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

[ThinkingSapien]

You appear to start with the assumption that it is better to consider the well being of others than not to. If it is not better to do so then why would you make that distinction, and if it is better then on what basis do you make that claim?

I’m starting with the assumption that the original poster already has some answer for himself on what it means to “be good” and am showing a single non-exhaustive interaction that leads to people “being good” without a deity.

Understand that if your definition of “better” is “that which contributes to an orderly society” then we have emptied the concept of morality of its common meaning.

I’ve not defined morality (system of rules). You don’t have to go very far into a morality discussion before you find a “Sophie’s Choice” scenario where a decision will contribute to the well being of one group but will be harmful to another. It’s possible to answer the OP’s question without sorting through the conflicts that arise from conflicts in trying to “be good”

Unless your interest is purely scientific, like someone studying the working of an ant farm, I can only assume you have an opinion on whether a particular action is good or bad.

I probably have an opinion on whether or not the motivations behind an action are good or bad, and whether the outcome of an action is good or bad (and good and bad need not be in the same sense). Without this information one is likely to confabulate and fill in these missing details with an assumed motivation and expected outcome. But without these details the action itself is not something I can evaluate in this manner. But that’s an off topic discussion since unless we also wanted to explore the psychological interactions driving how one evaluates motivations and outcomes as good or bad. That’s not necessary for reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph.

How can we say that motivation determines the goodness or badness of an act unless we have some way of determining which motives are good and which are bad? How do we know which motivations are the good ones?

For the sake of simplicity I’ve focused on considering “well being.” This isn’t the only way of assigning motivations as right or wrong, good or bad. But it’s not necessary to explore all of the different methods to illustrate why some one would try to be good without a deity.

 

[PRmerger]

For the sake of simplicity I’ve focused on considering “well being.” This isn’t the only way of assigning motivations as right or wrong, good or bad. But it’s not necessary to explore all of the different methods to illustrate why some one would try to be good without a deity.

Just so we’re on the same page, I want to make it clear that I am quite certain that atheists can be good people, without any belief in a deity. In fact, there are a multitude of atheists on this forum who are much more charitable and respectful than some Christians. I’d rather have a glass of wine and a chat with these non-believers than those Christians.

One can be good without a belief in God.

That being said, I don’t believe any atheistic ethos provides for heroic virtue, ala St. Maximilian Kolbe.

That is to the detriment of society, no? It is the grounding of our humanity, rather than the elevation.

 

[Ender]

Is slavery a good thing when Yahweh endorses slavery

Yahweh doesn’t exist - that was explicitly stated in the OP. The question is meaningless in this context.

If not, what source of morality are you using that is available with a god but not without a god?

God does not exist. Why do you keep asking this?

I did however, suggest that if you wanted to talk about it, you could tell me what criteria you use to determine what is “good”, but you deliberately avoided doing this.

Aside from answering this in post #204 I answered it again in the very post you are responding to:

• I do not believe morality can exist as anything more than individual preference*.

Since you seem to be dodgy,…

You should accept the responsibility of reading my responses before you criticize them.

I’ll ask you again something I tried to ask earlier. What would or could a god add to this?

That’s like asking what would unicorns add. They don’t exist and (for the purposes of this thread) neither does god.

You seem to be consistently dodging the issue of what a god would add to morality and motivation. I wonder why.

Because … god … does … not … exist.

I think you are so focused on how your position is superior to the theist one that you’ve given little thought to defending it on its own merits. Your response to challenges to your perspective is to attack the theist one without apparently realizing that proving that position wrong does not prove your position right, and given that you have yet to even explain your position let alone defend it, you have small justification for complaining about dodginess on my part.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m starting with the assumption that the original poster already has some answer for himself on what it means to “be good” and am showing a single non-exhaustive interaction that leads to people “being good” without a deity.

If “being good” is self-definable then we are in agreement: people can be good without a deity. By that definition of course all people are equally good, but a concept that makes no distinctions is rather meaningless.

