Here is my thoughts on this article.
I read this article on the USAToday website and found it quite interesting. A few weeks ago there was a article about billboards atheists had been putting up with the saying “I can be good without God.” I was curious as to what that meant, so I am glad that Coyne (the author of the article) took time to explain it to us. However, I have some serious concerns with his arguments. I hope to be able to address most everything in a thorough manner, however, I am not a skilled writer by trade and so I may leave out some arguments, but I hope not.
My first issue is that Coyne, seems to jump to the conclusion that because he is capable of doing a good action that it makes him a ‘good’ person. Never mind the fact that the terms ‘good’ and ‘moral’ were never defined, there is another serious issue with this conclusion. It assumes that actions make a person good. A clock telling me the right time doesn’t make it a good clock, after all, what if it was a broken clock (it’s still right twice a day).
My main concern in this article is the portrayal of being a moral person as an end (goal in life). This seems to me to be his reasoning as to why people are religious, is so they can live a moral life (“why it[morality] couldn’t be God”). He fails like so many people to see that Christianity isn’t about producing ‘good’ moral people. That is an effect that Christianity has, but it is not the end. The Christian walk is about being transformed into the person God intended us to be (that we have rejected through ‘the fall’). Coyne seems to be content to be a ‘good’ fallen human (how good can that be?). God calls us to be Sons and Daughters of God Himself. We are to become a new creation.
I’ve made this argument before and will continue to. An apple seed makes a crummy apple tree if it continues to be a seed. It is only when it is transformed into something new entirely can it be a good apple tree. We haven’t been called to be good humans we have been called to be holy (perfect and blameless) and it is only through being transformed by God’s love can that be possible. We are called to produce fruit (Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness and Self-Control), in accordance with our new standing as a Son or Daughter of God.
Another issue I have is that the author makes the case that morality comes from outside God and we all have it built into us from evolution and secular reasoning. However, his argument falls apart with morality through evolution. Because you can’t always punish people for doing wrong, sometimes they get away with it. Evolution is about survival of the fittest. There may have been some very moral (working together, punishing evil and producing good) English towns along the coast, of England in the middle ages, but they weren’t somehow less moral than the attacking Vikings (morally bad thieves) that “stole and plundered” because the English were killed and the Vikings survived.
The next issue is that the author never really explains what secular reasoning is, other than it helps us be nice to others outside our social group. Finally he says that secular morality is changing and helps us to deal with new challenges that arise. So he is arguing that social morality is a ‘better morality’ because it can change? How is that better and how is that morality? Morality can only be important if it is laid on from outside of humans. If fallen humans create a ‘social morality’ it can only be a fallen morality, we are not capable of producing perfection as we are not perfect.
Lastly he says that “And really, isn't it better to be moral because you've worked out for yourself — in conjunction with your group — the right thing to do, rather than because you want to propitiate a god or avoid punishment in the hereafter?” As we just discussed this can’t be a perfect morality because it is made by humans. And using this argument we can easily say that the Vikings were good moral people acting with all the morals that they as a group decided was the right things to do. Or that the crusades were all good and moral because the group decided that it was a good thing to do. Or gang violence is good, because that is the way they have chosen to live. This is also the sentence that led me to my transformation. He states that Christians are trying to be good to propitiate a god or avoid punishment. But that is not it at all, we do good because we have been transformed. We love because we have been loved first (Romans?), not to please, but as an outpouring of the love poured on us. We do good because we have had good done to us (not to please) as an outpouring on the goodness given to us.
Minor issues:
Another issue that jumps out to me is that I was not aware that evolution has become a fact. I was under the impression it was a theory with some proof, but a real scientist is always questioning and trying to prove (or disprove). This was just a minor issue, but one that bugs me, because lots of schools teach it as if it were fact, even though we can’t prove it. But we are side tracked.
