Be Good for Goodness Sake

[WRJames]

Seems this is the theme of atheist ads that are showing up on buses in the city. Someone was telling me about them at coffee hour last Sunday. I haven't seen them myself, but this seems to be an example http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/2009_Holiday_Ads

It's a catchy phrase, and it makes it all sound so simple.

I know the characters in my novels are usually trying to do the right thing, although sometimes, well, almost always, it never seems to work out. Sometimes they just take a little vacation from trying to be good and have some fun. Most of the characters in the stories I post here are on that vacation already.

The only course I ever dropped in college was a course in ethics taught in the philosophy department. I was pretty much in the "no God, no problem" phase myself then, and I thought that this course was going to explain to me, in an enlightened way, what being "good for goodness sake" meant. Instead, it proceded to tear down every attempt at an ethical construct with savage intensity. That experience left me reeling for quite a while.

Does pure reason lead us to goodness, or to enlightened self interest, or just plain selfishness? Te the Enlightenment or the Terror?

Does religion lead us to Bhudda or to Bin Laden? To the Beautitudes or the Inquisition?

I wish it was as simple as that poster, or babies in mangers, or angels proclaiming peace on Earth.

 

[Boota]

Seems like you're overthinking it a bit.

 

[3113]

*Shrug*

We do good because we want to do good--or for goodness sake if you like--all that's different is what gives us that "want." Because, as you point out, even if we have a strong faith in the divine, if we want to do "bad" we will find a way to explain that god says what we're doing is good so we can do it and still be able to say we're doing the right thing. Spirituality can make you want to do good for "god's" sake because you want to deserve his/her love, or because you want to serve him by following certain rules in a holy book, or because you fear going to hell.

Non-Spirituality can make you want to do good simply because it makes sense--what benefits others benefits you, what benefits the world benefits you. Do unto others and they tend to do unto you, after all. That's not always true, but more often than not, if you're nice to others they're often nice to you. And even if they aren't, well, shouldn't virtue be its own reward?

But I have to ask you...does it really matter why one does good so long as one does it? If we do good, and if there is a god, then, presumably, he/she will be pleased. If we do good and there is no god, we'll still have lived a life where our deeds brought us satisfaction. So why should it pose a conundrum to us why we or someone else is doing good? That's our business, and that's their business. I think the point of the Atheist slogan here is simply to remind people of that. That actions speak louder than words, and so long as the actions are "good" then we shouldn't be judging the do-gooder for anything else, least of all their faith, whatever that may be. And that includes a lack of faith.

I don't think they're trying to convert believers so much as assure those people who feel no belief in god that they don't need to tie themselves up in knots about this question. That, contrary to what many insist, one can do good for no better reason than for "goodness sake."

 

[trysail]

I don't know where people get their "values."

Without the existence of religions, would/are people taught not to murder, lie, cheat and steal?

For the atheists and/or agnostics in this crowd: What do you teach your children? Do you teach them not to murder, lie, cheat and steal? If so, why?


... or is it all The Eleventh Commandment:
Don't Get Caught!

 

[WRJames]

But I have to ask you...does it really matter why one does good so long as one does it? If we do good, and if there is a god, then, presumably, he/she will be pleased. If we do good and there is no god, we'll still have lived a life where our deeds brought us satisfaction. So why should it pose a conundrum to us why we or someone else is doing good? That's our business, and that's their business. I think the point of the Atheist slogan here is simply to remind people of that. That actions speak louder than words, and so long as the actions are "good" then we shouldn't be judging the do-gooder for anything else, least of all their faith, whatever that may be. And that includes a lack of faith.

Actually, the relationship of faith and works is one of the central, unresolved issues of Christianity. And of course, what may seem good to one person may seem repressive to another. As soon as being good extends to active resistance to evil, then the definition of what is considered good becomes rather important.

 

[cloudy]

I don't know where people get their "values."

Without the existence of religions, would/are people taught not to murder, lie, cheat and steal?

For the atheists and/or agnostics in this crowd: What do you teach your children? Do you teach them not to murder, lie, cheat and steal? If so, why?


... or is it all The Eleventh Commandment:
Don't Get Caught!

Where is it written that you have to have some sort of religious faith to be a good person?

I'll wait while you find the reference.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know the saying; "There are no stupid questions?"

Trysail's is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[3113]

I don't know where people get their "values."

I do. And I'm happy to tell you: People, ALL PEOPLE, get their values from two places:

(1) Their culture, family, tribe. Meaning whoever raised them and where ever they were raised. There was an incident in the news recently--8 year old girl in Texas was raped. Her family was from a culture where this meant she'd dishonored them and god. So they disowned her. But an American family took her in and immediately assured her the rape wasn't her fault and she'd done nothing wrong. That's different cultural and familial and religious values for you.