Ender

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Just so we’re on the same page, I want to make it clear that I am quite certain that atheists can be good people, without any belief in a deity…That being said, I don’t believe any atheistic ethos provides for heroic virtue…

Your position is clear. Though the question of whether some one would be motivated to do something “heroic” in the absence of a deity may be worth exploring in it’s own thread.

If “being good” is self-definable then we are in agreement: people can be good without a deity. By that definition of course all people are equally good, but a concept that makes no distinctions is rather meaningless.

I don’t think that we are in agreement. I actually don’t think we are having the same conversation and that my words are being selectively ignored

 

[Ender]

I don’t think that we are in agreement.

I didn’t really think so either, but I have been specific about what my position on morality is and I’m trying to get you to state yours. You’ve carefully avoided the topic. Still, if you don’t agree with my position then you surely have a perspective and it’s different - so why not explain what it is?

I actually don’t think we are having the same conversation…

No, we’re not. I’m trying to discuss the concept of morality and you want to debate motivations.

… and that my words are being selectively ignored

Only the ones about motivation.

Ender

 

[PRmerger]

Your position is clear. Though the question of whether some one would be motivated to do something “heroic” in the absence of a deity may be worth exploring in it’s own thread.

Been there; done that.

No atheist has provided any compelling reasons for a life of heroic virtue.

I can’t think of any atheists who gave away their inheritance in order to serve the poor. Christians do and have.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;8182328:

Is slavery a good thing when Yahweh endorses slavery by telling the Israelites in Leviticus 25 that they may own other human beings as property

? If not, what source of morality are you using that is available with a god but not without a god?

Yahweh doesn’t exist - that was explicitly stated in the OP. The question is meaningless in this context.

You are really missing my point.

I’m trying to point out that the answer to the question of the purpose for doing good would probably be the same (or similar but with added incentives) regardless of whether or not there is a god. If we can get that part down, we can then proceed to answer the question with the qualifier.

TruthSeeker60;8182328:

If not, what source of morality are you using that is available with a god but not without a god?

God does not exist. Why do you keep asking this?

I keep asking this because:
1 It would help us to come up with an answer if we resolve that the answer would be the same with or without a god. My general answer to the question of this thread would be, “The point of being a good person without a god is probably the same point of being good with a god (aside from added incentives).” Now, if we could recognize that there being a god or no god would not make much of a difference, we clear up much of the fog and answering the question would become much clearer. We would basically be asking “for what reason are people ‘good’?”
2 So that when a reasonable answer is reached that people don’t like, they don’t treat it as an advantage that they have over non-believers.

Aside from answering this in post #204 I answered it again in the very post you are responding to:

• I do not believe morality can exist as anything more than individual preference*.

In the post I replied to, you had the key qualifier, “Under those conditions [that there is no god]…”

I did not read post 204 because I was initially responding directly to the OP, then later to your responses to me.

You should accept the responsibility of reading my responses before you criticize them.

I did read the post I was responding to, in which you added the qualifier, “Under those conditions [that there is no god]…”

I’m not responsible for reading posts other than the one’s I’m responding to. However, now that you’ve pointed me to post 204 in which you said approximately the same thing without the qualifier, I understand your views better.

That’s like asking what would unicorns add. They don’t exist and (for the purposes of this thread) neither does god.

The difference is that this thread was started on the implicit assumption that a god would add something.

Now, if someone started a thread called, “If aliens don’t exist, is there any point in being a good person?,” people would see the existence or non-existence of unicorns as an irrelevant distraction. Some people may believe they exist somewhere in the universe while others may not, but everyone would be able to recognize the non-existence of aliens as an irrelevant distraction, and just asking, “Is there any point in being a good person?”

That is all I’m trying to do with this thread.

I think you are so focused on how your position is superior to the theist one that you’ve given little thought to defending it on its own merits. Your response to challenges to your perspective is to attack the theist one without apparently realizing that proving that position wrong does not prove your position right, and given that you have yet to even explain your position let alone defend it, you have small justification for complaining about dodginess on my part.

