Deep Sight:

Wallace : We cannot be good if God does not exist.

Wednesday, 30 March 2011 00:00 By Imelda Wallace   

I READ the article in Sunday Guardian (March 20) titled “Can we be good without believing in God?”by Leo Igwe which comes to the conclusion that “people can be good without believing in God” and that “human beings can achieve moral excellence without belonging to any religion.” I beg to differ!

A person who believes that God does not exist usually believes that man evolved from the apes in which case he must logically believe he is just an animal with a more highly developed brain!!! If this is the case then of course he is not a spiritual being and we should not expect him to reason or to be able to choose. If he cannot choose then he is not free and there is no morality, no good deeds and no evil deeds. He is just conditioned by his environment, as other animals are, and follows his instincts just as other animals do. He cannot have any concept of goodness or evil since these concepts are abstract. Animals do not have intellectual knowledge.

They follow their instincts in an orderly programmed way. They live spontaneously doing the ‘right’ thing at the ‘right’ time, according to their species. G. K. Chesterton wrote in his inimitable paradoxical way that if you want a man to stop drinking after he has had several pints of beer you may pat him on the back and say, “Come on, now, be a MAN!’ and you may shame him into stopping. On the other hand if you are in the bush and you see a crocodile about to devour his third hunter and you pat it on the head and say, “Come on, now, be a crocodile!” the reptile will probably continue eating its hunters because it is natural for animals to follow their instinct of hunger and eat whatever food is handy!

The Oxford don, Ronald Knox, used to say that if a dog were to know it was a dog, it would  no longer be  a dog – it would be a human being! He was pointing to the fact that what distinguishes man from animals is the fact that they have intellectual knowledge - ideas and self-consciousness are not physical or material.

Now if man is merely a descendent of the apes then obviously there is no such entity as a human being. Moreover, the idea that “people have been caring for each other before religions started” cannot possibly be so since if we came from the apes who undoubtedly have no religion it is hard to see how they care for one another for real care implies  love and REAL love is either spiritual or it is not at all!

Francis Collins, the pioneering geneticist who led the Genome project from 1993 to 2008, was an atheist until he began to question the fact that human beings care for each other. He thought that there must be an altruistic gene which made people sacrifice themselves or give their lives in the service of others. He says, “In my view the DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological functions will never explain certain special human attributes such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.” His reading of “Mere Christianity” led him to become a Christian. In that book Lewis states: “If we discover a desire within us that nothing in this world can satisfy, then also we should begin to wonder if perhaps we were created for another world.” He also said: “If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end despair.”

Jacques Maritain and his wife Raisa, both eminent Philosophers met as students in the Sorbonne and, under the influence of Atheism and Existentialism, decided to commit suicide within a year if they could not find a reason for their existence because they could not bear the fact that their love had no meaning. They found the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, loved each other  according to their newfound truth and both lived to a ripe old age.

Can we be good without believing in God? Not if we believe we are animals. But there are people who are good, as our writer said, who do not believe in God. They are, however, able to choose to be good only because they have a mind that can reason and consequently a free will which have been educated by parents and teachers to know and choose the good.! Otherwise why do mothers spend most of their children’s lives saying: “Don’t be greedy!”, “Don’t be lazy!”, “Give Johnny back his toy!”  Animals don’t need to be told what to do – they just do it. Human beings need to be told what to do in order to be able to develop their intellect and will so they can make the necessary choices to fulfil themselves as mature human beings and not just go about life seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

If a person does not believe in God then he probably believes he has only this life to live because after death there will be nothing. If he seeks the good he will be seeking what is good for him. In other words he believes there is no objective morality based on the laws of an intelligent and  loving Creator.  And, as  Professor J. Lorda wrote: “The whole of the moral life consists in the determination to live in accordance with the truth of what man is and what things are.”  If man has a body and a soul then God exists as Creator and religion is the relationship between man and God and, as C.S. Lewis wisely pointed out, “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”

• Wallace is a teacher in Lagos

http://guardiannewsngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43155:wallacen-we-cannot-be-good-if-god-does-not-exist&catid=38:columnists&Itemid=615

Comments?