Your "Tribe" might teach you to value hard work and money, or it may teach you to value the monk who goes around with nothing but a begging bowl. It may teach you that sex is evil, a necessity for having kids that is not meant to be enjoyed (Puritan), or that it's natural and a blessing and to be enjoyed often(Jewish). It may teach you that there's great value in being a warrior and killing the enemy. Or it may teach you that there's great value in forgiving enemies and never fighting. If you were raised Amish, you would have been given very different set of values than the ones (I assume) you were given by the family and culture that raised you. Perhaps you wouldn't be online now, if that had been your "tribe."

(2) Personal experience. This is what counters the cultural, family, tribal (traditional) values. It's you going out into the world and see if what you were told was true. Maybe you'll decide that the monk with the begging bowl is not so holy and hard work and money are to be more valued. Or that sexual enjoyment isn't sinful, it's a blessing. Or maybe, if you were raised by pacifists, you might decide that they were wrong and that there was value in killing the enemy. You see, you learn, you decide for yourself what is true. This personal experience includes not only what you yourself witness, but teachers outside those who raised you--books on values and ethics, holy men who inspire you, or brilliant men who have great ideas, whatever their faith (or non-faith).

And, once in a while, it can also be the personal experience of inspiration or revelation. That may be an angel coming to you in a dream, or like Buddha, finding that middle path in a river. You can attribute that to the divine if you like. Others won't. But when something strikes you as true, it strikes you as true.

Does it really matter if that truth is found between the pages of a holy book in church or by looking through a telescope out at the stars?

 

[trysail]

I don't know where people get their "values."

Without the existence of religions, would/are people taught not to murder, lie, cheat and steal?

For the atheists and/or agnostics in this crowd: What do you teach your children? Do you teach them not to murder, lie, cheat and steal? If so, why?


... or is it all The Eleventh Commandment:
Don't Get Caught!

Where is it written that you have to have some sort of religious faith to be a good person?

I'll wait while you find the reference.

Reading comprehension is important. I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you simply overlooked the question marks.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Reading comprehension is important. I'm going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you simply overlooked the question marks.

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]

Reading comprehension is very important. Cloudy, and I, can read your hypocrisy, right through those question marks.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[trysail]

I do. And I'm happy to tell you: People, ALL PEOPLE, get their values from two places:

(1) Their culture, family, tribe. Meaning whoever raised them and where ever they were raised. There was an incident in the news recently--8 year old girl in Texas was raped. Her family was from a culture where this meant she'd dishonored them and god. So they disowned her. But an American family took her in and immediately assured her the rape wasn't her fault and she'd done nothing wrong. That's different cultural and familial and religious values for you.

Your "Tribe" might teach you to value hard work and money, or it may teach you to value the monk who goes around with nothing but a begging bowl. It may teach you that sex is evil, a necessity for having kids that is not meant to be enjoyed (Puritan), or that it's natural and a blessing and to be enjoyed often(Jewish). It may teach you that there's great value in being a warrior and killing the enemy. Or it may teach you that there's great value in forgiving enemies and never fighting. If you were raised Amish, you would have been given very different set of values than the ones (I assume) you were given by the family and culture that raised you. Perhaps you wouldn't be online now, if that had been your "tribe."

(2) Personal experience. This is what counters the cultural, family, tribal (traditional) values. It's you going out into the world and see if what you were told was true. Maybe you'll decide that the monk with the begging bowl is not so holy and hard work and money are to be more valued. Or that sexual enjoyment isn't sinful, it's a blessing. Or maybe, if you were raised by pacifists, you might decide that they were wrong and that there was value in killing the enemy. You see, you learn, you decide for yourself what is true. This personal experience includes not only what you yourself witness, but teachers outside those who raised you--books on values and ethics, holy men who inspire you, or brilliant men who have great ideas, whatever their faith (or non-faith).

And, once in a while, it can also be the personal experience of inspiration or revelation. That may be an angel coming to you in a dream, or like Buddha, finding that middle path in a river. You can attribute that to the divine if you like. Others won't. But when something strikes you as true, it strikes you as true.

Does it really matter if that truth is found between the pages of a holy book in church or by looking through a telescope out at the stars?

Thank you. I was interested in what people had to say in response to my questions.

"Good" and "evil" are not well-defined terms. I suspect it is impossible to construct universally acceptable definitions viz "One man's guerilla is another man's freedom fighter."