Plato’s question has a flaw, it is like saying do we love because we are dictated to by God or are we dictated to love because of love. But God is love, and good. He is the definition, he isn’t dictating, he is love and he is good. We don’t do good because we are dictated to by God or we are not told to do good because it is good, we do good because God Is Good.
Bible Verses:
Slavery – The bible is quite clear if you have slaves you are to treat the very well. Just as God your father is your master in Heaven. You are to treat them just as you would want to be treated. Which in my opinion would include paying them and treating them as well as possible. It’s very similar to having employees now (although its not at will employment for sure).
Genocide – This one is a little more difficult, but not too much, God is perfect and can not be around imperfection, the people in the land had been given plenty of warnings and they still did not repent. The same argument could be made of the flood, how could God do that? He knew that the people in the land would lead his people astray (as they did) and he wanted them routed. We see this as genocide but it could just be justice. When Osama Bin Laden was killed people celebrated, was his death moral? (that’s for a different article) I’m just trying to say that sometimes justice looks immoral to those on the outside.
Sexual Sins- What did they use for birth control back then? Oh, yeah, they didn’t. Could you imagine how STD’s could have just wiped them out? It really could have been a matter of life and death, not just for those involved, but for the entire population (see modern day Africa where AIDs has wiped out generations). Imagine being able to stop the AIDS pandemic in Africa by killing just a few people when it first started. That would be quite possibly moral (and if you are a utilitarian it would be the good action). I don't see the difference between this possibility and the stoning for sexual sins.
Matthew 19:24 Jesus never bars the rich from heaven, he says it is quite impossible, but with God all things are possible. The rich have a struggle all their own, and in this case the rich man was unwilling to give up his possessions for God’s Kingdom, he was unwilling to be transformed.
Luke 12: 47, 48 This verse talks about being punished for not doing something that you know needs to be done, or doing something you know shouldn’t be done. It does talk about beatings, but it is the punishment for the crime of knowing the masters will and not doing it. It is more bearable to be ignorant and go against the masters will than to know the masters will and not do it. It basically says you wouldn’t punish your kid as severely for doing something they didn’t know was wrong as you would if they did wrong willfully.
Good is the enemy of greatness. – heard this quote somewhere, not sure who to give credit to.
In summary, I don’t want to be good, I want to be transformed by God’s love.
My first issue is that Coyne, seems to jump to the conclusion that because he is capable of doing a good action that it makes him a ‘good’ person. Never mind the fact that the terms ‘good’ and ‘moral’ were never defined, there is another serious issue with this conclusion. It assumes that actions make a person good. A clock telling me the right time doesn’t make it a good clock, after all, what if it was a broken clock (it’s still right twice a day).
My main concern in this article is the portrayal of being a moral person as an end (goal in life). This seems to me to be his reasoning as to why people are religious, is so they can live a moral life (“why it[morality] couldn’t be God”). He fails like so many people to see that Christianity isn’t about producing ‘good’ moral people. That is an effect that Christianity has, but it is not the end. The Christian walk is about being transformed into the person God intended us to be (that we have rejected through ‘the fall’). Coyne seems to be content to be a ‘good’ fallen human (how good can that be?). God calls us to be Sons and Daughters of God Himself. We are to become a new creation.
I’ve made this argument before and will continue to. An apple seed makes a crummy apple tree if it continues to be a seed. It is only when it is transformed into something new entirely can it be a good apple tree. We haven’t been called to be good humans we have been called to be holy (perfect and blameless) and it is only through being transformed by God’s love can that be possible. We are called to produce fruit (Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness and Self-Control), in accordance with our new standing as a Son or Daughter of God.
Another issue I have is that the author makes the case that morality comes from outside God and we all have it built into us from evolution and secular reasoning. However, his argument falls apart with morality through evolution. Because you can’t always punish people for doing wrong, sometimes they get away with it. Evolution is about survival of the fittest. There may have been some very moral (working together, punishing evil and producing good) English towns along the coast, of England in the middle ages, but they weren’t somehow less moral than the attacking Vikings (morally bad thieves) that “stole and plundered” because the English were killed and the Vikings survived.
