Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Don't believe in good without God? That's prejudice
Q: Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?
I'm honored that Sally and Jon have chosen the subject of my new book, Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe, for discussion at On Faith this week. And I'm humbled that over the past several days, people across the United States have been talking about what it means to be good without God--and getting involved in the grassroots Good Without God campaign launching on the Subway in New York City and Boston and on the streets of downtown Chicago, but also in the plateaus and valleys of Idaho and in many other parts of the country.
I see all of this activity as a chance to finally begin a new kind of conversation about god, religion, morality, and community. It's a chance to put to rest some of the animosity and mutual mistrust that we've seen too often when religious and nonreligious people come together of late. It's a chance for Humanists or nontheists like me to begin again to work alongside religious people of many stripes to build the better world we all want and need to see.
But this is not the time to debate the question, "can we be good without god?" And frankly, I am disappointed in Rabbi Hirschfield for his assertion that we can't be.
Let's be perfectly clear: of course we can be good without God. Millions of Americans are.
But that's not what my book is about. Because if you think we can't be good without God, that's not just your opinion. That's not just some brainstorm that crossed your mind. It is prejudice. And it might even be discrimination. I mean, no one in his or her right mind would ever say, "Oh, you're a Catholic. How nice--is it possible for you to be a decent human being, too?" We wouldn't ask whether it's possible to be a good person and Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist. We don't ask whether you can be good and a Democrat, or a Republican (at least, usually we don't). So since we know that there are now millions and millions of people living without belief in a god, it's time to reject the question of whether we can be good without God.
However, that's not to say living well or being a good person is easy--with or without god. And so the question why we are motivated to be good without God is much very much worth asking. The question of how we can be good without God is absolutely crucial. And both of these questions lead to a third--with whom can I be good without God? After all, one of the most important reasons people turn to religion is for a sense of community--so how can Humanists and the nonreligious build a secular alternative to religious community? These are the questions and issues I'm addressing in this book. They are the essential questions of Humanism.
I won't summarize my argument in this space, both because I'm eager to see what the other On Faith panelists will have to say on the matter, and because I would encourage you to check out excerpts available here or here, then check out the book itself, and join me in continuing the conversation--whether here at On Faith, onFacebook, or in real-time by getting involved and helping build Humanism where you live. And for even more practical tips and suggestions, you can visit my website and check out the Humanist community at Harvard.
But again, can we please agree that from now on it should be beyond the pale to accuse Humanist, atheist, agnostic, and nonreligious citizens of having no basis for goodness and decency? Let's remember that we are all imperfect human beings, equally worthy of being treated with dignity.
By
Greg M. Epstein
|
October 28, 2009; 1:40 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Goodness happens |
Next: Karma, Newton, good and evil
Posted by: sjcsando | October 30, 2009 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Oh, you're a Catholic. How nice--is it possible for you to be a decent human being, too?" We wouldn't ask whether it's possible to be a good person and Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist.
------------
But that is, precisely, the question we should ask. Given the history of the past two thousand years, we should pose the question thus:
Is it possible for you to be a decent human being while also subscribing to the beliefs of an organized religion?
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | October 28, 2009 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'll like to know which god is this guy talking about?? There are many many gods out there and there is also ONE TRUE GOD, which one is he talking about?
Posted by: zhanvey | October 28, 2009 3:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This debate is entertaining but makes as much sense as asking "Is There Good Without The Purple And Orange Flying Spaghetti Monster" or "Can People Be Good Without The Zebra-Striped Unicorn?"
Posted by: norriehoyt | October 28, 2009 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?\
HUH!? The concepts came first, then structured and codified in what is commonly referred to as religion.
Posted by: OneWhoSpeaksTruth | October 28, 2009 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The challenge for non-believers is in the words I've just used: non-belief. Defining someone in positive rather than in these oppositional terms is critical if non- believers, non-theists, anti-theists, atheists, secularists, humanists, rationalists etc. are going to leverage their views into society's discourse on values. And because these free-thinkers, skeptics, Brights (more labels) tend to be opinionated, individualistic, and often anti label(?!), organising them (us) into defining and promulgating a coherent and consistent belief system is a real challenge.
For it to then coalesce into something significant this 'new' belief system has then got to engender a sense of on-going, sustaining community.
I hope your book can act a something of an early rallying point.
Posted by: harryesque | October 28, 2009 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Epstein, you had a national audience and you blew it. Your response could have been compelling, talking about the non-religious sources of law givers through out the ages, our own founders' debate about the development of the constitution and the idea of morality outside of a god, shared human or cultural morality that leads some to look for a divinity, etc. This was a light weight response and a true disservice while trying to stump for your book.
There are stronger, more eloquent, Humanist leaders who see that morality and goodness come from mankind's interest in community welfare, self sacrifice, and shared values, not another source.
Posted by: cadam72 | October 28, 2009 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
It's a matter of faith. Unless a person has it, there's nothing anyone can say that will convince them that they need God.