Throughout my life, I have witnessed people do things I considered dishonest— and they did them without batting an eye. Other witnesses didn't seem to give those acts a second thought. Many if not most of those people were raised in and have backgrounds similar to mine. While not strictly illegal, many of these actions most assuredly trangressed the line established by "If you wouldn't want it done to you, don't do it to someone else" ( which is, of course, a variation of the so-called "Golden Rule").

Clearly, those folk had different values than I do and I wonder where they came from and I wonder what other people teach their children and why.

Whether you like it or not, it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the written laws of our society have their origin in the Judeo-Christian canon.

I do not see how it is possible to reconcile the standards of Western religions with natural law.


"Christianity is the greatest religion never practiced."
-Author not known

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know, Trysail, these questions of yours have been discussed many times on this forum, in many forms, on many threads.

If you came here with a range of interests beyond your little hobby horses, you would have been well along in the discussion by now. You would have learned that the "Judeo Christian canon" is cobbled together from many other canons, for instance, and that its adherents handily ignore any parts of it they consider un-opportune for their purpose. You would already have read at least ten threads about atheism, and as many about morality in general.

But... Whatever.

 

[3113]

Whether you like it or not, it is an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the written laws of our society have their origin in the Judeo-Christian canon.

Actually, no. It's an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the written laws of laws from the Judeo-Christian canon come from Egypt and earlier (as Stella pointed out). That's some of our laws. Others of those laws--a HUGE majority of them, come from the Greeks and Romans--more polytheistic societies and some that valued pure reason over religious reasons, and others from the Celts and Vikings. In fact, it's surprising how few of our laws can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian Bible and only to that--not further back to Egyptian law, Roman law, Greek law, etc.

Some of the things you value most of all like democracy, freedom of speech and the like, are no where to be found in Judeo-Christian society which valued hierarchies and stoned people for blasphemy.

But, once again, why should anyone give a shit where such values came from? Where from isn't so important to me as what the value is. Some Biblical values are terrible, pointless, outdated and, IMHO, immoral--like the one where a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death. In fact, we really don't follow the vast majority of the laws and values presented in the Bible--or have you been keeping kosher lately?

The 10 commandments are the laws we know best, but they're nothing new or special--most were lifted from Egyptian law, and 5 out of the 10 are common sense, like it's a good idea not to kill or steal, people get mad at you if you do. These laws were in effect well before the Jews even existed. That these laws might or might not be found in certain holy books doesn't negate the fact that they make sense. So why wouldn't an atheist follow them? The atheist follows what makes sense, and aren't you glad? That means he's not going to kill you.

Meanwhile, the religious person MIGHT kill you because you broke some other Biblical law--whether or not it makes sense. Like you worked on the Sabbath: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh [is] the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does [any] work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Religious laws don't always make sense, and religious people don't always act in a way that makes sense even when they're following such laws with good intent in mind. Being that this is so, it's impossible to say that religion gives people good values. If it did, then every religious person would be a good person and every atheist would be a bad person. Last I looked, all those priests who raped little children had been raised in a religion and were pretty religious.

Such criminals can be found everywhere, among the religious and non-religious alike. In short, saying that our laws are Judeo-Christian tells me nothing. (1) It's not true. (2) Even if it were, so what? There are as many bad laws as good ones in the Bible. So law and values from a religion don't insure good laws and values.

I think I'll stick with what makes sense.

 

[Handley_Page]

When I was a young kid in the 50s, I was really puzzled about Keeping the Sabbath holy, etc., when I discovered that hospitals were open on a Sunday and there were folk working !.

Then I got over it, once the light had dawned.

 

[trysail]

Actually, no. It's an indisputable fact that the vast majority of the written laws of laws from the Judeo-Christian canon come from Egypt and earlier (as Stella pointed out). That's some of our laws. Others of those laws--a HUGE majority of them, come from the Greeks and Romans--more polytheistic societies and some that valued pure reason over religious reasons, and others from the Celts and Vikings. In fact, it's surprising how few of our laws can be traced back to the Judeo-Christian Bible and only to that--not further back to Egyptian law, Roman law, Greek law, etc.

Some of the things you value most of all like democracy, freedom of speech and the like, are no where to be found in Judeo-Christian society which valued hierarchies and stoned people for blasphemy.

But, once again, why should anyone give a shit where such values came from? Where from isn't so important to me as what the value is. Some Biblical values are terrible, pointless, outdated and, IMHO, immoral--like the one where a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night must be stoned to death. In fact, we really don't follow the vast majority of the laws and values presented in the Bible--or have you been keeping kosher lately?