Kay 17:

Our cousin primates; apes have a communal behaviors, exhibit intelligence. The writer failed to provide a concrete difference between humans and animals, and the standard of good and evil.

Jenwitemi:

Wouldn't this planet be a more peaceful and harmonious place than it is now, if we had been liviing like the primates? When was the last time apes killed each other enmasse because of differences in beliefs in God? The writer is just full of utter crap.

nuclearboy:
Moral, human and societal acceptability standards seem to be their own basis rather than spiritually

Deep Sight:

I have discussed this ad infinitum, ad nauseum on this forum, notably here -
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-411111.0.html
- - - where the indefatigable and tirelessly irrational viaro disagreed.

viaro:

There are atheists I know who live far more credible lives than deists - no gainsaying that. However, please show me any atheist who predicates his living or ethics on "godliness". Please just show me. Your penchant to lie to the public on any "resemblance" is magically amazing!

Deep Sight:

Personally i think it is possible (and indeed I have observed this constantly) for an complete atheist to be both morally conscious and indeed live a more christ-like life than a supposed theist.

Deep Sight:

Wallace : We cannot be good if God does not exist.

Wednesday, 30 March 2011 00:00 By Imelda Wallace  

I READ the article in Sunday Guardian (March 20) titled “Can we be good without believing in God?”by Leo Igwe which comes to the conclusion that “people can be good without believing in God” and that “human beings can achieve moral excellence without belonging to any religion.” I beg to differ!

A person who believes that God does not exist usually believes that man evolved from the apes in which case he must logically believe he is just an animal with a more highly developed brain!!! If this is the case then of course he is not a spiritual being and we should not expect him to reason or to be able to choose. If he cannot choose then he is not free and there is no morality, no good deeds and no evil deeds. He is just conditioned by his environment, as other animals are, and follows his instincts just as other animals do. He cannot have any concept of goodness or evil since these concepts are abstract. Animals do not have intellectual knowledge.

They follow their instincts in an orderly programmed way. They live spontaneously doing the ‘right’ thing at the ‘right’ time, according to their species. G. K. Chesterton wrote in his inimitable paradoxical way that if you want a man to stop drinking after he has had several pints of beer you may pat him on the back and say, “Come on, now, be a MAN!’ and you may shame him into stopping. On the other hand if you are in the bush and you see a crocodile about to devour his third hunter and you pat it on the head and say, “Come on, now, be a crocodile!” the reptile will probably continue eating its hunters because it is natural for animals to follow their instinct of hunger and eat whatever food is handy!

The Oxford don, Ronald Knox, used to say that if a dog were to know it was a dog, it would  no longer be  a dog – it would be a human being! He was pointing to the fact that what distinguishes man from animals is the fact that they have intellectual knowledge - ideas and self-consciousness are not physical or material.

Now if man is merely a descendent of the apes then obviously there is no such entity as a human being. Moreover, the idea that “people have been caring for each other before religions started” cannot possibly be so since if we came from the apes who undoubtedly have no religion it is hard to see how they care for one another for real care implies  love and REAL love is either spiritual or it is not at all!

Francis Collins, the pioneering geneticist who led the Genome project from 1993 to 2008, was an atheist until he began to question the fact that human beings care for each other. He thought that there must be an altruistic gene which made people sacrifice themselves or give their lives in the service of others. He says, “In my view the DNA sequence alone, even if accompanied by a vast trove of data on biological functions will never explain certain special human attributes such as the knowledge of the Moral Law and the universal search for God.” His reading of “Mere Christianity” led him to become a Christian. In that book Lewis states: “If we discover a desire within us that nothing in this world can satisfy, then also we should begin to wonder if perhaps we were created for another world.” He also said: “If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth, only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end despair.”

Jacques Maritain and his wife Raisa, both eminent Philosophers met as students in the Sorbonne and, under the influence of Atheism and Existentialism, decided to commit suicide within a year if they could not find a reason for their existence because they could not bear the fact that their love had no meaning. They found the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, loved each other  according to their newfound truth and both lived to a ripe old age.

