at all.

To me, it helps explain original sin. That the carnal wars with the spiritual.

If I were persuaded from another source that one should be good then perhaps I wouldve defended that proposition when i was an atheist.

On the other hand, to see men merely as machines, survival of the fittest. All I have to do from an evolutionary point of view is ensure the survival of my children and possibly their children. My genes would become a part of the DNA mix. The evolotionary soup wherewith the human race will continue.

The fact that I came back to any ethics at all is a plus from my current point of view to Christianity that it has both worship and ethics.

 

[christosdavid]

I am an atheist now, and those thoughts are repulsive to me now. If someone is a good guy only because he is scared of the possible repercussions or because he wishes to be rewarded later… then… do I have to spell it out?

really? you must be a left wing athiest coz not many round me wanted to be thought of as “knock kneed Christians”

great to see your so philosophical - you must still be young…lol…

 

[christosdavid]

just checking, yep, my history book says that Joseph Stalin was a seminary student and left…to become an atheistic dictator!!! killed more Russians than the Germans did? Yep!

great obviously, the fact there was no more legisltion from God gave him great freedom - yeah, freedom to depopulate half of Russia.

We are so blessed in the Western world, thank God himself the civilising force of religion has never been taken away!!!

 

[mcteague]

You are right that the discussion is not about God since the OP explicitly said “If God does not exist…” That is the starting point for the discussion: God does not exist. You go too far, though, when you say the discussion is not about morality since (again) that was the specific point the OP wanted to debate.
I don’t have a warm feeling about this turn in the debate, but anything that deters you from bringing God back into the discussion is welcome. Where are you going with this?

Ender

I know what the OP wrote. I can read. However you and others put the discussion on a different direction when you argued that without a God we can not have an objective definition of what morality is, and therefore the original discussion is impossible.
The OPs question is about morality. Yours really is not. The example happens to be about morality. But that is not what it is really about. It is about how we know about intangibles?

You have argued on the necessity of definition. But you have also insisted on a universal, objective definition. I don’t believe that is necessary. But you do. I am saying that in order to address the question of how can we have a discussion about morality, with or without an objective authoritative definition, lets look at how intangibles are known. What are they. Do they exist. How do we come to know them. These are as I said ontological and epistimological questions.
We should apply the same model of understanding to any and all intangibles. That is we can not use morality as a special case. In my previous post I addressed certain problems I see in the discussion so far. You can reread them if you like.

It is not I who brought God into the discussion. It is you. When you insist on a uniform objective definiton of morality you, not I, are bringing God into the discussion. What other authoritative objective source could you be referring to. As a matter of fact in a way you are making an epistimological argument for the existence of God. if one accepts your requirement of having an authoritative objective source of knowledge, where else would one go to get it.

I may be giving you to much credit there. At times I have thought you did not quite understand what I was saying. But i am begining to wonder if you actually understand what you yourself are saying. I mean really, and you called my responses unresponsive.

 

[fhansen]

Two problems here. What the heck does “greater” mean? And even if you could define “greater”, what you said is just an opinion.

My opinion (nothing more, just opinion): If “greater” would mean more reliable, more consistent, more in line with the creator’s desires, then the the being who is designed to do “good” is much “greater”. The creation is safer, because there will ne no unintended “mishaps”, due to errors (intentional or otherwise).

What does your “greater” mean?

Greater means to will to do the right thing without regard to the creators will.
It’s like a saying I once heard, ‘Integrity is to do the right thing even when no one’s looking’.

 

[Spock]

Greater means to will to do the right thing without regard to the creators will.
It’s like a saying I once heard, ‘Integrity is to do the right thing even when no one’s looking’.

That is an interesting definition. From whose perspective is this property “greater”? Obviously it cannot be from the creator’s point of view. How could a creator value dissent from his aims, or value the destruction of his planned creation? This is the way I see it:

1. The creator has something in mind he wishes to create.
2. The creator values that creation as he plans it.
3. If the creator would value something different, then he would bring forth a different creation.
4. Therefore to create a world, which will (either intentionally or accidentally) deviate from the plan does not make sense. Why do something different from what one wants to do?