The 10 commandments are the laws we know best, but they're nothing new or special--most were lifted from Egyptian law, and 5 out of the 10 are common sense, like it's a good idea not to kill or steal, people get mad at you if you do. These laws were in effect well before the Jews even existed. That these laws might or might not be found in certain holy books doesn't negate the fact that they make sense. So why wouldn't an atheist follow them? The atheist follows what makes sense, and aren't you glad? That means he's not going to kill you.

Meanwhile, the religious person MIGHT kill you because you broke some other Biblical law--whether or not it makes sense. Like you worked on the Sabbath: "Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh [is] the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does [any] work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Religious laws don't always make sense, and religious people don't always act in a way that makes sense even when they're following such laws with good intent in mind. Being that this is so, it's impossible to say that religion gives people good values. If it did, then every religious person would be a good person and every atheist would be a bad person. Last I looked, all those priests who raped little children had been raised in a religion and were pretty religious.

Such criminals can be found everywhere, among the religious and non-religious alike. In short, saying that our laws are Judeo-Christian tells me nothing. (1) It's not true. (2) Even if it were, so what? There are as many bad laws as good ones in the Bible. So law and values from a religion don't insure good laws and values.

I think I'll stick with what makes sense.

Thank you. I have little knowledge of law, other than a standard superficial familiarity with the The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers and a vague awareness that at least some of their precepts trace back to The Mayflower Compact and what is colloquially known as "English Common Law."

Religion is not something I've spent much time studying and I have always assumed that English Common Law was— by and large— a conflation and codification of the Ten Commandments and the Magna Carta.


I. I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me, you shall not make for yourself an idol.
II. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
III. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
IV. Honor your father and mother.
V. You shall not murder.
VI. You shall not commit adultery.
VII. You shall not steal.
VIII. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
IX. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
X. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

XI. Don't get caught.

 

[DeeZire]

The fact that GWB and his crowd all go to church totally negates the affect of religion on people's values. Would Jesus drop someone's health insurance because they had a pre-existing condition? No, but all the Bible thumping conservatives in Congress would. Religion is a joke with an unfunny punch line.

 

[WRJames]

I hope no one read my orignal post to think that I was saying that religion was the easy answer to what goodness is.

Personally I'm probably closer to the humanists than the fundamental relgious types. As far as I concerned, the Gospels are screaming out that there are no easy, pat answers to "good" behavior. The Jews, at least the very strict ones, of that time followed a huge set of laws that dictated everything they did, and they thought that made them good. Jesus came to tell them that they were missing the point. The fact that some parts of Christianity have become exactly like those Jew he was chastising is deeply ironic.

But if we do have to rely on our own judgment, if we cannot just rely of a rigid set of rules -- how does religion get us any further than humanism?

 

[3113]

I. I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me, you shall not make for yourself an idol.
II. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God.
III. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
IV. Honor your father and mother.
V. You shall not murder.
VI. You shall not commit adultery.
VII. You shall not steal.
VIII. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
IX. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.
X. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

XI. Don't get caught.

LOL! I like #11.

Do you notice that, Biblically, none of those laws are supposed to apply to anyone but the Jewish people? Strange how that gets forgotten. Jehovah there gave those laws to the Israelis because they were his "chosen people." And when he says, "I am the Lord your god," he means that very literally. "I'm YOUR god, no one else's. So you do what I say, not what any other god says."

So none of those laws apply to anyone outside the tribe of Israel. How do we know this? Easy. As soon as the Jews and their new set of laws got finished wandering in the desert for 40 years, god told them to slaughter their new neighbors, the Canaanites, and take all their land.

That, by the way, goes against #5 and #7 flat out. Yet no one says, "Um, waitaminute, god, what about #5 and #7?" I mean, it's not like the Jews were at war with the Canaanites. They took a tour of the place and no one did them any violence at all. They brought back grapes and declared it was a land of milk and honey (sounds like #10 there to me, coveting your neighbors stuff). The Canaanites had no beef with the Israelites. But in the Israelites marched, blowing those trumpets...and obeying god's command to slaughtered every man, woman and child. Yep. God told them not to leave a single Canaanite alive, not even the babies.

Only one guy, who had helped the Israelites spy on Canaan got to live.

Clearly, there's a loophole in these commandments. If you're not Jewish, you don't have to follow any of them. And if you're Jewish, you only have to follow them when it comes to your fellow Jews. Everyone else is fair game.

Which is why I never understand why some Christians are so big on the 10 commandments. The New Testament says that if one is not Jewish (meaning, you're Christian/gentile) you don't have to follow Jewish laws--which is why gentiles get out of having to keep kosher. But those "Keep Kosher" laws are in the same book as the ten commandments which are also laws for Jews and Jews only. So why keep to those if you're not supposed to keep to Jewish law because that's for Jews and not for you?

