No God, BIG problem

"because that would mean this life is all there is and and thus, without purpose or meaning and without hope for anything beyond this life."

I've heard this a lot, and it's not an argument. Why should this bother anyone? "Without purpose or meaning" would simply mean without externally or supernaturally handed down purpose; a person could still decide what to do with their lives.

In any case, many forms of Christianity teach that there is no hope for some people in the afterlife.

More importantly, morality is not a question of purpose but of values. Just because something or someone was made with a purpose does not automatically make it moral for that thing or person to be used or act towards that end. Both purpose and values deal with a desired goal (directing behavior towards an ideal) but values deal less with intention and more with consequences.

"The bigger question is: if one can be "good" without God, why bother? Indulge yourself. Be selfish. Be promiscuous. Cheat on your spouse. Cheat on your taxes. Lie and steal. Hate and destroy your enemies. If there is no God, who is to say anything is bad...or good?"

Your first question is a non-sequitur. That question and everything else in that paragraph is wrong. Do you think that a married Christian man would be more likely to cheat on his wife if he de-converted? Of course not! He would remain faithful to her because his love for her causes him to value her emotional well-being.

Secondly, morality is not a question of who says what is wrong but what says what is wrong. Values are what say that something is wrong. Those values exist in the realm of ideas with or without God, and it is values that create moral obligation.

"Actually, no God, BIG problem, because that would mean this life is all there is and and thus, without purpose or meaning and without hope for anything beyond this life."

Actually, no, it would not mean that.

No matter how many times you say so.

I promise.

To believers...God is Love. Says that somewhere in the Bible. Can the whole of the Bible, the whole of all god-believing religions, be boiled down to that? I think so. Why not! This is the only "holy" writing necessary. All of you reading this right now can likely search your own innards and agree. Let's safely equate Love with Good. Reword it, "Be Love for Love's sake!" Now, history has shown that those promoting anti-love may at times hold sway (Nero, Hitler, Saddam), but eventually crash and burn. It is an evolution-produced core element of being human, to love. Otherwise, there can be no survival for the species. And evolution works! So, Love ends up trumping anti-love every time in recorded history. So it has been, and so it will continue. Anti-love will come and go, but Love remains constant. Nothing wrong with what the humanists are trying to communicate. Same thing God said in the beginning, "and it was good". Proves to me that Humanists are believers after all! They believe in "Good", in "Love", just like me! And so it is. (Amen...to those who wish to use that form of completion.)

"Actually, no God, BIG problem, because that would mean this life is all there is and and thus, without purpose or meaning and without hope for anything beyond this life."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is typical of the religious - they cannot accept the idea that being good without god(s) is possible.

Religion,in my experience, has always been about ruling with fear and intimidation. If you do not do this or that you will be condemned to hell for all eternity. As a child listening to this constant stream of sturm and drang and being taught to always be afraid, be very afraid left me feeling lifeless.

This life is all we have - if we live life to the fullest, extending a helping hand to those who suffer, be willing to work together to create a better world - these are the things that matter.

Living in constant fear of god's wrath is not living - it is a rejection of oneself as an individual. A person who is constantly at war with themselves cannot find peace.

Perhaps that is why for many religious the thought of a peaceful afterlife is so compelling.

Humans are by their very nature creative,curious, inventive,and individual each able to contribute to their society in a miriad of ways. Why is it the religious alwalys seem to choose the "don't do" path and not the "can do" path?

Comes now Cal and his Huckabees telling us it can't be good unless we agree with them on their wedge issues of praying for the President's death, killing abortion doctors, hiding pervert priests, denial of health care for the poor, demonizing Mexicans and Muslims and gay bashing. They're the ghost of Christmas now and of Christmas future in the intolerant Jesuslandia that once was the America I loved and volunteered to fight and die for.

"The bigger question is: if one can be "good" without God, why bother? Indulge yourself. Be selfish. Be promiscuous. Cheat on your spouse. Cheat on your taxes. Lie and steal. Hate and destroy your enemies. If there is no God, who is to say anything is bad...or good?"

You have not described atheist behavior; you have described human behavior, because Christians indulge themselves; they are selfish; they are promiscuous; they cheat on their spouses and on their taxes; Christians lie and steal; they hate and destroy their enemies. Belief in God has not cured them of being human, anymore than being atheistic makes people behave worse.

