I am an atheist, though this does not mean that I am not interested in the idea of God (I am not an apatheist). Opportunities for debate, however, are lacking, as I lead an improbably shielded existence — improbable, because while for the overwhelming majority of the world’s population the idea of God is the foundation of their world view, almost all my friends are either atheist, agnostic or apatheistic, rather than conventionally religiousBy “conventionally religious” I mean those who see themselves as belonging to a particular religious denomination, such as Protestantism, Catholicism, Reform Judaism, Sunni or Shia Islam, and who subscribe to its dogma..
Recently, I’ve noticed from comments left on my blog that there are likely more conventionally religious people among readers than I can find among friends, so I’m going to take the opportunity to pose three questions concerning religious belief that I’ve pondered. They’re asked in good faith, as it were, and they’re there for the purpose of stimulating debate, if you’re so inclinedUnrelated side note: I’m on the lookout for a new apartment to rent starting September 1. If you know of something in Stockholm, up to 6,000 kr/month and with bredband, email me. It needn’t be large, though it should be furnished, as I live like I travel: light. Anything longer than three months will do.
Kungsholmen, here I come!.
1. Is it possible for an atheist to be a good person? Is a belief in God a prerequisite for goodness, or for the rewards of goodness? Are equivalent good acts more or less good depending on the beliefs of the doer? Should good people be denied (some or all) rewards in the afterlife if they don’t also first make a correct decision regarding their religious belief? If not, does it remain important to belong to the correct denomination, or even to believe in God tout court?
2. Those born in Ireland do not, in the main, grow up Shia. Those born in Iran do not grow up Catholic. It seems evident to me that for almost all conventionally religious people, the denomination of their religion is not a matter of choice but the product of environmental factors. If one’s religious belief is an accident of birth, what are the implications for those who, through no fault of their own, subscribe to the wrong denomination? What about those who belong to the correct denomination, though not by choice but accidentally, by birth?
3. If you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim, you accept some religious texts in the Islamo-Judeo-Christian canon as being divinely inspired, but not others, just as you accept some of the historical accounts of miracles or divine acts as being literally true, but not others. How do you justify the varying levels of skepticism you hold towards the claims of respective religions? For example, Jews, Christians and atheists are all skeptical of claims that the Koran is the word of God, though Christians abandon such skepticism when it comes to similar claims about the New Testament, while Jews abandon it when it comes to the Old Testament. To an atheist, this seems inconsistent — shouldn’t you be equally skeptical towards all such religious claims, or else equally accepting (and become a Mormon)?
As to question No.1–I’ve recently weakly begun to wrestle with the first part–I have a question in return. Are you a good person, and if you are, on what basis do you make that judgement? I guess you think you are, which is probably true. That’s the easy part. But what principles do you call upon to reach that judgement? They can only come from a set of contingent moral codes you’ve pretty much plucked at random to justify your pre-existing behavior. This isn’t a criticism. I wallow in a similar pix-n-mix moral universe and am growing increasingly unhappy with it. Am testing out a nebbishy attention to grammar as a possible alternative.
Stefan,
I came to this site as result of a Google image search for the designs of Freedom Tower. I read your posting and all comments. I would describe my reaction to be, “moderately appalled”. I had prepared a notably lengthy response to what i had read, but it is now lost in cyber space, so I now seek some other means of rebuttle.
To make a long story longer, I do believe i am your antithesis. We could definately have long debates where each of us makes valid points though neither of us remotely accepts them. It could go on for days.
I am 19 years old, i live in the midwest, and I have been recieving a catholic / jesuit education for 13 going on 14 years. If that’s not proof enough, I am a conservative republican. How close am I?
So now to the problem at hand…
Is it possible for an atheist to be a good person?
-Yes, anybody can be a good person.
Is a belief in God a prerequisite for goodness, or for the rewards of goodness?
-Neither, beliefs only give you motivation to pursue ideals. Thoughts and actions dictate your reception of the rewards of goodness
Should good people be denied (some or all) rewards in the afterlife if they don’t also first make a correct decision regarding their religious belief?
-No, people who strive to be good and fullfill a meaningful purpose in life will, in my opinion, eventually be entitled to all the rewards of goodness.