Nope. I’m trying to point out that the point of being a good person is probably more or less the same with or without a god. I did attack mentioning Yahweh, as a response to something similar you posted, sanctioning slavery in Leviticus 25, but this was to further this point by challenging the notion of “might makes right”.

But now that I’ve gone through all of that, let’s get more towards resolving the question of this thread by looking at something you posted earlier and pointed me towards:

I would agree with this; I don’t think there is any argument beyond ones personal inclination by which to morally judge another person’s behavior. Morality is whatever we believe it to be.

For better or worse, I almost agree with this (regardless of whether or not there is a god).

I think that when people speak of morality, I think they are referring, whether they know it or not, of actions that are in line with their values. I further think that when people refer to others as “good”, they more or less mean that they act in ways congruent with widely accepted values. I don’t think that there’s a way to say that one person’s values are “better” than another’s, and I don’t think that a god would change this. If I became a theists once again, I would still hold to everything I wrote in this and the following paragraph.

Now, a person’s point (or motive) in being “good” (or acting in ways congruent with widely accepted values) are probably largely to get along with the rest of society, to feel satisfaction, and to not feel guilt. I’m sure there are many other motives, but these are questions that would be answered by studying psychology.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m trying to point out that the answer to the question of the purpose for doing good would probably be the same (or similar but with added incentives) regardless of whether or not there is a god. If we can get that part down, we can then proceed to answer the question with the qualifier.

Yes, TS. The Church has already addressed this: (re: atheists et al) For whatever goodness and truth is found in them is considered by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel and bestowed by him who enlightens everyone that they may in the end have life.–Veritatis Splendor.

Now the question then becomes: if I can be good without a belief in a deity, why believe?

The answer: because it’s true.

Isn’t that the only real reason to believe* anything? *

One could be “good” because he believes in Santa Claus, but, really, one would be :whacky: if that was one’s motivation for behavior.

So perhaps the question one ought to explore is: is there a God?

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Morality is whatever we believe it to be.

For better or worse, I almost agree with this (regardless of whether or not there is a god).

Then let’s stay on this point: why do you say “almost”? What do you disagree with?

I think that when people speak of morality, I think they are referring, whether they know it or not, of actions that are in line with their values.

Let’s not debate what others may or may not believe; it’s contentious enough discussing what we believe.

I don’t think that there’s a way to say that one person’s values are “better” than another’s

OK, this agrees with the comment I made earlier that, morally speaking, Mother Theresa is no better than the Marquis de Sade.

Ender

 

[samiam1611]

No, we’re not. I’m trying to discuss the concept of morality and you want to debate motivations.

I think discussing motivation is entirely relevent and related to discussing morality.

Remember the OP: If God doesn’t exist, is there any point in being a good person?

IOW, The existence of God is a big motivator for people to be good. (getting to heaven etc) If/since God does not exist, what would motivate people to be good?

Well that is how I interpret the OP. It is precisely about the relationship between motivation and morality/being good. Is it necessary to be super-specific about the “concept of morality?” Everyone here speaks English. We all know what morality means don’t we? Not to mention, morality gets discussed on zillions of threads here but the motivation behind morality would distinguish this thread from similar ones.

 

[samiam1611]

Yes, TS. The Church has already addressed this: (re: atheists et al) For whatever goodness and truth is found in them is considered by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel and bestowed by him who enlightens everyone that they may in the end have life.–Veritatis Splendor.

Oh I like that.

Now the question then becomes: if I can be good without a belief in a deity, why believe?

The answer: because it’s true.

Isn’t that the only real reason to believe* anything? *

One could be “good” because he believes in Santa Claus, but, really, one would be :whacky: if that was one’s motivation for behavior.

It would be a bit silly to be a good person just to get presents. Not to mention it is goodness for for a selfish reason.

However, if having false beliefs makes you a better person, that is another reason to believe (from the perspective of people who have to interact with the person or who are otherwise affected by their goodwill.)

So no, truth is not the only reason to believe in something although it’s a very good reason.

