Goodness atheists and religious people

[ecuworrier]

a late night meandering brought me to an unexpected conversation with a stranger where we seemed to be examining 'goodness'...

the late night stranger said:  Jesus was the biggest con-man in history...

you did not need to be a religious person to do good to others (no argument from me!)

who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...?

at the time i was a bit surprised and found myself liking the atheist who did good things just so more than the religious person who did good things to well appear to be good?  store treasures for the afterlife? be on GOD's good side... i saw the point about a challenge to motivation..

i told the story about the Good Samaritan to illustrate that Jesus recognised the acts of generosity and kindness even by those who... did not know what they worsjhip.. i was asked what Jesus said... i felt hazy about accuracy....   who do you think was the beatenupguy's neighbour?

however i found myself defending the religious person from scorn... by suggesting that the motivation suggested for the atheist was the feel good factor of doing good ... could apply there

on the other hand as i was later alone the answer: what difference is it to the beatenupperson who does the goodness!?

i was trying to explain that Jesus did a whole lot more than just be good and the dimensions of that Goodness were far outreaching ...

i did feel very conscious how disparaging supercilious and smug and very annoying religious people can be in believing they are better than anyone else... and i really did not want to go down that road...

but a question:....   are atheists better than religious people on the goodness front?  or visa versa?


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[JJ]

you did not need to be a religious person to do good to others (no argument from me!)

who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...?

at the time i was a bit surprised and found myself liking the atheist who did good things just so more than the religious person who did good things to well appear to be good?  store treasures for the afterlife? be on GOD's good side... i saw the point about a challenge to motivation..


however i found myself defending the religious person from scorn... by suggesting that the motivation suggested for the atheist was the feel good factor of doing good ... could apply there

on the other hand as i was later alone the answer: what difference is it to the beatenupperson who does the goodness!?


but a question:....   are atheists better than religious people on the goodness front?  or visa versa?

Hi ecu

Entering into the spirit of your argument:

a.
So what is the qualitative difference between someone who is doing good now to feel good now and someone who worships God so they can feel good in the future?

b.
Does the do-gooder do it so that they themselves feel good or that the person who needs help feels better?

c.
"Are atheists better than religious people" in whose opinion?

[AndyHB]

... who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...? 

I think that this paragraph highlights the problem that Christianity faces.  ALL other faiths are based on the concept of 'doing good to win favour with God', so it is assumed by many people that this is the case with Christianity.  Like your questioner, I would tend to doubt the sincerity of those who do good to win favour (and it doesn't actually have to be 'with God') so that this charge can laid at the feet of atheists as well.

Your questioner provides a false duality, where there ought to be a trinity, since Christians will usually 'do good' as a response to God's offer of salvation, rather than as a means of winning favour with Him.

[Jan]

who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...?

As a person who believes in God - I would say that God knows each of our hearts. Nobody is 'better' than another as such. We are all loved the same. We are all here to learn regardless of our belief in a God or not as the case may be.

but a question:....   are atheists better than religious people on the goodness front?  or visa versa?

On the goodness front it can depend on the individual - there is no real general rule as to whether a religious person is kinder/more loving etc etc than an atheist person.

[tranchiebabe]

I have always thought there is some merit in doing good for the sake of it, rather than for some supposed pie in the sky when you die.

[Martin]

Your questioner provides a false duality, where there ought to be a trinity, since Christians will usually 'do good' as a response to God's offer of salvation, rather than as a means of winning favour with Him.

If this is the case (and I don't think it's as simple as that), then to do good only as a response to an offer of being saved from some terrible fate, seems less virtuous than doing good simply because you Love.

JJ's point above is important, I think.  Does someone who does good do it for themselves, in order to feel good, or in order to make others feel good? I'd guess there's a bit of both in it, but that one is the main motivator.  Doing good - acting in Love to help another, is something that can bring us the sort of deep fulfilment that we can't get from serving only ourselves, yet there is a paradox in that doing good does serve us, in the sense that it brings us that fulfilment.  I suppose, for an act of kindness to be truly kind, it must not only have a kind effect, but also be done from feelings of compassion, with at least some truly unselfish motive. 

So what should we do with our feelings of happiness gained from a good act? It's certainly a mistake to be all self-congratulatory even if we keep the self-congratulation to ourselves, yet ISTM that there is something very right in enjoying the outcome - the smile on another's face, if what we are doing is truly rejoicing in another's pleasure.