-There is no completely correct denomination. But it is important to believe, if you merely focus on the self-centered ways and desires of human emotion and not on the greater powers of life and energy then I believe you are doomed to remain in a constant state of meaningless psychobabble similair to human existance. Or what I might call Hell.
If one’s religious belief is an accident of birth, what are the implications for those who, through no fault of their own, subscribe to the wrong denomination?
-I agree with you, one’s religious denomination is more or less completely dependant upon environment, and again, there is no wrong or right denomination.
-I have spent years studying theology. Catholic, in more detail than i care to go into, and theologies from around the world. I think my education has touched on most every recognized religion. If you break it down, most of us all believe in the same thing. Granted, there are some major technicalities that set us apart. It is the belief that we are born to achieve greatness. The belief that there is an attainable higher state of being in existance.
To your third question i will simply respond that i am skeptical towards everything. It’s part of human nature. There is too much to say about the spliting of theologies from Hebrew into Jews and Christians and the cultural aspects of those versus Buddhist Muslim Hindu…..and so on.
If I could leave you with these thoughts that I have aquired through my theological scholarship.
1. Any person can reach Heaven, Nirvana, Enlightenment, Moksha, whatever you want to call it. Simply stay true to your beliefs no matter what they are. (Even though you are an atheist you should believe in something) And Live a good and purposeful life.
2. Your conscience is the ultimate scale of right and wrong. What you truly believe is right and good is right and good. (to this thought i give credit to my Catholic theologocal tradition. John Paul II you’re my boy!)
Hope that can help answer some of your questions, for I am conventionally religious.
P.S.
I run into more catholics than atheists…you are my antithesis.
Stefan
What do you mean by a “good” person in question one?
K
Kartika and Matthew: What makes for a good person is certainly an interesting question, but it is not necessarily relevant to the question at hand. Just imagine a religious person and an atheist person both performing the same moral actions: The give the same amount to charity (for a given salary, though perhaps for different reasons), they have the same stance on abortion, they are both organ donors, etc… Is the religious person perceived as being more deserving in the eyes of God for rewards? If not, what is the point of doctrinal differences, or even of needing to worry if the correct answer as to God’s existence is reached?
To Mark D. Malone:
First of all I should say that I’m not a believer myself, nor am I educated in theology or even philosophy, and thus I’m probably the least suitable person imaginable to garble out my views here, but here goes anyway:
If staying true to one’s beliefs is enough to let you reap the rewards of your goodness, and if your goodness is defined as “what you believe is right and good”, and if “your conscience is the ultimate scale of right and wrong”, doesn’t that leave us with as much questions as before?
As we all know, a lot of the most appalling deeds in the history of mankind have been committed by religious, visionary, dedicated people who are 100% convinced that what they are doing is, in fact, Good or Right (or at least Necessary).
How do you feel about these issues? How do we deal with the people committing atrocities out of faith? Isn’t there any other definition of ethics somewhere that is not based on what we ourselves “feel and think” is right, based on our environment? I’m not saying I know, I just find the discussion interesting. I shiver at the thought of something being right just because I (or someone else) happen to believe so. I’d like something less abstract to define good and evil. Because what if one’s wrong?
Mark, do you believe yourself to be in agreement with mainstream Catholic doctrinal conclusions on these questions? Jesuits have traditionally been very open-minded about interpretations of Catholicism and other religions, no?
Also, how do you then set yourself apart from a generic deist position with an added flavoring of Catholic rituals? Or is that what religion amounts to: A belief in God filtered through a particular culture’s patrimony? Would a Muslim mullah agree, however, or a Baptist preacher? I know you don’t speak for them, but additionally, your implication that none of the sacred texts of the Judeo-Christian canon are to be taken as the literal truth (if that is what you said) surely puts you in a far more nuanced place than most conventionally religious people would put themselves, no?
1. If I were asked to answer the first question, I would say that I think it is possible for an atheist to be a good person. Doing good does not necessarily result in being religious in the same way that being religious does not guarantee doing good.