Can we be good without believing in God? Not if we believe we are animals. But there are people who are good, as our writer said, who do not believe in God. They are, however, able to choose to be good only because they have a mind that can reason and consequently a free will which have been educated by parents and teachers to know and choose the good.! Otherwise why do mothers spend most of their children’s lives saying: “Don’t be greedy!”, “Don’t be lazy!”, “Give Johnny back his toy!”  Animals don’t need to be told what to do – they just do it. Human beings need to be told what to do in order to be able to develop their intellect and will so they can make the necessary choices to fulfil themselves as mature human beings and not just go about life seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

If a person does not believe in God then he probably believes he has only this life to live because after death there will be nothing. If he seeks the good he will be seeking what is good for him. In other words he believes there is no objective morality based on the laws of an intelligent and  loving Creator.  And, as  Professor J. Lorda wrote: “The whole of the moral life consists in the determination to live in accordance with the truth of what man is and what things are.”  If man has a body and a soul then God exists as Creator and religion is the relationship between man and God and, as C.S. Lewis wisely pointed out, “A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.”

• Wallace is a teacher in Lagos

http://guardiannewsngr.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43155:wallacen-we-cannot-be-good-if-god-does-not-exist&catid=38:columnists&Itemid=615

Comments?

JeSoul:

Not a very well written or thought out article in my opinion. But nevetheless, I don't think the author is aruging so much that it is[i] impossible[/i] for atheists to do/be good . . . but rather, the good that the atheist does is:
1 - self-serving
2 - influenced by only limited human understanding, deficient in the divine

and therefore not really good at all - and this from a spiritual perspective - very important.

I would like to echo Nuke's point:

---

Since Viaro is not here to defend himself, I will help him.

After reading 3 pages of that thread, I don't see where Viaro 'disagreed' with your statement, infact just the opposite: His gripe was with your assertion that this "goodness" of the atheist is somehow 'worship' to 'God' considering the fact that the selling point of an atheist in the first place is that he denies the existence - talkless of worship - of a God. And furthermore which/what God? because there are diverse conceptions of God across the religions. I don't intend on raising dead horses to flog them over, but this is my understanding of Viaro's position. So when you say -
What is your understanding of a "Christ-like" life? is it just going about doing good/charity? Because scripturally, it entails much more - a spiritual angle - which the atheist rejects/denies - and therefore cannot exactly be "christ-like".

Unless of course the 'like' in Christ-like is what you were going for. In which case I retract my submission above. Cheers.

Deep Sight:

What is "worship" of God? What is the "spiritual angle" of such worship which you refer to? As far as [size=18pt]I[/size] know, the worship of God is best practiced by showing love for fellow man, Chikena. And anybody who does this and lives this, as such is already worshipping God in the purest possible way, whether or not such person knows or acknowledges that God exists. That's what i was trying to say to viaro, and that is what i say to you.

Now it is instructive that Jesus selects a Priest and a Levite to demonstrate his point – because the Priest and the Levite as you well know symbolize those who expressly acknowledge God, accept all the attendant doctrines about God and morality, and actively execute the outward rituals of “worshipping” God.The Levites as you know were a dedicated tribe of holy priests within the nation of Israel.

1.   “A Priest and a Levite” – are clearly indicative of people who have formally acknowledged God and are also at the fore-front of all the outward rituals and ceremonies.

2.   “A Samaritan” – is considered on the wrong side of doctrine and dogma and is also “generally despised” in religious terms.

However it is easy to see that the man who is supposedly on the wrong side of doctrine – who no indication of God is made about is painted in glowing terms by Jesus because of his kind and merciful deeds.

Deep Sight:

Fair enough. I am at least content that through the Parable of the Good Samaritan, no less a personage than Jesus Christ announced full agreement with my view.

So indeed, you are free and welcome to disdain or reject the view Jesus expressed as elucidated above. 

Deep Sight:

@ Jesoul. Maybe it missed you that Jesus told that parable in response to a specific query he received: Lord, what must a man do to be saved. It is therefore obvious that the parable was his summation of what is required of man inorder to stand right with God. This is beyond cavil and i will shudder if you dispute this.