Yours is a rhetorical response which has no basis in reality. Why not think about your own question and try to answer it yourself?

The Thirty Years's War. fought from 1618 to 1648, was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history. It was fought in Germany and began as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, eventually involving most of the European powers.

After the reformation in Germany, religious tensions between Catholics and Protestants had remained strong throughout the second half of the 16th century, By 1618, the Protestant nobility of Bohemia rejected their new Catholic Crown Prince and heir to the thrown, Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria. This triggered the Thirty Years' War and provoked open revolt in Bohemia which had powerful foreign allies.

During the war, episodes of famine and disease significantly decreased the populace of the German states and the Low Countries and Italy. Estimates put the reduction of population in the German states at about 15% to 30%. In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas an estimated two-thirds of the population died. The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half. The population of the Czech lands declined by a third. The war caused serious dislocations to both the economies and populations of central Europe. The displacement of civilian populations and the overcrowding of refugees into cities led to both disease and famine.

The Thirty Years' War rearranged the European power structure. One result of the war was the balkanization of Germany into many territories and long-term decentralization of German power having long term effects extending into the World War period of the twentieth century.

The resulting Peace of Westphalia laid the foundations for the modern sovereign nation-state. The Thirty Years' War marked the last major religious war in mainland Europe, ending the large-scale religious bloodshed accompanying the Reformation.

So much for belief in God bringing out the good in people.

Nothing particularly original here - we've all heard this one a million times before.

Just for the sake of a minority report, there's a whole tradition of existentialist philosophy (and theology) coming out of the thought of Soren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger that claims life can only be meaningful if it's finite.

Finitude forces us to make decisions and to continually create the meaning of our lives, which is open-ended while we're alive (or so Heidegger claimed). it actually depends on humanity being alone, radically "thrown" into the world and forced to construct meaning where none is naturally found.

Why would an eternal life be more "meaningful" than a finite one? As far as I'm concerned, a life in which we create or discover our own meaning (subjectively, of course) is more meaningful than one with an arbitrary meaning imposed from outside.

Grounding an ethical system on this belief is, admittedly, more difficult, although I think you could argue that what's wrong is something that denies someone else their chance to create their own meaning.

If putting babies on spikes happens to be your source of meaning, you're simply out of luck, and other people have a right to stop you.

Goes well with the scientific evidence for an innate (though culturally conditioned) moral sense.

For the record, I am FULLY aware that Heidegger's own behavior is NOT the example we should follow. Someone will probably see the name and launch into an incoherent moral tirade without having read this.

Cal phones in another one.

"What's wrong with the idea that what we see is all there is?"

We can't reject the possibility that there may be more to the universe than what we can perceive. But the key word is "may." We have no basis for asserting the existence of such things as fact. We have no way of knowing if there are no gods, one god or many gods.

Cal Thomas makes no point here. He's merely drawing a poor association between a lack of a belief in God and evil. History is littered with examples of God fearing people committing evil to eachother, even in the name of God. In no way does belief in God have anything to do with being good. They are mutually exclusive.

Also, why does life without God have to be without meaning? What's wrong with the idea that what we see is all there is? That means we should cherish every moment of this finite life all the more.

Personally, I have stopped believing in God and reject religion in all its forms. It wasn't a choice so much as a gradual realisation. I was brought up Catholic, but even when I was a kid I had to "try" believe. When one has to try to believe, something isn't right. For many people it may be impossible to believe in God and I am one of those, but that in itself doesn't cause us to do evil things.

fr footballgal87:

>All of you commenters who are attacking Cal for his beliefs...

Nobody is "attacking" Cal. He does enough of that himself, with his anti-gay, right-wing diatribes everyday.

All of you commenters who are attacking Cal for his beliefs--are you being "good?" Are you doing a "good" thing by calling him ignorant, stupid, raised by wolves, etc.? _________________________________________________

Yes, we're being good. In our little way we are trying to snuff out the pernicious effects of superstition as manifested in Thomas' treacle. Denial, especially when it's been ritualized into religion, is counterproductive to our species survival and survival is, in both the metaphysical and practical sense, "Good."

So Cal, if it weren't for your personal belief in your god, you would be a murdering philanderer who stole candy from babies in between assasination assignations?

