tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post7922508711430129003..comments2024-02-19T04:50:58.170-08:00Comments on Shuck and Jive: Good Without GodJohn Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-17492164441828380252010-02-01T13:33:35.897-08:002010-02-01T13:33:35.897-08:00@Bob
I am with you completely on all that, Bob!@Bob <br /><br />I am with you completely on all that, Bob!John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-80429219043293053112010-02-01T13:28:35.080-08:002010-02-01T13:28:35.080-08:00"Frankly I don't know that we can come to..."Frankly I don't know that we can come to an agreement because we come from different world views. What we can do is cooperate when we agree."<br /><br />I wasn't clear about that was I? I meant that I don't think we can (or have to) come to agreement about world views or complete agreement about the good. What we should do is do the good that we agree upon and talk about (and compete for votes) about the things we disagree about.<br /><br />The violence thing I think is totally unacceptable. Unless of course the great good is so threatened that one must defend it with violence. I prefer talk and debate. Some prefer to debate with guns. If someone says they are going to hurt my neighbor because my neighbor is, black, an immigrant, homosexual, or whatever at the very least I hope I have the courage to say, "You have to hit me first."<br /><br />As for using up God's good creation because God is going to make a new world anyway, from this Christian's point of view, those folks are in for a real big surprise! God's gonna ask, "How DID you take care of the creation I put in your care?" They aren't going to like what God has to say when they say, "We used it up because we knew we had a new world coming!" Some of the parables threaten the outer darkness for those folks. Remember what Amos says about the Day of the Lord?Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-87459385863346653602010-02-01T12:51:51.734-08:002010-02-01T12:51:51.734-08:00@Bob
First let me say that before I jump back ag...@Bob <br /><br /><i>First let me say that before I jump back again that I am more than willing to cooperate with Epstein in general. Christians (at our best) have been Christian humanists. Calvin was one.</i><br /><br />Good.<br /><br /><i>I do like the trial and error idea. That's how we ended up with a lot of stuff in the Book of Order.</i><br /><br />In the big picture, that is how everything comes into being including human actions. Even when we plan something the result is something that was tried.<br /><br /><i>I'm not convinced that rights are self evident</i><br /><br />That is what I posted. "Rights come from wrongs." Crap happens and in response to that we say we need to declare some basic rights so we can hopefully avoid that unnecessary suffering. <br /><br /><i>Frankly I don't know that we can come to an agreement because we come from different world views.</i><br /><br />What makes you think that? I don't know if that is true or not or if it matters. No matter where people get their ideas from, no matter what their worldviews, we decide. Much of the time we decide through force, but we decide. The goal (the good) is to decide without resorting to violence.<br /><br /><i>The idea that my neighbor has the right to play his stereo so loud that my bed shakes at 3:00 AM is over the edge I think. Rights are limited.</i><br /><br />Agreed. That is why we make laws.<br /><br /><i>So can we agree that we are going to have different ways of determining the good and that we will cooperate when we agree and work to defeat the other politically (after careful listening filled with humility and love) when we disagree?</i><br /><br />That is what I have been saying. What I have been hearing on this post from some is that we cannot know the good without God. That kind of stops the conversation before it starts. <br /><br /><i>And to not declare that one world view or another is beyond the pale? I will admit that I take a big gulp here because of the world view of the white supremasists.</i><br /><br />I don't mind saying some worldviews are beyond the pale. The white supremacist view is not good. I don't need God, the supernatural, or special revelation to come to that conclusion. <br /><br />There are plenty of worldviews beyond the pale. The view of many Christians that Earth is a crappy place that God is going to destroy it so to actually plan for the future or save the environment is against God's will or the good is most certainly a view that is not good. <br /><br />I cannot stop people from believing it but I will do everything in my power to persuade people that that is a bad view.<br /><br />I have offered two ways of thinking about the good from Epstein's book, here is <a href="http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III" rel="nofollow">The Humanist Manifesto III,</a> that says in part:<br /><br /><i>Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.</i> <br /><br />Again, a good start. I am not here to promote humanism as such. I also think you can believe in God and know the good. You don't have to believe in God to know the good. But God or no God, human beings decide.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-68349643885805592322010-02-01T09:45:38.151-08:002010-02-01T09:45:38.151-08:00Oh and Snad, I think the idea of heavenly reward i...Oh and Snad, I think the idea of heavenly reward is a complete misunderstanding of the Christian concept of grace.<br /><br />We don't do good out of the hope of reward. We do good out of love for God and others.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-83915528431441525142010-02-01T09:43:53.584-08:002010-02-01T09:43:53.584-08:00First let me say that before I jump back again tha...First let me say that before I jump back again that I am more than willing to cooperate with Epstein in general. Christians (at our best) have been Christian humanists. Calvin was one.