Can we be good without God? Part I: Introduction
This post is part of a series on Can we be good without God?
I just finished listening to a somewhat frustrating debate between atheist Dan Barker and apologist Matt Slick on the topic Is there Reason to be Good Without God?
I say frustrated because (a) I think Barker makes too many logical mistakes and pot shots at Christianity that have nothing to do with the topic, and (b) I thought Matt’s answers were a bit hard to follow, and his responses during the rebuttal were often combative, defensive, or just plain humorous deflections because he was not prepared to answer well.
Of course, it’s easy to judge from the sidelines, but I wanted to clarify my current understanding of how a Christian apologist/theologian/philosopher might answer this question clearly.
I admit, I am not yet formally educated in these matters – I have been accepted into the M. Div. program at Gordon Conwell, but with three small children, a full time job, and a part time pastorate, I’m swamped. But here’s my view of what should have been covered clearly by Mr. Slick.
In considering the question “Is there REASON to be good without God?,” there are a lot of preliminary issues which ought to be addressed before we can answer the question well.
1. Can we DEFINE what is good without God?
2. Can we RECOGNIZE what is good without God?
3. Can we BE good without God?
4. Why SHOULD we be good without God?
In the course of discussing these, many side arguments and doctrines, not to mention red herrings, will come up, and those need answers too. I would love to have the time to map these (anyone know if they are mapped?), not to mention go back to my Bill Craig books and see what his thorough and brilliant analysis has produced that I have missed. Anyway, the related issues that will come up include:
1. The Euthyphro Dilemma
2. The nature of man and the origin of goodness
3. Evolution and morality
4. Situational ethics
5. Moral motivation – carrot or stick?
These topics and others I hope to discuss in this series.
The goal of science is to slowly and careful refine our hypotheses to capture more data. Scientific truth is the best approximations of reality.
I think a science of religion could be the same.
In this case, since many forms Buddhism and Confucianism (which have millions of believers) have no god, whatever answer you come up with should be able to account for the morality in these 2,000 year old faiths.
Yes, I am aware that some forms of Buddhism are actually a type of empirical spirituality, and I have learned, adopted, and appreciate some of them. However, I do find them wanting in some respects, which is why I am again a Christian. Check out my articles under Buddhism if you like, you may be surprised – and then again, not :D
You might want to take a look am my Indexed Post system in the right hand column of my blog. It allows people to easily find posts and you can annotate them that way.
Your system has me click "Buddhism", I guess.
Also, referring me to a whole slew of posts is rather off-putting.
I read your Vipassana thing.
My point: you can't make a theory of moral without admitting that wonderful systems work without any of your pillars.
BTW, this site loads very slowly and any interaction with it takes a long time. Thought you'd like to know.
Yeah, I think that my cheap host may have to go :(. Thanks though.
This sounds like it will be pretty interesting. As a friend of Greg Epstein (the author of Good Without God – well, at least I play ultimate frisbee with him), and as something of a new or militant atheist (whatever militant means), I don't think he went far enough. I like the points you've outlined for consideration in answering your question. I would personally add the contra positions of each question, as well. Is it even possible define good with god, to recognize good with god, or to be good with god? I believe evaluating all aspects of the question will make for a well thought out and thorough essay. FYI, my short answers (and why I think Greg didn't go far enough) are that when one relies upon god to determine what is good or not good, one relinquishes her position as a moral actor and lacks moral agency (moral faculty may remain, but it is undoubtedly dormant). I'm not saying that's right, either, though, just that wider consideration may be prudent.
As you will hopefully see (when I get to it!), I think the answers are basically 'yes' AND 'no' – I think you get partial answers if you rely on only one of the avenues – on human reason, you are not only at the mercy of subjectivism, but self-deception. On divine revelation, you are at the mercy of charlatans, misunderstandings, and strangely enough, another type of subjectivism.
I am of a tradition that sees the two realms (natural and spiritual) as partially overlapping magisterium, if you will, esp. when it comes to the more subjective things like morals that defy a pure rational justification/explanation. Hence such phrases as "we hold these truths to be self-evident."
A "militant Christian" shoots abortion doctors.
A "militant Muslim" blows up buses.
A "militant atheist"… says there is no god, out loud.
No, a militant Christian evangelizes the nations. Onward Christians soldiers. Perhaps you would prefer the term 'evangelical atheist'? That may be more accurate.
Of course, perhaps a militant atheist is someone like Stalin.
I expect to Middle Easterners, “onward Christian soldiers” evokes a more literal image.