Or perhaps you will be so kind as to relate to us what other 'spiritual' requirements for salvation there are which Jesus must have tardily, carelessly and thoughtlessly left out of his summation, but which requirements are doubtless known to yourself?

I am not surprised, for i have become used to Christians outrightly rejecting the plain teachings of Jesus in favour of their own ideas, and apparently you are no exception to that grand tradition

Enigma:


1. Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God

2. To inherit the kingdom of God, you should love God with all your heart etc and love your neighbour

The issue concerning the parable of the Good Samaritan has been dealt with ---- it was a parable to help answer and identify "who is my neighbour?" not a parable in itself answering "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

One last point: in any event even the Samaritans acknowledged "God".

Enigma:

You can find my views on the questions you raised by using the search engine here.

Deep Sight:

Jesoul. Please do not worry about dear old viaro. In terms of our discourses i am sure there are absurdities enough to fill the entire universe. Such as physical bodies dwelling in spiritual heavens and the like. We leave that to himself and myself.

Let us focus our discussion on the matter for today. Before i proceed, I sense a sense of futility about you: namely that you believe i am deliberately playing the Ostrich. Let me just try to assure you that this is not so. Whatever may be your misgivings about me and my antics either past or present, i hope over time it is at least obvious that i sincerely believe that which i try to discuss. If there is no sincerity there is no purpose in these discussions. So please accept my assurances in that regard, for i would very sincerely love to have an open discussion of this, regardless that it has been discussed from other perspectives in the past.

Now you have pointed out two things to me which i will address. The two things you pointed out to me are as follows-

1. That the first requirement is to love God, and i have ignored this by focusing only on the second requirement - love of fellow man.

2. That Jesus spoke severally about salvation and i have ignored his other injunctions on the requirements, focusing only on the parable of the good Samaritan. And that another of his injunctions wa sthat one may only get to the Father through him.

In response to your first contention i say as follows -

- - - That the transcendental nature of God is not so concerned with an egoistic receipt of human praise or human acknowledgment as that would belittle the very nature of God.

- - - That the worship of God in spirit and in truth, the love of God, is manifested through a love of life. By this i do not mean a hedonistic love of worldly pleasures, but a love of that which is living - a love for that which emanates from God - namely, LIFE and LIVING THINGS. In the immediate sense this connotes the whole wonder of existence and the living beings about us, with whom we share our experience, but in the deeper sense this connotes love for such truly living things in an abstract sense such as love for love itself. I hope you get my meaning.

- - - I say to you that the bible itself is replete with many suggestions to this effect.

- That way to love God is not by any acknowledgment of doctrine or dogma, for that would be an empty and dead love.

There is no way that we can conceive of a transcendental God whose obsession is with egoistic praise and acknowledgement of doctrines such as thie identity of this or that person.

Rather i am persuaded that the gospel of Jesus affirms that the acknowledgment of God is in itself empty and quite useless in spiritual terms beside the simple practice of love. He also made it clear that acknowledging his name by itself would profit no man - even going so far as to corroborate his message in the parable of the good Samaritan by saying that what it would take to love him and to love God would be to show love to fellow men.

Here is relevant scripture in this regard -

Matthew 7:23 - Jesus made it clear that there would be many who believed in his name even to the extent of successfully working miracles and casting out demons in his name. Yet he states that of these people he would say "Depart from me, i never knew ye". . . What this connotes is that their acknowledgment of his name, acceptance of him as lord, and even investiture with miraculous powers from his name, were all empty and dead in his view if these people could not practice love.

This simply shows that the practice of love is what is far more important and relevant as opposed to merely acknowledging his name, however fervently believed or acknowledged.

Again, here is another scripture which i believe hammers home the point -

Matthew 23:35  - In this scripture Jesus specifically said that even people who did not know him but did loving deeds to other humans were actually doing those deeds to him! Thus this affirms my view that one loves God by loving one's fellow man, for how else will you explain this quote from that scripture -

". . .For i was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, i was thirstily, and you gave me something to drink, i was a stranger, and you invited me in, unclothed and you clothed me, i was sick and you visited me, i was in prison, and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him and when did we do these things. . . And he responded " truly, to the extent that you did these for even the least of my brothers, you did it for me. . ."