<br /><br />I do like the trial and error idea. That's how we ended up with a lot of stuff in the Book of Order. I suspect that the requirements to publish special meetings of the congregation and the session come out of bad experience with pastors and their cronies who scheduled meetings and only invited those who were sure votes. <br /><br />I have mixed feelings with the whole idea of rights. I agree that rights are important, (although note that in the Declaration of Independence the rights are declared to be self evident, a term from Scottish Common Sense philosophy. I'm not convinced that rights are self evident). How do we determine that? I do get concerned when we use the word "right" to label everything under the sun. We Americans are rights drunk. We need to emphasize responsibilities that come with rights.<br /><br />Frankly I don't know that we can come to an agreement because we come from different world views. What we can do is cooperate when we agree. Free speech is good, even if we hate what the other says. Freedom from unlimited search and seizure is good. Freedom of religion in good. I'm all for pagan or Wiccan symbols on the graves of pagan or Wiccan soldiers who have died. And I am very uncomfortable with the idea that the cross is a cultural symbol. It's a religious symbol! It's from MY religion. It doesn't belong to America.<br /><br />The idea that my neighbor has the right to play his stereo so loud that my bed shakes at 3:00 AM is over the edge I think. Rights are limited. Everyone has the right to be a jerk. I shouldn't have to listen to the jerk when I'm in my house and my windows are closed.<br /><br />So can we agree that we are going to have different ways of determining the good and that we will cooperate when we agree and work to defeat the other politically (after careful listening filled with humility and love) when we disagree? And to not declare that one world view or another is beyond the pale? I will admit that I take a big gulp here because of the world view of the white supremasists.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-78681250184167376382010-02-01T07:47:40.671-08:002010-02-01T07:47:40.671-08:00Well then, take a step back, Bob. If you have an ...Well then, take a step back, Bob. If you have an answer, if you have a way of knowing then spill it. <br /><br />Epstein provided a start. Do you have something to add or to refine?<br /><br />Here is another step regarding rights. Feel free to add your opinions.<br /><br />Epstein comments on the book from Alan Dershowitz, Rights from Wrongs.<br /><br /><i>As he summarizes it: rights do not come from God, because God does not speak to human beings in a single voice, and rights should exist even if there is no God.<br /><br />Rights do not come from nature, because nature is value-neutral.<br /><br />Rights do not come from logic, because there is little consensus about the a priori premises from which rights may be deduced.<br /><br />Rights do not come from the law alone, because if they did, there would be no basis on which to judge a given legal system.<br /><br />Rights come from human experience, particularly experience with injustice. We learn from the mistakes of history that a rights-based system and certain fundamental rights--such as freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, equal protection of the laws, due process, and participatory democracy--are essential to avoid repetition of the grievous injustices of the past...In a word, rights come from wrongs. p. 140</i><br /><br />Perhaps this can help in evaluating actions. I am open to something better.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-68676137020794272292010-02-01T06:40:42.927-08:002010-02-01T06:40:42.927-08:00Bob said: There existed a world view that said thi...Bob said: <i>There existed a world view that said this particular human suffering was acceptable for the good of future humanity.</i><br /><br />If we take Epstein's definition as our starting point, we would probably want to study very carefully the concept of "<i>unnecessary</i> human suffering. In this case, could Stalin have achieved the same results without the human suffering? If so, then his act would not be considered good, regardless of how many other people it helped.<br /><br />Interestingly, one thing that hasn't been mentioned, as far as I can tell, in this thread, is the idea that "good without God" is good done with no notion of a "heavenly reward". My neighbor, whom I mentioned quite early in the thread, makes it clear that he feels he will receive a heavenly reward for his acts of kindness to others. He's angling for it, as a matter of fact, and doesn't make bones about it. I've rarely heard anyone as blatant about it, frankly. He's a great guy, but it feels as though he has devoted his life to being some sort of "earthly errand boy", with payment deferred. <br /><br />I can't decide whether it's amusing or irritating.Snadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-40138802778629905562010-02-01T06:27:59.334-08:002010-02-01T06:27:59.334-08:00Still following and thoroughly enjoying this...Still following and thoroughly enjoying this...Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02665520167359867809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-6994487151785134412010-01-31T22:27:22.871-08:002010-01-31T22:27:22.871-08:00John