I wonder why you ask this question. I think that my religion (Christian) is not about doing good to get rewards in afterlife. Yes, i try to do good. But that is just a result of living my life the way I think God has meant it. Starting with loving God and loving other people as myself.
I believe that Jesus is the only way to God. And that this is the only way to eternal life. I do not know if those that do not choose to believe God will not be rewarded, even if they live a good life. The Christians that I know generally say that God will judge and that we do not have to think about this. My guess is that God will consider the image that people have gotten of Him. If people deliberately choose against Him, despite of the Gospel being revealed to them, I think they will not be rewarded. Because I believe that eternal life is not dependent on works and good deeds, but on faith. (Good deeds are a result of this faith.)
2. I agree that faith is dependent on where you are born and where you grow up. Still, I do not think we should underestimate the free choice of all people. It happens that people who grow up in one religious tradition convert to another later in their life when they are confronted with this other one.
I read a book that says that all other religions but Christianity are just a misunderstood version of Gods real message: that what is in the bible. The only difference that I see and that I think matters is that in all other religions, people work their way up to heaven, nirvana or God. In Christian faith, God came down to the people and offered His grace.
I do not know if there are consequences for subscribing to the ‘wrong’ religion. The explanation that I heard most from Christians is that the last day will only come when all peoples have heard the Gospel. Every single person must have the opportunity to choose for or against God. If they ‘did not know’, I do not think it is just to doom them.
3. I feel I know too little about the roots of all holy books to answer this question. As for the bible, there is lots of historical proof, but in the end, all it comes down to is if you believe that it is the Word of God. I know this is a circle argumentation and scientifically untainable, but again, I do not have the knowledge to answer this question.
Sofar for my attempt to sincerely answer your questions. I must say that your questions raise more questions with me and I realise there is so much more to read on this. I look forward to reading more comments!
I’m a churchgoer precisely because I cannot answer the questions you pose, but I want a forum in which I can grapple with these questions that is not a purely intellectual one.
The very moderate form of Anglican Christianity that I suscribe to allows for plenty of flexibility in thinking about these things. I can’t even begin to discuss religion with a fundamentalist evangelical Protestant, while I can talk about it for hours with my boyfriend and parents (atheists all).
I sometimes think that a longing for God (or whatever it is) is genetically programmed into many of us, for some reason. So trying to intellectualize your way out of religion is kind of like telling yourself not to be jealous that your ex is dating someone new. You still feel it in your gut.
First to Jakob,
There are several levels of belief and truth. I can sit here all day and think and eventually convince myself that only people shorter than 6 feet should be allowed to live. I could then push my beliefs on others until i had an army supporting my beliefs. I could then go and rid the world of everybody that is taller than 6 feet and call it a religious crusade. Now, my motives may be some other than i truly and deeply believe that only shorter people should live. It could be the pursuit of power, fame, historical recognition, or even just the fact that i could say i did it. No matter what my motives it would seem that my actions are not “Good”. I think you all can agree with that.
The thought that our conscience is the ultimate moral guide is based on the assumption that the person making decisions is of sound mind and has reflected upon all alternatives to his actions before deciding what he/she believes is right. We do this everyday. We stop at the stoplight at the abandoned intersection and wonder if we should just drive through. If we took the time to think about all possible consequences of just driving through we would almost inevitably just wait for the green light. But we rarely give ourselves the time to make an enlightened and inciteful decision.
As far as those who truly have considered all aspects and truly madly and deeply believe that what we would consider an attrocity as good and right, it gets a little more confusing. Good would not exist without evil. For every yin there is a yang, every beginning has an end, and every rose has its thorns.
We do not have minds complex enough to comprehend the grand scheme of all events that take place in this world and their reprocussions. If you believe, and i do, that life is deliberate and all things have their reasons, then it becomes easier to see that without all of the “evils” that we have triumphed over throughout existance we would not be in our current state of life.
What if one man was to meet a woman and give birth to a child that would eventually start a corporation that became powerful enough to control a country, and that child was directly responsible for the end of civilization as we know it by starting a nuclear holocaust in 1978. What if this childs father was murdered in a Nazi death camp in 1943 and the child was never born. Would this not be justification enough for World War II.—A bit extreme i know, but it is hard to think of an example to signify the point i’m trying to make—
If this were true and for this reason, though unknown to him, higher powers had Hitler believe he was right and good, would you agree that his actions were right and good?