Ah Yes,

Given what Mr. Thomas said I wonder why we have had 2000 years of religiously based slaughtering and persecution of all others by Christians, of Christians by Muslims, etc.

And also we had strong support of slavery by many "moral God fearing" Christians and persecution of blacks by them after the Civil War. Why is that ?

Interestingly enough, Genghis Khan, whose troops did a lot of rape and slaughter during conquest, allowed the conquered peoples to follow their own customs and religions as long as they remembered who was King. Christians and Muslims usually tried to convert the conquered peoples, often by force. Where is the God driven goodness and morality there ?

All of you commenters who are attacking Cal for his beliefs--are you being "good?" Are you doing a "good" thing by calling him ignorant, stupid, raised by wolves, etc.? I don't think so. In fact, I'd say you're being pretty cruel. But if there's no God, I guess it doesn't matter what I think or what you think about being good--it just matters that we're all striving for some unattainable, unidentified, completely abstract notion of "good." So continue insulting me, I'll continue arguing with you, and we'll all be "good" in our own way.
...and one commenter wondered why there are so many wars?
___________________

This post is really sad. No one is "attacking" Mr. Thomas. He invited discussion, and so people have provided their thoughts.

No one has called Mr. Thomas stupid or ignorant or said he was raised by wolves. That is a figment of the poster's imagination and the poster's tone is far more aggressive than any other poster's. This defensiveness is not good either. It smacks of the same judgemental world view that caused missionaries to force their religion on native inhabitants for their own good.

The poster answers his or her own question, "...and one commenter wondered why there are so many wars?" Because so many Christians cannot even engage in debate without becoming angry and defensive.

"The bigger question is: if one can be "good" without God, why bother? Indulge yourself. Be selfish. Be promiscuous. Cheat on your spouse. Cheat on your taxes. Lie and steal. Hate and destroy your enemies. If there is no God, who is to say anything is bad...or good."

Well, let's see. There are many people who are "with" God, and still do the actions Mr. Thomas is saying one should not do if they are "with" God.

Indulge yourself - prosperity gospel at its core.

Be selfish - people who will not pray "Thine will be done", but "enlarge my territory (The Prayer of Jabez).

Be promiscuous. Cheat on your spouse. Oh goody, a two-for-one. Several prominent Christian leaders / politicians have covered this one in depth, while exhorting the rest of us to live Godly lives.

Cheat on your taxes. That extra deduction for charitable donations that I really did not give, no one will ever know. I did give something to Goodwill, just not as much as I said I did.

Lie and steal. Churches does this every day. The building fund comes to mind.

Hate and destroy your enemies. What did the civilian populations of Iraq and Afganistan ever do to the United States?

If there is no God, who is to say anything is bad...or good. But on the other hand, Christians have done more damage to our own image that anyone else ever could.

Just expressing a thought.

What prevents Christians from doing harm? How many people have been killed or tortured in the name of conversion and gaining everlasting life?

What keeps people from doing harm is their desire to do good, either in the name of God or in the name of humanity. If Cal Thomas does not understand this I feel sorry for him.

I suppose Thomas, like many Christians, only behaves well because of the possiblity of reward. That has led this country to Prosperity Christianity, the idea that doing good brings great reward. Reward proves God loves you therefore doing what it takes to gain reward and God's grace is acceptable and even desirable.

Doing good is its own reward. Doing good to gain a reward is the most harmful philosophy Christianity has brought us.

"Millions of people are good, even though they don't think there are any gods."--A previous commenter

A completely flawed argument. You are not "good." I am not "good." We are all eternally flawed, believer and non-believer alike. The difference between those who follow God and those who don't is that followers understand their inherent sinfulness and the need for some kind of atonement that no human act can provide.

All of you commenters who are attacking Cal for his beliefs--are you being "good?" Are you doing a "good" thing by calling him ignorant, stupid, raised by wolves, etc.? I don't think so. In fact, I'd say you're being pretty cruel. But if there's no God, I guess it doesn't matter what I think or what you think about being good--it just matters that we're all striving for some unattainable, unidentified, completely abstract notion of "good." So continue insulting me, I'll continue arguing with you, and we'll all be "good" in our own way.

...and one commenter wondered why there are so many wars?

C. Thomas wrote: Actually, no God, BIG problem, because that would mean this life is all there is and and thus, without purpose or meaning ___________________________________________

Wrong.
Our purpose is that of every other species: Survival. It is the baleful effects of superstition that is without meaning but not, however, without consequence.