I was actually trying to go back a step from...John<br /><br />I was actually trying to go back a step from that. <br /><br />How do we KNOW that Stalin was wrong? I rather like Epstein's start too. But how do we know that it is good? From a more utilitarian point of view we could say that economic and ecological sustainability can only happen if large groups of humans die. Well Stalin succeeded at that, didn't he?<br /><br />I am afraid that we all start with world views firmly in place. We even seem to have defined some terms. But don't we need to take a step back first?<br /><br />What does human dignity look like? When is human suffering needless and when is it not needless? Do we use Western models and if so which one? Or any of a variety of Asian or African models?<br /><br />I didn't raise the question of the Kulaks lightly. There existed a world view that said this particular human suffering was acceptable for the good of future humanity. Except the good was never produced. Do we necessarily rule out statist communism as a failed world view on which to base an ethical system or say that it was misapplied in this instance? Theoretically the goal was good: provide food for all and economic equality for all. It didn't work in this particular instance. Can we necessarily rule out statist communism as a basis for deciding the good because of this (and other) failure(s)? <br /><br />I also raised the question of the Kulaks because I think humanity is going to have to take a great leap forward (bad joke from Communist China intended) in terms of independent cooperation and sharing or governments will have to limit who gets how much if we are ever to reach a point of economic and ecological sustainability. And who will we trust to make those decisions?<br /><br />Sometimes I think that private communism (small voluntary groups) is the best solution. But like Hawthorne (or was it Thoreau?) I don't want to be the one stuck shoveling the manure.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15344375912645853902010-01-31T21:17:11.086-08:002010-01-31T21:17:11.086-08:00So I'm back to the old Greek philosopher's...<i>So I'm back to the old Greek philosopher's question: how do we determine the good?</i><br /><br />Like we always do. We talk it out. And we will not always agree. We may surprise ourselves and come up with something together that we hadn't thought of individually. <br /><br />I quoted from Epstein's book today which was a good start:<br /><br /><i>The good is that which facilitates human dignity and the health of the natural world that surrounds us and sustains us. The bad, or evil, is that which creates needless human suffering. P. 137.</i><br /><br />Maybe you have something to add. We are human beings figuring out what is good. <br /><br />That good will change as our circumstances change. We keep at it. : )John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-28544321020086427772010-01-31T21:07:18.078-08:002010-01-31T21:07:18.078-08:00What we really haven't gotten around to is how...What we really haven't gotten around to is how to determine the good. Humanists, some of them at least, determine good as something that produces good for the human race. And I agree with that . . . sometimes. But we have not dealt with folks that we all would agree have a definition of good that we talking here would not consider good. <br /><br />Say Stalin's action against the Kulaks (small land owners in the Ukraine, 1920s). Several million died. Food production dropped. BUT food production was taken out of the hands of private growers and the means of production of food moved into the hands of the Party who kept it, of course, for the good of the people. <br /><br />I suspect we would all agree that the means, the result and maybe the motive were all not good in this case. But from a Statist Communist world view they were all good. <br /><br />So I suggest there are world views and then there are world views. Further there are questionable interpretations of particular world views. There are some who claim to be Christians whose means, motives and results I find do not grow out of what I would call a Biblical world view. Good Friday was a day of horror in Jewish ghettos in Europe for centuries (kill the Christ killers). I think playing kill the Jews isn't Christian.<br /><br />There are also some humanists whose motives and actions (or at least proposed actions) I find suspect. I suggest a reading of Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" as an example. He says that humans will show they have been naturally selected if they go out and defeat any unfriendly aliens out there. (If humans lose and die then they aren't naturally selected, a topic that crops up here now and again) And when questioned "I always thought that fighting never solved anything" a teacher in the book suggests that a student ask that question of the city fathers of Hiroshima. Heinlein is kind of an extreme humanist.<br /><br />So I'm back to the old Greek philosopher's question: how do we determine the good?Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-50677374177886569822010-01-31T20:18:55.913-08:002010-01-31T20:18:55.913-08:00@Mary
You are right. God is a generic term here ...@Mary<br /><br />You are right. God is a generic term here for any supernatural deity. <br /><br /><i>Because the point of the book is being good is not dependent on any religion.</i><br /><br />Well...the point of the book is to advocate for humanism (which is atheistic). But yes, part of the point (the part we keep kicking around on this comment thread) is that you don't need god (any god) to be good. <br /><br />Atheism isn't just a negative. It rejects the supernatural. There are many (although they may not admit it) Christian atheists. That is probably confusing things.<br /><br />The point I was making on their behalf is that the non-religious, atheists, Humanists, etc. are discriminated against in our country. This is in part because of stereotyping and false information and because religious people associate believing in God with being moral or good. <br /><br />Would you vote for an atheist to be president? Rev. Rick Warren says he wouldn't. Anyone but an atheist, he says. Why? Imagine if he were to say I would for anyone but a Jew for president? <br /><br />Epstein has nothing against Christianity. He is a Humanist and hopes to get understanding from Christians about what Humanism is and hopes to work together with Christians and others on common projects. <br /><br />He is a Humanist chaplain. So in a sense he does view Humanism as a religion, just not a supernatural one. <br /><br />It does get confusing especially as religion is often confused for supernatural when that really isn't true for everyone.