Next to Stefan,
you wrote “Or is that what religion amounts to: A belief in God filtered through a particular culture’s patrimony? ”
To be Frank….yes. Religion in some ways reminds me of the telephone game we played in grade school. The message is told clear as day at the beginning, but by the time it gets to you it has been distorted beyond recognition by all of the unaviodable biases of those who pass it on.
I can not speak on behalf of anyone other than myself. My views are not uniform with any religion, they are simply my views and beliefs. I have been able to reach the conclusions about faith, life, God, and existance through Catholic education,plus I pray to Jesus, and so I call myself a Catholic. I have disagreements with every faith that i have studied. And I believe I could have a conversation with a Minister, priest, Rabbi, Monk, ….. of any religious background and learn more about my own views while still maintaing that i am on the right path as far as my beliefs.
As far as the Texts of the bible i am not sure what to think exactly…i think i have read almost every book in the bible and i think it is a message open to interpretation. Not meant for litteral translation in most cases.
Last to Anyone,
Theological texts, religious denominations, and spiritual guides of all kinds are simply that…guides. The ultimate struggle lies within each person and it is the personal quest for knowledge and understanding, the pursuit of hapiness. Life and existance as we know it is greater than we are and will continue on well after we are dead and gone from this life. People subscribe to a religious belief because it gives them an outlet for concentration, meditation, and prayer that in most other cases is unattainable. The benefits of such are innumerable and organized religion is a way to keep people focused on the greater picture.
I must add that my words may seem a bit discombobulated, but try to understand that i am trying to convey concepts that I have discussed in great lengths over several days into a few short paragraphs.
p.s.
I am not an advocate of Hitler’s Nazi regime
Stefan
Sorry if this seems obtuse – but you have touched on a centuries old debate about how God thinks.
Doctrinally I suppose Christians would say that God would say your donation to charity would be as laudable as a Christian’s but the difference would be that Christians accepted God and used him as the centre of his life, thus being “saved” and you had not. Of course, what God says and how s/he thinks is something that differing religions claim they alone are privy to and some pretty apalling atrocities are committed to that purpose.
I am interested in your concept of “good”- does it mean that inter alia you are law abiding? Because most of our criminal laws and code are directly descended from the Ten Commandments to start with- a tangential point I admit.
My personal belief is that nobody is less “good” if they perform “good acts” but don’t believe in God. But again, I don’t claim to be privy to how God thinks.
Dear Stefan,
I appreciate your honest questions. I’ll attempt a reply; although I think there are rather more than three questions there!
You lay your cards on the table as an atheist. I am an evangelical Christian and serve as a deacon in an evangelical church in England. You can find a brief summary of what evangelicals generally believe at http://www.fiec.org.uk if you click on “Introducing the FIEC” and then “What we believe”. The FIEC is one of the denominations my church belongs to.
On with your questions, even if I end up raising more than I answer!
1. From an atheistic perspective how do you define “good” without reference to some transcendental norm? I question how a consistent atheist can even admit “good” exists let alone determine which things are “good” and which things are not.
Now, you may not be a consistent atheist in which case this issue does challenge you to recognise that even asking such questions doesn’t make sense for an atheist:)
From a Christian perspective God is fundamentally good. All goodness is measured by his perfection. He is the creator of mankind whose purpose is to live for, to enjoy and to please God.
Thus a good act is a right action carried out in the right way measured by God’s standards. For example, giving to the poor is considered good by many but God is concerned about our motives for giving. If we give to salve our consciences, or grudgingly or to look good in front of others this is not “good” but selfish. It fails to acknowledge that God is the source of all our money, that we are responsible to him what we do with it and we are to use it in ways which promote his glory. When we judge goodness we only see external actions. God, by contrast, looks at and considers our motives too.
Once goodness is considered in this way it becomes immediately apparent that none of us is perfectly good, nor are we capable of perfectly good acts. This is the human plight: we are sinful people unable to match the standards required by a perfect God. A good God judges and punishes evil and I, and everyone else, deserve a condemnatory judgement from him.
