Can You Be Good Without God?

Catholic Answers ^ | January 28, 2014 | Todd Aglialoro

[9YearLurker]

The point to which I referred you early in our discourse was toward Huxley’s observation of a ‘perennial philosophy’.

Since you can no more prove God as a moral authority than any other source of moral authority, I don’t believe your approach shakes the cover of relativity better than any other.

But my point is that whether God-based or otherwise, if an individual and those with which that individual interacts believe there is an objective morality toward which they and society strive that is as good as believing an an objective morality that may—objectively, if you will—or may not be more objective.

I think it possible that we are wired with a particular morality, and it is when particular religions resonate with the truths that people perceive from within that they gain credibility. From there, people are more inclined to believe whatever cosmology and tenets the religion also entails.

Now, do I believe that that particular, universal sense of morality is divinely inspired? Yes, I do. I can’t prove it, however, and I don’t believe that it is more effective when people believe in its divine origin rather than simply that it is the right and moral way to do and to be.

[circlecity]

"Since you can no more prove God as a moral authority than any other source of moral authority, I don’t believe your approach shakes the cover of relativity better than any other."

Well, I believe that I can prove that BUT, be as it may, I can prove that apart from a transcendent God objective moralilty cannot exist, it is a meanless term. The only alternitive to theism is nihilism. And if there there IS a transcendant God then morality IS objective and not relative, by definition.

"if an individual and those with which that individual interacts believe there is an objective morality toward which they and society strive that is as good as believing an an objective morality that may—objectively, if you will—or may not be more objective."

That makes no sense. How can I force myself to "believe" in an objective morality when there is absolutely no foundation upon which to base such a belief. This is essentially the path Kant took with his "catagorical imperative". He essentially said that if even if there is no God we have to act as if (ie. pretend) there is one because society cannot function or last without an objective basis to act as a foundation for morality. The existentialists blew that argument out of the water and acknowledged that starting with the premise there is no God then the only result is that there is no objective morality. There is no "good" and "evil". That was Nietzsche's entire point in the book "Beyond Good and Evil".

"I don’t believe that it is more effective when people believe in its divine origin rather than simply that it is the right and moral way to do and to be."

What does "right" and "moral" mean in this context? They are totally subjective terms and therefore have no "truth" to them. If there is a God then it is MUCH more effective because there is a downside to rejecting good for evil. That's what makes it objective - it becomes true whether you believe it or not. If there is no God to establish and enforce what is good and evil then "right" and "wrong" become nothing more than whatever anyone wants them to be and there is no eternal consequence for being incorrect. The big fish eat the little fish. Apart from a transcendent God the concept of "truth" in a moral sense is meaningless. The Apostle Paul nails this in Romans Chapter one. He points out that we intuitively and objectively know the truth of God but we suppress that truth out of unrighteousness. Thus when we reject God we can rationalize and reject what we know is "right" in pursuit of our "evil" physical desires. And as we do so our societies continue to degrade into greater and greater levels of evil until they fall. History has shown he was absolutely right.

[piusv]

I don’t know....what was it that Francis said again??

[heye2monn]

Not an conservative evangelical or Catholic church where people attend regularly (they vote Republican).

There is a sharp distinction between organized religion and disorganized atheism. One group encourages each to stay on the path of virtue — reinforced by a common book of rules (Ten Commandments) and prayer to a common God. The other group is a bunch of hedonistic lone wolves making it up as they go along.

[verga]

That must be correct but it avoids accountability.

Not if they believe that they are accountable for their actions and in-actions to society as a whole.

[verga]

Not an conservative evangelical or Catholic church where people attend regularly (they vote Republican).

I hate to say this, but I know 2 deacons, one baptist the other catholic (Intentiaonally lower case for both) that voted for Obozo... twice.

[heye2monn]

And I hate to see that. But fortunately most real Catholics go GOP.

“Catholic voters who regularly attend Mass broke 67 percent for Romney to 32 percent for Obama, representing a swing of 35 percent in the direction of the GOP since 2008.”

[verga]

Agreed

[HarleyD]

We were created by G-d in this world, not so much to "go to Heaven," but to transform it by keeping His Commandments on His Authority.

That is a valid point to a certain degree. But even King David said:

Psa 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

Goodness and mercy is exactly what believers get from God all the time, for the rest of their life (whether they understand this or not). And afterwards we will dwell with the Lord. And this too is His grace and mercy.

But, if you don't believe the New Testament, then you certainly aren't going to understand this from the Old. God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

[Zionist Conspirator]

But, if you don't believe the New Testament

Not any more.

then you certainly aren't going to understand this from the Old.

I've never even heard a logical reason for accepting the "new testament." Chrstians accept it on its own authority just as mormons do the "book of mormon," but on what grounds should anyone accept that authority, including the authority to legitimately interpret the Hebrew Bible?

God IS the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

G-d is. J*sus ain't.

[HarleyD]

I've never even heard a logical reason for accepting the "new testament."

That's almost like Pharaoh asking Moses for a logical reason to let the people go. What Christ promised was that if we desire to follow Him we would face persecution. So, where is the logic in that?

There were a few Israelites to whom God revealed Himself to; Moses through the burning bush, Samuel through the ark, Jacob through the vision of the ladder, etc. This is the way God reveals Himself to all believers. There is no logic. No simple deductions. One day your tending sheep, and the next moment you see a strange burning bush. One day starts out find, and the next moment you get a message to build an ark. One day you're catching fish, the next moment you find yourself leaving your gear and tackle. One day you're counting taxes, the next moment your get up and give it all up. There is no logic at all to any of this. It is simple foolishness.