The next issue is that the author never really explains what secular reasoning is, other than it helps us be nice to others outside our social group. Finally he says that secular morality is changing and helps us to deal with new challenges that arise. So he is arguing that social morality is a ‘better morality’ because it can change? How is that better and how is that morality? Morality can only be important if it is laid on from outside of humans. If fallen humans create a ‘social morality’ it can only be a fallen morality, we are not capable of producing perfection as we are not perfect.
Lastly he says that “And really, isn't it better to be moral because you've worked out for yourself — in conjunction with your group — the right thing to do, rather than because you want to propitiate a god or avoid punishment in the hereafter?” As we just discussed this can’t be a perfect morality because it is made by humans. And using this argument we can easily say that the Vikings were good moral people acting with all the morals that they as a group decided was the right things to do. Or that the crusades were all good and moral because the group decided that it was a good thing to do. Or gang violence is good, because that is the way they have chosen to live. This is also the sentence that led me to my transformation. He states that Christians are trying to be good to propitiate a god or avoid punishment. But that is not it at all, we do good because we have been transformed. We love because we have been loved first (Romans?), not to please, but as an outpouring of the love poured on us. We do good because we have had good done to us (not to please) as an outpouring on the goodness given to us.
Minor issues:
Another issue that jumps out to me is that I was not aware that evolution has become a fact. I was under the impression it was a theory with some proof, but a real scientist is always questioning and trying to prove (or disprove). This was just a minor issue, but one that bugs me, because lots of schools teach it as if it were fact, even though we can’t prove it. But we are side tracked.
Plato’s question has a flaw, it is like saying do we love because we are dictated to by God or are we dictated to love because of love. But God is love, and good. He is the definition, he isn’t dictating, he is love and he is good. We don’t do good because we are dictated to by God or we are not told to do good because it is good, we do good because God Is Good.
Bible Verses:
Slavery – The bible is quite clear if you have slaves you are to treat the very well. Just as God your father is your master in Heaven. You are to treat them just as you would want to be treated. Which in my opinion would include paying them and treating them as well as possible. It’s very similar to having employees now (although its not at will employment for sure).
Genocide – This one is a little more difficult, but not too much, God is perfect and can not be around imperfection, the people in the land had been given plenty of warnings and they still did not repent. The same argument could be made of the flood, how could God do that? He knew that the people in the land would lead his people astray (as they did) and he wanted them routed. We see this as genocide but it could just be justice. When Osama Bin Laden was killed people celebrated, was his death moral? (that’s for a different article) I’m just trying to say that sometimes justice looks immoral to those on the outside.
Sexual Sins- What did they use for birth control back then? Oh, yeah, they didn’t. Could you imagine how STD’s could have just wiped them out? It really could have been a matter of life and death, not just for those involved, but for the entire population (see modern day Africa where AIDs has wiped out generations). Imagine being able to stop the AIDS pandemic in Africa by killing just a few people when it first started. That would be quite possibly moral (and if you are a utilitarian it would be the good action). I don't see the difference between this possibility and the stoning for sexual sins.
Matthew 19:24 Jesus never bars the rich from heaven, he says it is quite impossible, but with God all things are possible. The rich have a struggle all their own, and in this case the rich man was unwilling to give up his possessions for God’s Kingdom, he was unwilling to be transformed.
Luke 12: 47, 48 This verse talks about being punished for not doing something that you know needs to be done, or doing something you know shouldn’t be done. It does talk about beatings, but it is the punishment for the crime of knowing the masters will and not doing it. It is more bearable to be ignorant and go against the masters will than to know the masters will and not do it. It basically says you wouldn’t punish your kid as severely for doing something they didn’t know was wrong as you would if they did wrong willfully.
Good is the enemy of greatness. – heard this quote somewhere, not sure who to give credit to.
In summary, I don’t want to be good, I want to be transformed by God’s love.