I guess those who have had experience of a relationship with children know best the feeling of pleasure gained from providing another person with pleasure.  In general, we do not want to make happy times for children because we have calculated that we will get pleasure from their pleasure, in general - and I think this is true of most people, our real motivation is the feelings of deep compassion and Love that we have for them, and the pleasure we feel when we see a child laugh is a un-sought-after, but pleasant, by-product.  But the fact that another's pleasure also brings us pleasure, is a wonderful thing.  Such is the kingdom of Heaven on Earth.

[administrator]

There are good Samaritans and then there are people who are moved with Gods compassion to do great things for his kingdom.
Praise God for both types.

I've not come across a Christian foolish enough to believe that by doing good he he can earn favour with God. Perhaps they do exist?

I saw Heidi Baker (a missionary) speak last night at New Wine. now there is a women powered by Gods love and  risking her life in Africa to help the poor.
Wonderful stuff.

Forgive me if I don't reply as I have limited Internet access here.

[JJ]

... who is the better person: the atheist who does good deeds just so or the religious person who only does good to win favour with GOD ...? 

I think that this paragraph highlights the problem that Christianity faces.  ALL other faiths are based on the concept of 'doing good to win favour with God', so it is assumed by many people that this is the case with Christianity.  Like your questioner, I would tend to doubt the sincerity of those who do good to win favour (and it doesn't actually have to be 'with God') so that this charge can laid at the feet of atheists as well.

Your questioner provides a false duality, where there ought to be a trinity, since Christians will usually 'do good' as a response to God's offer of salvation, rather than as a means of winning favour with Him.

And I think this paragraph highlights the gap between discussion of religious metaphors and human psychology.
Obviously people do good to others out of compassion - it is very difficult to ignore another's plight - it's a natural instinct and there is neurological evidence that compassion is hardwired - see recent discussions on mirror neurons in the literature of neuroscientists - religion is a cultural metaphor developed through the ages as a narrative for making sense of things we don't know about yet. 

[Jan]

[JJ]

[Martin]

There are good Samaritans and then there are people who are moved with Gods compassion to do great things for his kingdom.
Praise God for both types.

I've not come across a Christian foolish enough to believe that by doing good he he can earn favour with God. Perhaps they do exist?

I saw Heidi Baker (a missionary) speak last night at New Wine. now there is a women powered by Gods love and  risking her life in Africa to help the poor.
Wonderful stuff.

Forgive me if I don't reply as I have limited Internet access here.

Hmmm. I could use the words 'moved with God's compassion' and 'powered by God's love'.  But I wonder, when you use these words, whether you are imagining God as some external entity who issues love and compassion to 'his' followers and whether you imagine that this is a different love and compassion from that shown by, say, an atheist?

I find myself asking what the word 'God's' is for in those phrases.  Why not simply use the terms 'moved with compassion' or 'powered by love'?  Is there, in your view, any sort of compassion or love that is not God's?

Are you saying that both compassion and love are somehow issued to humans or invoked in humans by an external, non-human source?  To me it seems difficult to believe that, say, a mother loves her child only because some external being issued her with that love, i'd find myself asking why some mothers are issued with love and not others.

These are genuine questions.  I'm not trying to create a straw man, I really don't know what you mean by what you wrote, I'm just hazarding a guess.  It's quite probable that I'm way out, but I'd really like to explore what you mean.

[AndyHB]

I have always thought there is some merit in doing good for the sake of it, rather than for some supposed pie in the sky when you die. 

I'd agree with the latter point, floo; unfortunately, there seems to be a misunderstanding of this in terms of Christianity, with many people wrongly assuming that the idea that we work to earn our salvation by doing good deeds or buying it, that exists in just about every other global faith (and sadly existed in the church in previous centuries - the selling of indulgences, etc.), is central to Christianity as well.

[AndyHB]

[Jan]

[tranchiebabe]

I have always thought there is some merit in doing good for the sake of it, rather than for some supposed pie in the sky when you die. 

I'd agree with the latter point, floo; unfortunately, there seems to be a misunderstanding of this in terms of Christianity, with many people wrongly assuming that the idea that we work to earn our salvation by doing good deeds or buying it, that exists in just about every other global faith (and sadly existed in the church in previous centuries - the selling of indulgences, etc.), is central to Christianity as well.

Earning a place in heaven rather than getting there by being 'saved' seems much fairer and more just. The idea that a person like Hitler could in theory make a deathbed conversion and walk through the Pearly Gates, whilst a good atheist goes to hell, is a complete load of evil twaddle, imo.