Thus your quesiton about good people and the afterlife is based on a false premise: that anyone can be good enough to deserve eternal life.
This takes us to the heart of the Christian faith. To rescue us from our plight God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, who is fully God, to take a human nature and live a perfect life. He voluntarily died on the cross as a substitute, taking the judgement of God in the place of sinners. In other words the cross is a place of exchange: God counted Jesus as sinful in my place so that I can be considered perfect and good on account of Jesus’ perfect life. My sins for his perfection. This exchange is for all those who put their trust for acceptance with God in who Jesus is and what he has done rather than in their own abilities and efforts.
Thus, going to an afterlife, finding acceptance with God, is not an issue of how well I have behaved. It is about accepting and trusting in what God has done and receving etrenal life as a gift. This understanding that acceptability with God is not a result of my efforts sets evangelical Christianity apart from all other religions and all other forms of Christianity. All other religious beliefs hold that acceptance with God is at least a mixture of how well I do with the assistance of God’s help, if not wholly dependent on human ability.
Hopefully this explanation provides an answer to the last part of 1. too. Trusting in Jesus Christ as the God who saves is vitally important. This belief is not restricted to a particular denomination but is shared by a range of denominations.
2. As described, in general, the requirement for an active belief rules out acceptance with God being an automatic gift along with nationality! No one trusts in Christ accidentally. The consequences of not trusting in him are indeed dire.
3. You pose a false dichotomy: accept all religious claims or reject all. There is a third alternative: accept true religious claims and reject the false (I include atheism as a religion here!)
As a Christian, the Old and New Testaments are of a piece. The Christian doctrine of inspiration applies to both and the manner of writing the books that make up both Testaments is similar.
The Koran is a different work. It was written by one person (though not compiled by him) allegedly by dictation from an angel. By contrast the Bible was not dictated but God used the abilities and personalities of the authors to produce revealed truth which is free from error.
The Koran contradicts the Bible and so both cannot be true. One has to choose between them. For example, the central event in history is the resurrection of Christ. I consider this to be historically believable and that it is a fact which has enormous significance. The Koran denies the resurrection happened. It is thus perfectly sensible to accept the Bible and reject the Koran as a result.
I’m sure you’ll have some comments on this! If I have time I’ll comment on the posts of others but I wanted to provided an answer to your questions first.
Best regards,
James.
James,
Before getting into the difference between atheism and nihilism, I’m going to assume that you believe deists who are not of your particular persuasion can nevertheless still be good (even though they have not accepted Jesus as their personal saviour, for example). It’s specifically those who think God does not exist who are incapable of understanding goodness — do I understand you right?
I myself subscribe to a set of values based on my ability to simultaneously empathize and rationalize — both unique abilities of homo sapiens. As such, the foundations of my ethics are humanist, and they are broadly similar to those that make up secular laws, as well as Christian morals. From my perspective, it is no accident that these different foundations for good living are similar in function (if not in motive): Helping others as you would have them help you has been a spectacularly successful strategy for building thriving societies — societies that I want to live in.
Nihilism, on the other hand, is the rejection of the worth of cooperation and an inability or unwillingness to empathize. There are grades of nihilism, which Nietzsche so aptly explored, but to me, most of these are merely selfish, and hence do not lead to a good life.
From my perspective, furthermore, there are no inherently moral phenomena in the universe — only moral interpretations of phenomena. There is no absolute concept of evil; genocide is not evil outside of our own ability, as humans, to collectively decide it is so. This puts a huge responsibility on us, as participants in society, to constantly guard against notions and ideologies that would pervert the evolved system of individual liberty, responsibility and toleration that we have made great strides in perfecting over the last few centuries.
The other point you raised that I’d like to address is your comparison of the truth or falseness of sacred texts in the islamo-Judeo-Christian canon. You write “You pose a false dichotomy: accept all religious claims or reject all. There is a third alternative: accept true religious claims and reject the false (I include atheism as a religion here!)”