Yet, it's true.

And the message of Isaiah still rings true:

Isa 6:7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."

Isa 6:8 And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am! Send me."

Isa 6:9 And he said, "Go, and say to this people: "'Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.'

Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

Like Isaiah and Moses and Abraham, God touches the believer's heart and atoned for our sins. And then God sends us out to save some but to harden the hearts of others. Isaiah hardened his fellow countrymen's hearts so they would not perceive God. So much so that Jewish tradition has it that they sawed Isaiah in two. This is your Jewish faith in action-killing the prophets. They didn't perceived God when He came and still don't.

There is no logic to it because unbelievers are blind to the logic.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You're completely missing the point. You're not giving me a reason to add the "new testament" to the already existing Word of G-d. You're assuming that the "old testament" is temporary and preparatory. It doesn't say that about itself; the "new testament" says that. But why should you accept the "new testament" to begin with?

Your whole response is soaked in your presuppositions. What if the "new testament" is wrong? What if it's just an earlier version of the koran or "book of mormon?" You don't accept those, do you? And please don't tell me you accept the NT because it "fulfills" the Hebrew Bible. It claims to fulfill the Hebrew Bible. But the fact that it claims to do so doesn't mean it actually does . . . unless you simply assume from the get go that it is what it claims to be.

Israel was not given the "new testament." It was given the Torah. No expiration date was included. The fact that you personally can't imagine the "old testament" in any but a chrstian context is not an argument. If the Hebrew Bible does not claim to be temporary, preparatory, and "chr*stological," why should I believe the NT when it says this about the OT?

Yes, you grew up believing this way. Yes, you've never known a bible that didn't have a "new testament" at the back, and you've never read the Hebrew Bible without your belief in the NT already firmly in place. But this is not historical reality. History is that G-d gave Israel the Torah. The "new testament" can only be accepted on its own authority. But what if it doesn't have any?

[HarleyD]

You're completely missing the point. You're not giving me a reason to add the "new testament" to the already existing Word of G-d. You're assuming that the "old testament" is temporary and preparatory.

On the contrary, the Old Testament is just as relevant and important as the New Testament. The Old Testament is a detailed chronicle of God's interact to man and man's interaction with God. It is absolutely necessary in understanding the condition of man. It not only is preparatory for the coming of God the Father giving us His Son in the New Testament, but it also speaks to us today about our moral and spiritual condition. It's not just a bunch of stories but it tells us how we treat God. It reflects the type of people we really are as well as how loving our Father is. Thus God gives Adam a complete paradise with control over everything, yet the one thing that God warns him not to do because it would harm him, that is exactly what he does.

Your whole response is soaked in your presuppositions. What if the "new testament" is wrong?...And please don't tell me you accept the NT because it "fulfills" the Hebrew Bible.

Then I'm to be pitied. But I'm not wrong. The whole Old Testament is about how God keeps sending the prophets to His people and how his people keep killing the prophets. You can't stop at the Old Testament because it's incomplete. Otherwise, no matter how much you really, really think you're going to follow the law, you too will end up killing God's prophets. That is the history of the Jews. That is the history of man.

The New Testament is how God corrects this situation. You can't have one without the other. Otherwise we are still in our sins-killing the prophets and disobedient to God's commands. No matter how much we pretend to follow them.

I don't accept the Koran or the Book of Mormons because these are worked based systems. The Old Testament is also a work based system if left to itself. But God is about wanting to have fellowship with us. This is what is written in the Old Testament when God tries and tries to be with us and we reject Him. His solution to our rejections is explained in the New.

Israel was not given the "new testament." It was given the Torah.

Which Israel? The people who wrote the New Testament were primarily Jews (except for Luke). In many cases like James, John and Paul, these were high ranking people in the Jewish community. So this isn't a very accurate statement. One could say that a majority of the Jews did not believe it, but then not all have faith. That is what the remnant is all about, which is what God saved to himself.

Yes, you grew up believing this way. Yes, you've never known a bible that didn't have a "new testament" at the back, and you've never read the Hebrew Bible without your belief in the NT already firmly in place.

I did not come to know God until I was almost 20 years old. And, to be perfectly honest, I didn't come to a right understanding about Him until about 35 years later. This isn't any different than Abraham who believed God and it was accounted to him as righteousness. I've also have had several Jewish friends who came to the faith in the same manner.

It wasn't the New Testament that convinced me about Christ and the love of God. It was the Old Testament. For in the OT I see that for all the wonderful commands that God has given to me to keep for my benefit. The problem is that I simply don't want to keep them at times. And though I gave the appearance of being a wonderful person, I knew what my heart was really like. Like some of the great men of faith, Abraham, Moses, David, Samuel, etc., I'm willing to compromise the commands of God to try to achieve my own ends. That's the way we all are. And that is why the New Testament is necessary because we see God's loving solution to our problem through His Son.

Eze_36:26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

This is the promise of God. And it's found in the Old Testament. All it takes is asking God to give one a new spirit and to remove the stone from their flesh.

[PeterPrinciple]

We are created in the image of God, so some of that goodness or potential for goodness is “stamped” into us.

Think how evil the world would be without this.

The issue in the garden was choosing the tree of knowledge of good and evil where WE decide what is good and evil, but God hid a little programing in there.

[chris37]

Sadly I do not have to imagine how evil it would be, because I can see it right outside my door.

Mankind is very far from God now.

I have heard an expression that lying is how we first begin to know the devil.

But from what I have seen that expression is quite accurate.

Lying is how we become the devil.

[piusv]

Found it:

And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

Pope Francis