Can man be good without God?

[Abram]

This is a great question written by the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky. This question was a hot topic of the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion.

So can man be good without God?

 

[Ormiston]

This is a great question written by the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky. This question was a hot topic of the Conference on Science, Philosophy, and Religion.

So can man be good without God?

Not to be difficult but, what's so good about man with God?

First off, I don't believe you NEED God to define "good". It's a simple concept as long as you've defined the parameters and anyone can set about doing that. With or without God, people are going to do SOME good and SOME bad. So, my answer is yes.

 

[Ody]

Yes as long as natural law is imprinted genetically, but I view G-d as the greatest inticement to be a more "good" person.

 

[Ormiston]

Yes as long as natural law is imprinted genetically, but I view G-d as the greatest inticement to be a more "good" person.

Natural Law is not a message or a sense, it's a learned reaction that all must take into consideration for survival. There's nothing in our DNA saying don't kill. We learn the awful results of killing after we're born and we avoid it. No God in that unless that's the angle our parents choose to use.

 

[Majikthise]

IMO, man could be better without god.

 

[spookboy0]

So can man be good without God?

He would have to be measured in order to be considered "good." As we all know, a measurment is a comparison to a standard unit to an unknown unit. The unknown unit is the man, because without the ruler, to what is he being measured? (I'll return to this later.)

But wait! What is the standard unit? What would he be compared to be thought of as "good?" Let's look at some possiblites.

His parents? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.

His peers? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.

Politics? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.

Obviously, it boils down to a conflict, or something obstructing the way. More of an impediment. What are possible impediments?

Arrogance,
different opinions and/or beliefs,
physical fitness,
mental well-being,
judgement,
bias,
partiality,
and many more.

All of the above-listed have these in common: they are man-made measuring rods (I told you I would return to this). So obviously, there is a standard in this universe that isn't a part of this universe. "In this universe" because we know it exists; "not a part of this universe" because we didn't make it.

 

[Ormiston]

He would have to be measured in order to be considered "good." As we all know, a measurment is a comparison to a standard unit to an unknown unit. The unknown unit is the man, because without the ruler, he is neither good nor bad.

But wait! What is the standard unit? What would he be compared to be thought of as "good?" Let's look at some possiblites.

His parents? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.

His peers? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.

Politics? Not if there is a conflict between them and the man.

Obviously, it boils down to a conflict, or something obstructing the way. More of an impediment. What are possible impediments?

Arrogance,
different opinions and/or beliefs,
physical fitness,
mental well-being,
judgement,
bias,
partiality,
and many more.

All these have this in common: they are man-made. So obviously, there is a standard in this universe that isn't a part of this universe. "In this universe" because we know it exists; "not a part of this universe" because we didn't make it.

Is this really how God works? I don't think so. God doesn't measure men, he sets out rules and they either follow the rules or they don't. Everything else is just a suggestion. I think what you mean is "better" not "good" because you can be "good" enough for God or you can be "better" or "worse". But "good" is clearly defined by rules not measurements.

 

[spookboy0]

What do you think a rule is? It is a measurement. If you follow the rule, you meet the measurement. If you break the rule (which is the same thing as not following it), you don't meet the measurement.

 

[Ðanisty]

So can man be good without God?

If not, then how can you explain all the people out there that are being good without God? It seems like a pointless question to me.

 

[Darkdale]

The gods have already given us everything we need to be good, productive people. It is up to us, whether we believe in gods or not, to be good for the sake of our own honor, and for the benefit of our families and friends.

 

[spookboy0]

If not, then how can you explain all the people out there that are being good without God? It seems like a pointless question to me.

Good? Compared to what?

 

[Ody]

Natural Law is not a message or a sense, it's a learned reaction that all must take into consideration for survival. There's nothing in our DNA saying don't kill. We learn the awful results of killing after we're born and we avoid it. No God in that unless that's the angle our parents choose to use.

Natural law is what all men and women know regardless of who is there parents, the only way you do not know natural law right when you are born is when you are born mentally challenged.I think lol

 

[Ormiston]

What do you think a rule is? It is a measurement. If you follow the rule, you meet the measurement. If you break the rule (which is the same thing as not following it), you don't meet the measurement.

Maybe we're just playing with words but a rule to me is more like a switch: it's either off or on, good or bad. A measurement to me is more gradual. I will admit that, in the absense of God, men would not be good to God's standards because many of them involve interacting on God's behalf and worshipping, etc. I think the question comes down to what exactly good is. Is it subjective or objective and I can't possibly see us coming to a decision on that. But we should try.

 

[Ormiston]

Natural law is what all men and women know regardless of who is there parents, the only way you do not know natural law right when you are born is when you are born mentally challenged.I think lol

Are you telling me mentally challenged infants know less than normal infants? I didn't think either knew a damn thing. Here's the defintion according to Merriam-Webster:

:a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law.

It seems to me to be about the effects of people living together, not some message passed through the DNA.

 

[Ody]

Are you telling me mentally challenged infants know less than normal infants? I didn't think either knew a damn thing. Here's the defintion according to Merriam-Webster:

:a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law.

It seems to me to be about the effects of people living together, not some message passed through the DNA.

Wrong it is a universal law. How else would it be the same for all peoples all over the whole damn world? It is a base part of being a human. Atleast thats the classical viewpoint 0.o

 

[Ody]

Lol we are quibbling a bit 0.0, ill be back tonight gtg do some homework...

 

[Ormiston]

So, back to "good". Is there any one thing that is indisputably "good" independent of religious beliefs or personal ethics? Is there one universally good rule?

 

[spookboy0]

Maybe we're just playing with words but a rule to me is more like a switch: it's either off or on, good or bad. A measurement to me is more gradual. I will admit that, in the absense of God, men would not be good to God's standards because many of them involve interacting on God's behalf and worshipping, etc. I think the question comes down to what exactly good is. Is it subjective or objective and I can't possibly see us coming to a decision on that. But we should try.

When we were growing up, we learned that we as humans are a specific phase. Water could be poured on us, and we would still think we were in the same phase. However, when we were taught the difference between "dry" and "wet," we learned that these weren't the same.

Likewise, we wouldn't know bad unless we knew good, and vice versa, because without the knowledge of good and bad, we wouldn't know the difference (like Adam and Eve).

I know this doesn't answer the "what is good?" question, but it can definitely help.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Let's accept as real (a) free will and (b) the Judeo-Christian G-d. Who wishes to argue that the Confucian, the Taoist, the Hindu, the Jain, and the Buddhist are incapable of good?

 

[Valjean]

Some can, some can't. It depends on their level of moral development.

People imposed religious and later legal restrictions on themselves because they knew that they could not resist the temptation to prey on their neighbors or engage in socially disruptive behavior.

People judge others by their own yardsticks. Most people are at level two and haven't developed a strong, internalized ethical system. They assume everybody needs external rules imposed on them. However, there are plenty of people at higher Kohlburg levels that need no coercive, external regulation to behave honorably -- to be "good."