You are right. But how do you go about sorting true religious claims from the false? Is there a possibility that you have reached the wrong conclusion in choosing the Bible over the Koran? The tests of faith that you as a Christian Evangelist says need to be passed as a prerequisite for believing in the correct denomination seem to be similar in scope and character than the tests of other denominations. Or are you saying that your belief is based on your appreciation of verifiably more accurate historical religious claims?
If so, (and if you can stomach another paragraph of mine,) could you propose a test now for what would constitute true religious claims in the future, for example by people and events claiming to constitute the second coming of Christ?
You utter ponce. Why ever you started this I simply cannot think. I used to have these exact discussions as a 6th former.
Stefan
Despite the fact you split your infinitives(which I will attribute to your ability to speak more than one language) I will engage once more(how noble).
Ultimately you are asking for some forensic basis by which a person chooses Christianity over Islam etc. That maybe too rational- as I believe that the choice of religion is usually cultural. The Jesuits used to boast that if they have a child for the first seven years of its life then it will be a Jesuit for life- similarly I think it is the first introduction to a receptive mind that makes it mark. If that does not succeed then there may be the search for a religion or belief that makes more sense.
Christians will argue that Jesus said in the Bible that nobody gets to God except through him- hence the exclusivity of Christianity in that it promotes itself as the sole true religion. Hinduism believes that all ways ultimately lead to God and that any religion is a manifestation of man’s attempt to understand the unmanifest… etc. Family members who have been brought up Hindu cannot accept the exclusivity of Christianity and Christian friends who have been brought up as Christians cannot comprehend the “diffuseness” and all encompassing nature of Hinduism. It may well be a question of conditioning or for those less cynical- familiarity.
The Christian religion is not at all about pleasing God by being good. It is that no one is good, every person born since Adam is wicked and is already condemned. This is one of the most despised doctrines of the Christian faith, since every one is also born with self-loving pride to think he or she is basically a good person and deserves to be rewarded for being the wonderful person they really are, and willfully suppress the idea that they are wicked and bound for eternal punishment for their wickedness.
The Christian religion is that only Jesus Christ is good, being God incarnate. He came to save sinners by 1) living a perfectly righteous life which goodness is transferred (not inherently or ontologically, but is accounted or “reckoned” to them. Chrstians are not “good” people, but they trust in the goodness of Christ on their behalf.
2) Christ took their sins onto himself, that is, the sins of the wicked were “reckoned” to him; and he suffered the punishment for their sins in their place.
So it is not about being a good person, it is about believing in the only good Person to stand in for you in the day of judgment. The “being good” of Christianity is a result of, rather than the cause of, being saved by Christ. A changed heart (regeneration by the Spirit) and gratitude and the desire to please God — again, not for reward. Christ came, as I said, to save sinners, not the righteous. But out of joy for having been saved by him comes the desire for obedience to him.
Thank you for this opportunity to share the evangel.
Mike A.
southeast Kansas
I think your questions 2 and 3 are similar enough to be answered together.
It is not really a matter of figuring out which religion is right, or what culture one is raised in, etc. The only tools we have for figuring out a religion are our own fallen reason, intuition, feelings, consciences, etc. These cannot lead us to God, because (as I have said in the other post) we are utterly wicked and cannot/will not use these things to see into heaven, gaze upon the holy, and then decide how or whether to worship and obey him. Fallen reason and wicked hearts just cannot find the most holy God. (“God-hating” is a good term, not only of atheists but of all people, despite protestations of “loving God.” They invent gods more to their liking, one that they can please through their own efforts of being good, or asceticism or whatever, rather than accept the one who utterly condemns them and all their efforts, demanding faith in him alone and obedience to him alone.)
That means that it is not we who reach up into heaven and choose him, but God who reaches down, out of his love and mercy and chooses us. He reveals himself to whom he wills, and hides himself from whom he wills (Romans 9, in case you would like a Bible reference).
Many are called but few are chosen. It is not on the basis that he reveals himself to “good people,” wise people, religious people, spiritual people, etc. He chooses according to his own good pleasure and counsel, to which we are not privy.
Where one is born and the religion of the culture are secondary means through which God calls people. And note that even most people born in Western civilization and a Christian culture do not become Christians. It is not by the culture, it is the active revelation of and by God to the sinner’s heart by which a person becomes a Christian.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share these things with you.
