Common Objections: Good without God

As I take on common objections that people have towards Christianity, I've decided to start with one that nearly everyone either makes outright or presumes internally. That is, that "we can be good without God".

The famous and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins has on more than one occasion criticized religious leaders and spokespersons for claiming the monopoly on morality. In other words, these people lay claim that religion gives us morality, and thus those who are non-religious must be by definition immoral or somehow lesser people than those who are religious. Dawkins of course claims that this is not the case, and that those who are non-religious can lead perfectly moral lives without religion and especially without God. He would probably take it a step further too, claiming that an atheist or non-religious person is more moral and reasonable than religious people.

You may find this ironic, but I think Professor Dawkins is right to criticize here. It's quite the claim to say that you need to be religious to be "good" or moral. I think these religious folk (whoever they are, and I'm sure there are many) haven't really thought through what they are saying. At the same time it's just as arrogant and unreasonable for Dawkins to say in the same way that atheists or secular people are automatically better than the religious.

Unfortunately both sides of this argument face utter futility. There's no point to their discussion, and there will never be an end to it, because they both don't know what they're arguing about. The issue lies much deeper than either side here cares to consider.

The issue is one of definition. What do these sides mean by "moral", "good" and so on? Of course you need to know what you mean by these terms if you are to understand what you are arguing about, don't you? Both sides seem to make certain presumptions about what is meant without clearly defining it.

If you've paid attention to previous posts of mine, you'll notice we are treading on familiar ground. What is good? What defines morality? We all seem to have a sense of what is right, though we may differ on the details or the manifestations (like the above parties). So what really, is good? What does it mean to live a moral life?

The fact of the matter is, objective morality does not exist if God does not exist. There is no such thing as an objective moral system if there is not a transcendent source of it. If there is no God, then morality has no basis on which to be objective. Is it decided by people? Then it is by definition subjective and therefore subject to change. Is it decided by evolution? Then who's to say what will be advantageous to the next generation?

It is important to note that I'm not saying you can't be "a good guy" or "a moral person" by society's standards or by cultural understandings. Often we use that kind of terminology in a relative sense, comparing ourselves to others and judging where we fit overall. What I'm talking about is at the heart of what truly defines what is good and what is evil.

What about those religious people I talked about? Were they right, if what I say is true? Not even close! These people seem to think that it is simply a matter of "what" I do that defines a moral life. But morality and goodness are more than just what we do.

Jesus Christ is known for teaching a certain truth about morality. He is known for saying "a good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit". The idea behind this is that the tree itself must be changed before the fruit can be. Perhaps it's no surprise then that Jesus was against the religious people of his time, who thought that by good deeds they could score brownie points with God and enter heaven with a few gold stars on their record. This is completely antithetical to the Bible, and this is why both of the above views on goodness are wrong.

There is no good without God, because God is the definition and standard of goodness. Being super religious and going to church all the time or praying five times a day will also not make us good. We ourselves must be changed before we can be good. If you link the above two truths, it only then makes sense that God is the one who has to do the changing.

I could go on in this, but this isn't an in depth Christian theology lesson. Back to our objection to Christianity: I can be good without God.

Says what? Your own definition of morality? I'm afraid that's no good, pardon the pun. You must first have an objective basis for morality before you can say anyone qualifies as moral. And there is no basis apart from God.

And this is where I talk about my own religion, cuz I believe it and think this is important for all to know:  no one reaches the standard that the Bible sets. No one. Not the most religious person you know. Not the nicest, most loving person you've ever been loved by. And in Christianity, the only way anyone ever gets into heaven is when they believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord, God and Saviour and are changed by him into good trees. They'll never be perfect in this life, but Jesus is changing and transforming them so that they’ll be ready when it comes time to enter heaven forgiven of their bad fruit by what he did on the Cross. No other religion teaches this because no other religions sees the fact that we are sinful and cannot fix ourselves.

I'm hoping that was insightful and compelling - but like most of the things I've blogged about and will blog about, I realize there's perhaps a lot more to discuss and many questions arising even as you read. Or perhaps you have other objections to Christianity and the existence of God or something else.  If so, tweet me @rexCo27 and I can blog a response in the near future!

[Check out this video by an Oxford Professor on this issue if you have a few minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blw7crYC_Is]

Until then, keep thinking!

Corey