Can The Atheist Do Good?

[Meh Gerbil]

So Jim, you are a good man? Of course it is an interesting question - where this idea of moral perfection come from, certainly not nature.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement.

Remember the Biblical account of God declaring creation good?
While it has obviously been corrupted I think there is good woven into the fabric of creation such that it cannot be completely effaced.
I think what is happening is that the term good is being stretched across several books (and epochs) with little concern for its context.

It is my belief that the demonic world wants to destroy humanity because we all have a great deal of good woven into our persons. It isn't the kind of good that makes us righteous but it is the kind of good that reflects the glory of our creator - and that reflection is intolerable to evil.

So I'm willing to go out onto a limb here and declare: "Yes, Jim is good - it is woven into his very makeup and it cannot be erased." In fact, I think it is that declaration that separates the Christian world-view from Naturalism in that we hold something can be declared objectively good and objectively valuable. I think fundamentalism does too much to rip people down in order to jimmy them into some ad-hoc sinner's prayer. There is something about these beat downs that seems not quite right to me.

In short, Jim is good but he also needs a savior.

[seer]

I'm not sure I agree with this statement.

Remember the Biblical account of God declaring creation good?
While it has obviously been corrupted I think there is good woven into the fabric of creation such that it cannot be completely effaced.
I think what is happening is that the term good is being stretched across several books (and epochs) with little concern for its context.

It is my belief that the demonic world wants to destroy humanity because we all have a great deal of good woven into our persons. It isn't the kind of good that makes us righteous but it is the kind of good that reflects the glory of our creator - and that reflection is intolerable to evil.

So I'm willing to go out onto a limb here and declare: "Yes, Jim is good - it is woven into his very makeup and it cannot be erased." In fact, I think it is that declaration that separates the Christian world-view from Naturalism in that we hold something can be declared objectively good and objectively valuable. I think fundamentalism does too much to rip people down in order to jimmy them into some ad-hoc sinner's prayer. There is something about these beat downs that seems not quite right to me.

In short, Jim is good but he also needs a savior.

My point with Jim was not about beating him down, but to think about where this concept of good or perfect comes from - are these merely private notions, limited to cultural considerations, or is there something more concrete, real and universal?

[Meh Gerbil]

My point with Jim was not about beating him down, but to think about where this concept of good or perfect comes from - are these merely private notions, limited to cultural considerations, or is there something more concrete, real and universal?

Right.
But if JimL saw good in nature (and in himself) it could be that he's seeing something God put there which would mean he's simply misattributing it.

So he could honestly say, "Yeah, I'm good" and be absolutely correct in the Naturalistic sense and in the Christian sense of being made in the image of God.

This may be why the "Where does good come from?" apologetic doesn't work so very well. I think the presence of 'good' is just a given with many people - it is so fundamental to our composition that it's extra-natural origin is hard to fathom. I think very few Naturalistic philosophers are willing to toss out that concept because it would quickly lead to despair. By chipping away at it you might be undoing someone's sanity.

I wonder if this is why Love is the most powerful apologetic.
It is non-threatening such that when the dangerous implications of it become apparent it provides a safe landing place.

[Adrift]

Right.
But if JimL saw good in nature (and in himself) it could be that he's seeing something God put there which would mean he's simply misattributing it.

So he could honestly say, "Yeah, I'm good" and be absolutely correct in the Naturalistic sense and in the Christian sense of being made in the image of God.

This may be why the "Where does good come from?" apologetic doesn't work so very well. I think the presence of 'good' is just a given with many people - it is so fundamental to our composition that it's extra-natural origin is hard to fathom.

I think it's actually a rather good apologetic. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the moral argument is probably one of, if not the best apologetic argument available, and I've heard the testimony of a number of people who were swayed from unbelief to a theistic worldview because of it.

I think very few Naturalistic philosophers are willing to toss out that concept because it would quickly lead to despair. By chipping away at it you might be undoing someone's sanity.

They used to quite a bit. Especially the absurdists, existentialists, and nihilists, and there are even philosophers (and scientists) today who reject the idea of good and evil, and see the world as nothing but "blind physical forces" (Dawkins) or as Huxley put it, the "two blind children" of "Law and Force"

I wonder if this is why Love is the most powerful apologetic.
It is non-threatening such that when the dangerous implications of it become apparent it provides a safe landing place.

I don't think of love as an apologetic. At least, not in the sense that apologia is used in 1 Peter as a defense of the hope that is within you. Love is an expression of our faith. One that has the power to turn hearts to Christ, definitely, but it's not a formal defense.