Mike A.
The determination of good and evil is one of the focal points of Islamic theology in particular and the philosophy of ethics in general. Although the answers vary for each different theologian and school in particulars, the overall answer could be summarized under two separate headings, that of Ash’arites and Mu’tazilites. The Ash’arites argued that we know good and evil through revelation, thus God makes things good or evil for us by His decision; whereas the Mu’tazilites upheld that we know the value of actions through human reason, they regarded the revelation as supplementary.
The ethical value concepts such as good and evil has an objective nature according to Mu’tazilites whereas it is regarded as subjective by the Ash’arites and other Sunnite theologians such as Hanbalites and Shafi’ites. The Mu’tazilites argued that acts have real attributes or qualities that make those acts good or evil. The existence or absence of these qualities makes the acts good or evil. As to the nature of evil acts, they argued that besides the general acceptance of evil acts as repugnant, evil acts are also ‘that which by its very nature merits blame when committed’ . The good acts are also by their nature good, so they do not need verification as to their acceptance as an attractive act. Thus the nature of good and evil are inherent in the acts, not superadded to them and this moral status of the act becomes part of its nature. This nature is not necessarily determined by revelation or any other subjective method. Each act carries a comprehensible aspect that characterizes that act as either good or bad. This aspect should not be necessarily verified by the human intellect, meaning they do not need any confirmation since they are already there. However the Mu’tazilites argued that the human mind is capable to distinguish between these two natures without the assistance of the revelation. The Qu’ranic verses addressing the pagans of Mecca to be just, honest, and thoughtful is quoted as a proof that the pagans without the acceptance of revelation are expected to understand and comply with these ethical concepts meaning that the rejection and absence of revelation does not necessarily mean these ethical concepts could not be understood with the human intellect. Since these ethical concepts are objective, every human being is capable to understand them and accept them as either good or bad. Ash’arites accepted the ethical value concepts such as good and evil as subjective. They argued that without any approval or designation by a higher authority, these values have no meaning. So these concepts have no objective meaning but they accept meaning after approval. The approving authority is obviously God. The ethical value terms accept meaning by only what is approved or disapproved, commanded or forbidden by God with the backing of divine sanctions in the form of rewards and punishments. According to them without revelation there is no good and evil. If God had commanded what He has forbidden, that would become good. As Ash’ari puts it “If He had esteemed [a falsehood] good, it would be good, and if He ordered [us] to it, there would be no gainsaying Him” . Ghazali totally agrees with Ash’ari in this context and argues that God might have forbidden thanking Him. The Ash’arites sought to refute the Mut’azilite position in two ways. First they argued that the values are not necessarily objective because for example if goodness were part of the being of a thing meaning it is intrinsically good, then some acts would be good absolutely, but none are. The often quoted example is lying to protect the Prophet. Lying is accepted as an evil act intrinsically, and by the human intellect, however the Ash’arites argued that if a person lies to protect the Prophet the act of lying which is evil becomes good. This refutes the position of Mut’azilites that the ethical value concepts are objective. Thus nothing is absolutely good or evil meaning these concepts are relative. Since acts do not have intrinsic moral qualities, depending on the circumstances an act could be both good and evil. Hence one approves some acts and detests some of them because of their occurrence in some manner or state. Mut’azilites responded to the favorite example of the Ash’arites arguing that lie remains evil, and its nature is by no means changed, however the circumstances sometimes demand equivocal language which makes an evil act look like good. Secondly, the Ash’arites differ from the Mut’azilites on the conceptual definition of the terms good and evil. Ash’arites insisted that good acts are the acts that promote an end, and the evil ones are the ones that hinder the attainment of an end. The ends in the Islamic context are the afterworld reward or punishment. For example a person refuses to break a contract because he fears punishment in the afterworld, thus the Ash’arites argued the motivation that leads this person to keep his promise is not that this act is intrinsically good, but the act becomes good because there is a reward in the afterworld for it. Mut’azilites responded to this argument quoting the same example, arguing that a man without belief in religion, thus in no fear of afterworld punishment, refuses to break a contract even under threat of execution, because such a man regards breaking a contract as evil in itself, not merely in relation to ends. Ghazali seeks to refute this argument saying there is self-interest and emotional causes such as people’s love of praise for honesty in the case of the man who refuses to break a contract although he is a non-believer. This person according to Ghazali keeps his promise because he thinks that breaking a contract will have harmful consequences in his and his descendants future relations with their associates, and also people love to be praised for their acts by others, thus these two ‘ends’ lead this person to keep his promise. Ghazali rejects the argument that the acts are intrinsically good and evil, and the Mut’azilite position that the acts are acceptable or rejectable to the rational mind regardless of personal ends.