So perhaps the question one ought to explore is: is there a God?

Indeed. Of course, I would have to agree with you that it would be :whacky: to believe a man with supernatural powers was watching our actions to determine if we would be punished or rewarded.

 

[M31]

There would really be no point in trying to be ‘good’, because if there were no God, we would only be intelligent animals, and all good would go unrewarded, and all evil unpunished.

I’ve noticed that being good and doing good does seem to go unrewarded…and yes, the evil seems to be unpunished.

Maybe we do live in an indifferent universe…

In some cases, you get punished for doing good while evil gets rewarded. I know a majority of people on this forum have seen this in one way or another, like I have.

 

[PRmerger]

However, if having false beliefs makes you a better person, that is another reason to believe (from the perspective of people who have to interact with the person or who are otherwise affected by their goodwill.)

We call that insanity, samiam. I would never rejoice in someone’s insanity, no matter how nice it was to interact with him.

So no, truth is not the only reason to believe in something although it’s a very good reason.

I absolutely disagree with you, sam. To believe something that is not true is the definition of folly and derangement.

Indeed. Of course, I would have to agree with you that it would be :whacky: to believe a man with supernatural powers was watching our actions to determine if we would be punished or rewarded.

No Catholics here ought to believe there is a man in heaven with supernatural powers watching our actions to determine if we will be punished or rewarded, sam.

You have a kindergartner’s version of theology. Perhaps you need to interact a bit more with those who have a more enlightened theology.

 

[samiam1611]

No Catholics here ought to believe there is a man in heaven with supernatural powers watching our actions to determine if we will be punished or rewarded, sam.

You have a kindergartner’s version of theology. Perhaps you need to interact a bit more with those who have a more enlightened theology.

Hmm well I did start a thread on that!
I really do not get it, I mean I do understand it’s not like santa (hence the winky face) but true I am not enlightened. It’s like something to do with light, right? Huh? Man is made in God’s image but God is not man-like?

I can picture a man-like, personal God, and believe it or not, I can understand a pantheistic kind of spirity thingy but I cannot picture/grasp a personal, judgemental God that is nothing like a person! How can it be personal but not person-like?!

If God is not a man or man-like and is not supernatural and does not see our actions and does not punish or reward us what the heck do you think “He” is?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ender;8184033:

No, we’re not. I’m trying to discuss the concept of morality and you want to debate motivations.

I think discussing motivation is entirely relevent and related to discussing morality.

Remember the OP: If God doesn’t exist, is there any point in being a good person?

Yay! Some one listened and understood me without changing the subject!

 

[PRmerger]

Hmm well I did start a thread on that!
I really do not get it, I mean I do understand it’s not like santa (hence the winky face) but true I am not enlightened. It’s like something to do with light, right? Huh? Man is made in God’s image but God is not man-like?

I can picture a man-like, personal God, and believe it or not, I can understand a pantheistic kind of spirity thingy but I cannot picture/grasp a personal, judgemental God that is nothing like a person! How can it be personal but not person-like?!

If God is not a man or man-like and is not supernatural and does not see our actions and does not punish or reward us what the heck do you think “He” is?

Why don’t you substitute “Love” for “God” in the above post and see if that helps you understand a bit?

 

[Ender]

Is it necessary to be super-specific about the “concept of morality?” Everyone here speaks English. We all know what morality means don’t we?

No, we don’t. That’s why it makes no sense to discuss the motivations for being good until we can agree on what it means to be good. If I were to ask whether one should be motivated to lesnerize wouldn’t you think it necessary to understand what that was? Tell me what goodness (lesnerizing) means before you begin to explain why someone should be motivated to practice it. If you think this is so simple then explain what you mean by morality - I speaka da English pretty good.

Ender

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No, we don’t. That’s why it makes no sense to discuss the motivations for being good until we can agree on what it means to be good. If I were to ask whether one should be motivated to lesnerize wouldn’t you think it necessary to understand what that was? Tell me what goodness (lesnerizing) means before you begin to explain why someone should be motivated to practice it…

One can speak about good and bad behaviour without getting into a discussion on morality. I’m going to take a step back and talk more of the cognitive development that leads up to the concern for well being.