I hope that this scripture is more than enough to show you what i am trying to say. It is not by acknowledging him and praising him, etc, but by living acts of love to one another that you actually worship and love God.

There is a deep spiritual reason why this is the truth. And that is simply because we are all a reflection, and minute part each of the totality of the being that exists as ONE. This is the reason for the command of love: it is an adjuration of oneness which trumps all things and goes to the gut of who we are and and what God is.

Without having to separately address your second contention where you said that Jesus stated that no man comeS to the father except through him,  i hope you can already see in the scripture quoted above what it really means to " come  through" Jesus. He has made it clear already both in the parable of the Good Samritan and where he describes love shown to fellow men as love shown to him.

You must therefore see that the first command of love of God, is, in Jesus' view, only fulfilled by exhibiting love TO fellow man in the truest sense.

m_nwankwo:

God is love. One can also say that God is the source of love. All creatures of God irrespective of race, religion, sex, nationality etc can absorb of this love of God and dispense it accordingly. In the case of human beings, what absorbs this love from God is the human spirit. This love will permeate the spirit, its clocks including the outermost shell, the physical body. Thus he who absorbs the rays of love will manifest love including love for all creations of God. Now, the recognition of this love as coming from God depends on the various radiation connection between the spirit and the various shells surrounding the spirit, the last shell being the physical body and its coordinating center, the human brain. In many of us, this radiation connections are not straight, thus the shells enveloping the spirit are not conscious of the impressions that vibrates in the spirit. Thus a man may believe himself to be an atheist because that is what his brain tells him and yet his spirit is in the recognition of God. Irrespective of his brain telling him that God does not exist, the emanations of the spirit including love still permeates his mind and body resulting in expressions of genuine love. Thus although from a human standpoint, such a man is considered by himself and others to be atheist, spiritually the man is a theist.


In a similar vein the brain and the mind may be trained or indoctrinated or programmed to believe in God but their spirit has no recognition of God. In this case, this believer is actually an atheist even though he believes himself to be a theist. However because he, that is, the spirit has no connection with God, he cannot absorb the rays of love and manifest it. Thus, in spite of his intellectual believe in God, he still manifests the works of the flesh including hatred, anger, lust, gossip, avarice, fear, etc. The species of a seed determines the fruits that it will bear. Thus all genuine love and human beings who indulge in it believe in God even when they are unconscious of it while on earth.

Thus, all human beings who indulge in genuine love are of God and all those who indulge in hatred are not of God. By there works or fruits, you shall know those who stand in the will of God and those that oppose it or do not recognize it. This is an infallible yardstick to know who belongs to God and those who are not.

Therefore the love of God manifests in the love of all creations of God. On earth, it is possible for an atheist to love God without being spiritually conscious of it. However if such atheist continues in the manifestation of the love of God, either later in this earthly life or in the beyond on in another earthly life the emanations of the love of God that vibrates in his spirit will also permeate his earthly brain such that he also becomes conscious of the existence of God while in the physical body. What counts is how our spirit is close or far away from the will of God. Religion, nationality, sex, class and similar things that we think are very important while on earth are worthless once we drop this physical body.

In my view, there is no difference between the pope, the Christian, the mystic or an atheists when it concerns the will of God. Murder is murder whether perpetrated by a pope, a theist or an atheist. Genuine love is genuine love whether it came from an atheist, a pastor or an agnostic. Sometimes we think too much and thus think nothing. If we look around even on earth, we should find that the natural laws which are the manifestation of the will of God in nature does not give a hoot about all these artificial constructs. If a bud-hist sows yam in a fertile soil, he will reap yam. The same goes for an atheist and the theist. In an earthquake or epidemic or accident, both theists and atheists are saved and killed. A deeper look on why these things are the way they are may open our eyes to the working of God. Best wishes.