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-22575193376479043962010-01-31T19:17:33.705-08:002010-01-31T19:17:33.705-08:00The title of the book is “Being Good without God”,...The title of the book is “Being Good without God”, it could of just as easily been titled, “Being Good without Buddha, or “Being Good without Alah, or Being Good without insert the deity of your choice”<br /><br />Because the point of the book is being good is not dependent on any religion. He chose God for his own reasons, of which there is no need for debate.<br /><br />My comment was not to encourage debate, because I don’t see any relationship between the book and Christianity. Now stop me if I am wrong, but I think that you are implying that atheism is the “religion in believing in nothing?” The reason I say that is it seems that you are protecting it more as a religion, than say a freedom of speech issue.Mary Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10978849622269965455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-24945499230455974792010-01-31T19:07:29.313-08:002010-01-31T19:07:29.313-08:00@Bob : )@Bob : )John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-57819227687118674922010-01-31T18:58:41.556-08:002010-01-31T18:58:41.556-08:00Had a prof in seminary who talked about Anselm'...Had a prof in seminary who talked about Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. The professor said, "Doesn't sound like the God I know!" <br /><br />I would say that same thing about Flew's god. I'm not really big on watchmakers.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-58567809421540086372010-01-31T15:24:32.688-08:002010-01-31T15:24:32.688-08:00Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. snip.Bzzzzzzzzzzzz. snip.Snadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-55306771949475609462010-01-31T14:32:54.898-08:002010-01-31T14:32:54.898-08:00In your opinion, of course.In your opinion, of course.Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04180120577146738224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-11521764638550616552010-01-31T13:16:53.662-08:002010-01-31T13:16:53.662-08:00Thanks Snad,
66 comments later and the original p...Thanks Snad,<br /><br />66 comments later and the original point still stands that Bill stated in comment #1:<br /><br /><i>Good is good irrespective of any religious belief. God is not a prerequisite for good.</i>John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-84521364248236762682010-01-31T13:04:17.999-08:002010-01-31T13:04:17.999-08:00Sounds like some of you want to "circumcise m...Sounds like some of you want to "circumcise mosquitoes", as an old boss of mine used to say. And in the end, it comes down to the same old line: my _____ is better than your _______ because I am a "real Christian". It's just another way to keep the riff-raff out of your club. So be it. <br /><br />This "discussion" about whose good is better brings to mind one of my favorite lines from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolff":<br /><br />"Good, better, best, bested. How's that for declension?"Snadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-45184094218187835382010-01-31T13:03:21.600-08:002010-01-31T13:03:21.600-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Snadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055786911610974637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-11323850239512481272010-01-31T13:03:16.315-08:002010-01-31T13:03:16.315-08:00I would say you can't disprove the statement t...I would say you can't disprove the statement there is a god or there is no god. Technically, I should say there probably is not a god. <br /><br />But there probably is not a flying spaghetti monster either. : )<br /><br />So the gap for god to exist has narrowed to a few milliseconds after the big bang.<br /><br />But so I don't just sound negative and grumpy, I like the stories of the gods and I like my Jesus and I am all for the wisdom of our wisdom traditions that was communicated via these gods and so forth. <br /><br />I marvel at human creativity and it gives me hope that we might find a creative way to navigate a future for my descendants.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-81935374841878598742010-01-31T12:52:49.727-08:002010-01-31T12:52:49.727-08:00John
"There is a god" and "There i...John<br /><br />"There is a god" and "There is no god" are equally unprovable. Except to Anthony Flew who is now convinced because of a variety of events that seem to have occured during the first few milliseconds after the big bang that there is a god. He is not willing, however, to say anything about that god except that he believes that god had something to do with what happened during those milliseconds.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07787179002120424157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-91528352053812147232010-01-31T11:04:19.721-08:002010-01-31T11:04:19.721-08:00Thin line, that one.Thin line, that one.Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04180120577146738224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-6442861162454159212010-01-31T10:51:05.105-08:002010-01-31T10:51:05.105-08:00@Suley
The issue is not being "determined no...@Suley<br /><br />The issue is not being "determined not to believe" something as it is exercising healthy skepticism when people make claims that cannot be disproven.John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-76010901012095561322010-01-31T10:45:11.796-08:002010-01-31T10:45:11.796-08:00My point was that if someone is determined to not ...My point was that if someone is determined to not believe something then something as plain as a blue sky is debatable.Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04180120577146738224noreply@blogger.com