I appreciate the cosmopolitan and humanist beliefs of Mark D. Malone. James from England, however, strikes me as an example of intolerance and closed-mindedness. I don’t question his faith or fervour, but his glib insistance that the Christian Bible is so obviously superior to the Koran takes us nowhere.
He says the Old and New Testaments are of a piece. This is news to me. The Torah existed centuries before the time of Jesus and was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written by a variety of people a century after Christ’s death in Greek. The wide gulf between these two languages, these two timeframes, and these two messages make for discrete (although not exclusive) experiences.
Then James says, “The Koran is a different work. It was written by one person (though not compiled by him) allegedly by dictation from an angel. By contrast the Bible was not dictated but God used the abilities and personalities of the authors to produce revealed truth which is free from error.”
I don’t see why Muslims’ claim that Mohammed’s word was that of God is any less credible than a disperate set of writers who never knew Christ were revealing God’s truth.
It is this sort of de-legitimizing that makes it easy to cast Muslims (or Christians, for that matter) as the Other. Perhaps it is more difficult to see the Other as actually a different variety of Us, or maybe it makes you feel better to think that, hey! you’re in the chosen set. Congratulations. You really do have something in common with Osama bin Laden.
Hey dudes,
I just got my new issues of Spunk & Big Butts magazines, anyone want to stop over, have a look and get stoned? Just bring some beer and fried pork snacks.
TJ
ps, If I’ve got the wrong website, sorry. Hey Uncle Henry, you outta jail yet?
Concerning question 3, there is a very pervert piece of jewish apologetics that i’d like to share with you. It goes along those lines:
What do the Jews claim? That their fathers told them that their fathers told them etc. that the All Mighty took them out of Egypt across the sea and all, and that at Sinai He started to talk to them and said ” I am …”, and they were so terrorized that they told Him to shut His all mighty mouth and sent Moses up there to jot the whole speech down(meanwhile they had a big party around some golden calfe, for the full story, see Exodus).
Other religions go like this: a Prophete comes and say that God talks to him, and that we should do this and that, and believe that and this.
You can convince a lot of people that Gods talks to you. You can’t make people believe that God has talked to them.
Now, you might object that this Sinai story, well, that goes a way back, and maybe, during such a long time, the Jews made up the story.
Oh yes? And how did it start, this making up? Someone came along one day and said: ” God has talked to your forefathers, direct, like i am talking to you now” ? “- oh yes? How come MY father never told me anything about that? (turning to his neighbour in the crowd) “did your father tell you that?”
Now, let’s assume for a moment, that it could be possible to convince a whole people that their fathers said something that they didn’t say. Obviously, it’s a strong claim for a religion to be able to say to its followers “Gold talked to your fathers, direct from heaven”. Then, how come that there is no other religion that has such a claim? not such an easy trick…
One of the worst parts of discussing theology with theists is that they when pressed almost inevitably seem to come up with a cruel, petty and vindictive God that I wouldn’t bow to even if he were to prove His existence beyond any doubt. This comments thread has certainly been no exception.
Is it incorrect to write god with lowercase “g”?
Is god a concept or the proper name of a concept?
Has it been patented?
i find that the questions proposed here are more debatable among believers than non-believers. Unfortunately.
Although, the rationale required to discuss them can only be attained by the high spirituality of those who have been blessed by atheism.
…so to sum up……..a huge amount of waffle but nothing approaching an intelligeble answer to the questions posed….why am i not surprised?