So, to repeat, from whose perspective is the “deviation” greater? (There is something else which I find interesting. You speak of the “right thing” without regard to the creator’s will. This indicates that the creator’s will is not necessarily the “right thing”. I wonder, if that was your intention?)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

There is no reason why I shouldnt follow other 20th C athiests such as Stalin, Mao, prob Hitler, himmler or whoever. The idea of the superman may appeal to me - white power, survival of the fittest. We are the supreme race.

If you lacked a belief in a deity why would you be motivated to imitate the above?

If there were no god…why should I care for my neighbour?

I’ve seen questions like this before but I can’t say I’ve ever understood them. Were the question “Why would I care for my neighbor” or “What would motivate me to care for my neighbor” or “What advantages can come from caring for my neighbor” then I would understand. And these are questions that have been explored by those that study social beings (not just humans).

“Why should I care for my neighbor” ask about what obligations exists. Whether or not there currently exists deities there do exists people that care for their neighbor(s) and people that don’t. It appears that the behaviour isn’t obligatory. If I take in consideration of a deity or deities that command that one should care for their neighbor or else there will be consequences then the question crosses into the “Why would I care” territory. Then the answer could include “I am motivated to care because I want to avoid those consequences.” But one can still carry other motivations that have nothing to do with those consequences.

If there were no god, nihilism is what I think would replace it. at best apathy and worst a destructive force.

That’s something else I don’t understand. Why would the lack of the existence of a deity lead to an adoption of nihilism? Do you have any beliefs about why there exists people that lack a belief in deities not adopting nihilism?

 

[exnihilo]

You know what is the fun stuff? These questions keep returning every once in a while. A few years ago it was posited as “what would you do if God did not exist?”. Some believers said that they would rape, kill, torture others. When asked if they were serious, they affirmed that they were. Others did not go that far, but they asserted that they would be very sexually promiscuous.

But, to be precise, most of the believers said that they would conduct their life exactly as they do now. They said that their behavior is not based upon the expected reward, nor the possible punishment, they hehave as they do, because it is the “right thing to do”. Now, this brings up the next question. If those believers simple pursue a “good” lifestyle because it is the “right thing to do” (even if there would be no God), why are they surprised if atheists behave exactly the same way?

The former group just reasoned it out better and were more fully committed to the belief. The later group was probably less able to let go of the cultural learning which tells them those acts are wrong. What we are taught and what is constantly reinforced begins to take on a life of its own. We may arrive at an idea by reason but once it is established we tend to believe it without understanding why.

 

[fhansen]

That is an interesting definition. From whose perspective is this property “greater”? Obviously it cannot be from the creator’s point of view. How could a creator value dissent from his aims, or value the destruction of his planned creation? This is the way I see it:

1. The creator has something in mind he wishes to create.
2. The creator values that creation as he plans it.
3. If the creator would value something different, then he would bring forth a different creation.
4. Therefore to create a world, which will (either intentionally or accidentally) deviate from the plan does not make sense. Why do something different from what one wants to do?

So, to repeat, from whose perspective is the “deviation” greater? (There is something else which I find interesting. You speak of the “right thing” without regard to the creator’s will. This indicates that the creator’s will is not necessarily the “right thing”. I wonder, if that was your intention?)

A creator could easily value a created beings’ choosing the right thing. But this unavoidably implies that the created being could choose the wrong thing. So, the creator values our freedom, even knowing that we may act outside his will. And free will simply can’t exist any other way, BTW; either a creator gives beings the freedom to act outside his will or they have no free will at all. He doesn’t will them to act outside his will-he wills them to be free, even if that means acting outside his will.

Anyway, I know that my own child has reached a level of maturity when they do the right thing on their own instead of because I’ve mandated it. This is really pretty basic stuff, IMO.