 

[TE999]

In re: The Ten Commandments, Commandments IV through X are sensible codes of conduct for anyone to uphold, Jewish or not.

In the words of the song: 'Brighten the corner where you are' and lead by example.

 

[3113]

But if we do have to rely on our own judgment, if we cannot just rely of a rigid set of rules -- how does religion get us any further than humanism?

It doesn't get you any further if it makes you forget your own humanity and that of others. But it certainly gets you at least as far as humanism if it make you remember your own humanity and that of others. The New Testament covers this if you recall. The story of the Good Samaritan?

“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Temple assistant walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

Substitute any other people you like for that Priest and Temple assistant. The story could just as well be of a Christian mugged on the road and ignored by a passing minister and a preacher, but helped by an atheist or a Muslim. This is the same message that the humanists are trying to get across. He is good who does good. And he who does good is your neighbor, brother, and fellow traveler on the road to god/heaven or the grave (whatever you choose to believe) no matter what faith he practices or doesn't practice. And it is his example that you should follow if you want to be true to your faith, not that of those who call themselves leaders of your faith, but don't practice what they preach.

There is no contest going on here between the humanists and the religious folk in trying to get this important message across. That's one of the points of the story isn't it?--that you can learn lessons in morality, law, goodness from those of different faiths (or no faith), and that you should absorb such lessons when you experience them, not reject them because they come in some strange or even "despised" package. The message and getting the message is what matters, not who the messenger is.

If, after all, you believe there is a god, then he moves in mysterious ways. And maybe he is passing the message on to you or others through the humanists in hopes of reminding you and others of what really matters. I mean, you believe the gift of god's son came in the unlikely form of a poor baby in a manger. Why not believe that god's message on how to be good can come through the humanists? .

Which is to say, if you get too hung up on the package, then you'll never be able to enjoy the gift inside.

 

[WRJames]

If, after all, you believe there is a god, then he moves in mysterious ways. And maybe he is passing the message on to you or others through the humanists in hopes of reminding you and others of what really matters. I mean, you believe the gift of god's son came in the unlikely form of a poor baby in a manger. Why not believe that god's message on how to be good can come through the humanists? .

Which is to say, if you get too hung up one the package, then you'll never be able to enjoy the gift inside.

I think we are in a time of great spiritual ferment. We are aware of so many cultures, so many religions, so many philosophies. Our scientific knowledge is exploding at a pace that makes most of our assertions based on scientific "fact" obsolete before we even state them. Within Christianity itself there are revisionist movements that are turning the Bible itself against the claims of the fundamentalists.

I do not think that any of the current religions, including atheism, will survive this ferment without great transformations.

And what you say is correct. We will need to strip off the dross of centuries of speculation and superstition and get back to what is important, and what can be believed consistent with our new understanding of the universe we live in. The humanists can help, but first they must get over a pathological scepticism and a clinging to a nineteenth century world view. Which isn't to say that everyone else doesn't have a lot of intellectual baggage to discard. I must admit I gag every time we recite the Apostles' Creed.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am curious, WRJames, in what way do you feel the "religion" of atheism will be forced to change?

And, remember that "science" is a system of enquiry. This set of assertions that keep changing as new data comes along, is merely the manifestation of that system. It's unfortunate, of course, that our society is so generally indoctrinated into belief systems that it can't feel comfortable with non belief.

Clean up your own damn house; if you religious folk were ever stalwart enough to sweep away the superstition and self-preservation elements in your creeds, your churches would show but brief skeletons of basic morality clad in a tatter of common sense.

 

[DeeZire]

... your churches would show but brief skeletons of basic morality clad in a tatter of common sense.

Is that your line, Stella? I'm impressed.

Back to WR's quote

The humanists can help, but first they must get over a pathological scepticism and a clinging to a nineteenth century world view.

What if we were to substitute a couple of words thusly:

The religious can help, but first they must get over a pathological scepticism of science and a clinging to a nineteenth century world view.

 

[WRJames]

Is that your line, Stella? I'm impressed.

Back to WR's quote What if we were to substitute a couple of words thusly:

The religious can help, but first they must get over a pathological scepticism of science and a clinging to a nineteenth century world view.

Very true -- except for the century. You are at least 1500 years off.

 

[WRJames]

I am curious, WRJames, in what way do you feel the "religion" of atheism will be forced to change?

Well we've had this discussion. There are things that atheists will not accept as true, becuase it challenges their belief system. If those things in fact turn out to be generally accepted as true, then you will have to adapt.

Just as a little example -- childhood memories of previous lives. Even Carl Sagan thought there was some pretty credible work supporting that.