It’s something that is developed over time. On a very primitive level “good” could start out as that which brings a sense of safety, pleasure, or happiness or something that doesn’t cause (or reduces) pain, harm, discomfort,fear or emotional pain. With this simple concept of “good” we can start to talk about the behaviour of a small child or an animal.

A capacity to learn allows someone to make predictions about the outcome of an action and associate the desirability of that outcome with the action itself. Animals may learn through direct experience (including observing other humans) or inherit the associations through language. Interacting with bees can some times result in extreme pain. The pain is one of the things that is considered bad, so one might start to see interaction with bees as being bad and the presence of a bee or the sound of its wings can start to invoke fear responses. A person may not always be away of why an association exists but still retain the association as observable in phobic responses.

A sense of good and bad developed to this infantile level is useful for evaluating actions and objects that perceivably fall cleanly on the good side “bring pleasure, comfort, whatever” or the bad side (painful, harmful, so on). In this world in which we live objects and actions have multiple attributes and consequences. A procedure at a dentist can be a painful experience. A drug can produce a pleasurable experience. Each one of the attributes or consequences can be evaluated independently provided that the being performing the evaluation has the knowledge and mental capacity for doing so. For the dentist the “good” things could include the avoidance of future persistent pain, better health, so on and the bad things can include more immediate pain. Every day situations involve decisions in which it is impossible to avoid experiencing something bad. So we weight the expectations for the good against the expectations for something bad when making a decision. The weights applied to these expectations (or the presence or absence of an expectation) can vary widely based on the knowledge, experience, and mental capacity of the person. But it is not necessary to take apart all of the different methods people use to prioritize and resolve conflicts that come from these mixture of attributes to describe motivations why some one may do something for some one else that they think is good.

I haven’t said anything about moral behaviour yet, only a very simple development of a self centered notion of good and bad. People and other social animals also have the ability for empathy. Cognitive empathy let’s us develop some notion of what some one else is thinking or how the person perceives something. Emotional empathy let’s us feel how some one else is feeling. Mirror neurons may be involved in this type of empathy (further research required). Emotional empathy is needed for some one to have empathetic concern for how another is feeling (side note: imagine how this may be involved in the displays of “heroic virtue” that PRMerger has mentioned ). When some one is talking about empathy generically they are usually talking about emotional empathy. But for this conversation I need to separate it.

With empathy the self centered notion of good now contributes towards considering the another. That some one would be motivated to do something for their own good has been something that has been treated as axiomatic throughout this conversation. With the applied empathies some one holds some level of concern in some one else and may vicariously experience their enjoyment or pain. With empathy the emergence of behaviour that we associated with “the golden rule” can come about.

The empathy that one has for another can be enhanced or diminished. Saying dehumanizing things about some one else is one way to diminish the empathy that one has for another. History is littered with instances of people declaring that another group is less than human while treating a subjugated group poorly (ex: genocide of the native Americans or the treatment of American slaves). One’s biology or personal experiences can also contribute to diminishing one’s sense of empathy. I made mention to sociopaths in a previous post. To better qualify what was discussed is that some sociopaths may have a developed sense of cognitive empathy (useful for predicting and manipulating the behaviour of others) but a diminished sense of emotional empathy (so they don’t care).

Young children and infants have been shown to have some amount of emotional empathy at a very young age without being taught (ex: child that sees parent in discomfort may also feel discomfort his/her self). Some parts of empathy must be developed. A young child that says something like “Look how big that woman’s wart is!” is demonstrating a lack of the empathy that others have that allows them to understand why such a statement can cause discomfort.

In referring to an earlier post, one of my assumptions in replying is that the OP is developed enough to at least have a basic understanding of “good” like what I described above and a capacity for emotional and cognitive empathy. I am sure that he does (and in may be a bit insulting to suggest that he doesn’t).