[Tassman]

So I'm willing to go out onto a limb here and declare: "Yes, Jim is good - it is woven into his very makeup and it cannot be erased." In fact, I think it is that declaration that separates the Christian world-view from Naturalism in that we hold something can be declared objectively good and objectively valuable. I think fundamentalism does too much to rip people down in order to jimmy them into some ad-hoc sinner's prayer. There is something about these beat downs that seems not quite right to me.

In short, Jim is good but he also needs a savior.

Nonsense!

[shunyadragon]

Is it your opinion that Christians only do good because they are under authority or coercion to do so?

Actually,like most humans they claim and desire to be good are desiring in some way to benefit others and themselves, some also to please a higher power or a secular authority, and maybe fear of displeasing the higher power, or the secular authority. Some do good for no reward, reason, cause, purpose or benefit.

[JimL]

Separation from the Creator I love.

You were never separated from anything, other than your present belief, and the only one that saved you from that separation was yourself, because now you believe.

So Jim, you are a good man? Of course it is an interesting question - where this idea of moral perfection come from, certainly not nature.

Its a relative term seer, having to do with whats in ones heart or mind and how they treat others, I'm not Hitler or Yahwey, but I'm no Mother Teresa either.

[seer]

You were never separated from anything, other than your present belief, and the only one that saved you from that separation was yourself, because now you believe.

What?

Its a relative term seer, having to do with whats in ones heart or mind and how they treat others, I'm not Hitler or Yahwey, but I'm no Mother Teresa either.

OK, but you did say that no one is perfect. But what would perfect even look like in this morally relative world?

[Doug Shaver]

Of course it is an interesting question - where this idea of moral perfection come from, certainly not nature.

Yes, from nature. Moral perfection is a concept invented by humans, and humans are a product of nature.

[seer]

Yes, from nature. Moral perfection is a concept invented by humans, and humans are a product of nature.

But why would humans invent a moral concept that is so clearly foreign to who we actually are? This idea implies a goal, some kind of standard out there, some where. Why do we seem so uneasy with ourselves the way we are? So Doug, do you consider yourself morally perfect?

[Meh Gerbil]

I think it's actually a rather good apologetic. In fact, I'd go so far to say that the moral argument is probably one of, if not the best apologetic argument available, and I've heard the testimony of a number of people who were swayed from unbelief to a theistic worldview because of it.

To me it seems easy to dismiss.
I'd simply say that it is the necessary product of a successful society where society is a product of the need to survive.
Societies wherein the members aren't good to each other simply fail.

They used to quite a bit. Especially the absurdists, existentialists, and nihilists, and there are even philosophers (and scientists) today who reject the idea of good and evil, and see the world as nothing but "blind physical forces" (Dawkins) or as Huxley put it, the "two blind children" of "Law and Force"

I'm thinking they deny 'good' as an objective moral standard.
I doubt they deny 'good' as cooperative behavior that ensures survival.
I doubt they deny 'good' as in a 'good' cup of tea vs. a 'bad' cup of tea.

I don't think of love as an apologetic. At least, not in the sense that apologia is used in 1 Peter as a defense of the hope that is within you. Love is an expression of our faith. One that has the power to turn hearts to Christ, definitely, but it's not a formal defense.

I once had a homeless guy tell me that the only people that ever helped him were Christians.
I think our only irrefutable argument is acting according to God's love.
I Corinthians 13 seems to indicate that love is the rocket fuel of any argument me can make.

[Tassman]

Separation from the Creator I love.

You're in love with a fictional, invisible man-made entity.

So Jim, you are a good man? Of course it is an interesting question - where this idea of moral perfection come from, certainly not nature.

Of course from nature, where else? Deities reflect human values and these change over time, e.g. the vindictive, bloodthirsty tribal god of the OT is not the embodiment of perfection as we view perfection today.

[Tassman]

To me it seems easy to dismiss.
I'd simply say that it is the necessary product of a successful society where society is a product of the need to survive.
Societies wherein the members aren't good to each other simply fail.

Agreed! It's the instinctive survival mechanism of a social species such as us.

[Meh Gerbil]

Agreed! It's the instinctive survival mechanism of a social species such as us.

You understand that I think your position is hogwash.
Given your presuppositions; however, it is rational.

[seer]

Of course from nature, where else? Deities reflect human values and these change over time, e.g. the vindictive, bloodthirsty tribal god of the OT is not the embodiment of perfection as we view perfection today.

Tass are you a good man?