There is no hope for anything past this life. Which is precisely the incentive to live this life well.

The concept of a god and an afterlife has not prevented promiscuity, selfishness, and tax cheating among believers, has it?

The author's claims and questions are quite typical of christians, don't you think?

Infected from before the time he could think for himself, he never did develop purpose and meaning in his life that did not revolve around his gods. He never reached for it - his religion coopted his imagination and reason and he is completely incapable of seeing meaning and purpose ... get it?

How is it that so many of we unbelievers find meaning and purpose? Because we looked for it. We don't need the artifice of religion to see it.

And then there's the other usual question - if there's no god, there's no good, and do want you want to whom you want when you want it.

Again, why is it that we unbelievers behave ourselves and don't do what you suggest is the inevitable result without a punishing god?

We know why, apparently you do not, can not. You're undeveloped that way, your sense of morality is stunted by your religious infection received during your youth.

It would be easy to condemn the virulent anti-humanity that Thomas espouses. But what about the assumptions inherent in his argument? Why couldn't gods exist and life still have no inherent purpose or meaning? Why couldn't gods exist that have nothing to do with "goodness," where they are indifferent or malevolent?

Cal wrote: "The bigger question is: if one can be "good" without God, why bother?"

The implication here is that if you didn't believe in God, you'd be out there right now raping, murdering and pillaging your way across the land, which is pretty frightening.

What you're saying is that you are fundamentally an immoral person and only the fear of God is keeping you in line. If that's true, then I'd want to stay as far away from you as possible in case your faith ever wavers for a moment.

On the other hand, if you say that even in the absence of God you'd still behave yourself, then you admit that God isn't necessary to be good.

So which is it?

No God. Not only is that "no problem" but it is "the solution." Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

The less Zeus or Allah or Jesus the better!

God's existence is irrelevant to whether or not people choose to be good.

Unless you claim that he intervenes to make people do good things - if so, then what of free will?

If you insist that it is _belief_ in God that makes people good, then again, the truth of his existence is irrelevant and you're still left with the problem of explaining why there are so many non-believers who persist in being good people.

Whose/which god are we supposed to believe in? How is one to choose when none has proof of his/her/its existence? Certainly not the one whose followers scream the loudest. Five days a week we must bear out our assertions with scientific proof, auditable documentation or legally acceptable evidence. To the contrary, on the last day of the week, we are simply to submit to what someone else tells us, with no support whatsoever, aside from perhaps beautiful buildings, fabulous garments, and threats of eternal damnation or promises of forever in paradise? I think I'll take my chances with my good atheism, Cal, thanks.

"The bigger question is: if one can be "good" without God, why bother?"

Because many of us were not raised by wolves and were taught over a number of formative years by our parents what constituted appropriate behavior? We don't require the specter of an eternity of punishment hanging over our heads.

You'd think you've have figured that out in all your decades of existence, Cal. Pity, really.

This life is all there is.

Now there's a concept. Imagine people being happy with this life as all there is. Imagine people who said, heh, we're here together, what we have is each other for a brief moment in time, let's enjoy this here and now. You might think they wouldn't fight wars because we don't have time. That we wouldn't horde money because our current is more important than a mythical future. That we see each other as of value in and of ourselves, not for what we might become. We would alliances based on our current good, not a long off heaven or book from the past. We would optimize our present, with the full knowledge of what that present was instead of optimizing our after life.

Live in the here and now because there is nothing else. Perhaps our friend CT has found exactly what good there would be without god.

hariaum

because that would mean this life is all there is

In other words, "there is a god because I really really want there to be one."

if one can be "good" without God, why bother?

Good question. Millions of people are good, even though they don't think there are any gods. Why do you think we bother?

"The bigger question is: if one can be "good" without God."

This was a question examined by the panel and the posters quite recently on the On Faith blog. Those who claim that doing good and being good come naturally are true to a certain extent. Human beings are a tribal species and it does naturally feel good to treat other members of your "tribe" with caring and compassion.

However, it also feels good to treat the other with ruthlessness to the point of genocide and history and prehistory is replete with these natural behaviors as well. The escape from doom that these natural behaviors condemn us to in a nuclear age is a spiritual reawakening to the humanity of every individual on the planet.