Doing Good for Goodness Sake? An Atheist's Game of Scrabble

By Andrew M. Greenwell, Esq.
5/2/2012
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

In the order of being, there can be no natural moral law without the existence of God.

In the order of being, there can be no natural moral law without the existence of God. In the order of being, implicit in the belief of a natural moral law is the existence of God. A moral law makes no sense without a Divine Legislator.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX (Catholic Online) - In a comment to a recent article I wrote, the notion that God is necessary for a natural moral law to exist was challenged by reader who identified himself as an atheist. God was unnecessary for morality to exist, he argued. "I am an atheist," he observed. "I do good for goodness' sake," as if Christians don't.

There is no reason not to take him at his word. If we take him at his word, our atheist reader believes in the first self-evident principle of the natural moral law: do good and avoid evil, which is the same thing as "do good for goodness' sake." This is in keeping with St. Thomas Aquinas who says that the first self-evident principle of the natural law is to do and seek the good, and avoid evil. Bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et malum vitandum. (S.T. IaIIae, q. 94, art. 2)

My atheist reader recognizes moreover that there is such a thing as a particular "good," the good which we ought to do at any particular instance x1 (and x2, x3, etc.), and that there is such a thing as a general good ("goodness") for which we ought to do the particular good at time x1, x2, x3, etc. This suggest a rule, a law that is to be followed at all times and in all places.

There is, in short, within his knowledge, a moral law which tells him to do good for goodness' sake. This informs him that he is not to do bad for goodness' sake, and informs him that he is not to do good for badness' sake. His law governs both act and intent. And this is quite in keeping with the natural moral law. There is an old maxim: bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. To be good, an act must be good and be done with good intent. Any defect in the act or in the motive makes the act bad.

Now, my atheist reader acknowledges the natural moral law at its most basic, and he knows it though he does not acknowledge any divine Legislator.

This is, of course, possible. As any good Thomist will tell you, the basic principle of the natural moral law-at its most basic: to do good and avoid evil, or, as my reader put it "do good for goodness' sake"-is self-evident. On the other hand, the existence of God is not self-evident to us; rather, it is knowledge learned a posteriori, and can be demonstrated from the existence of things.

We can know one without knowing the other because they are known in different ways. The natural law is known because it is writ in our heart. God is known from the things that are made. (Compare Rom. 1:20 with Rom. 2:15). We can acknowledge one without acknowledging the other.

However, here we must distinguish between the order of knowledge and the order of being, between what we know, and what is regardless of what we know.

In the order of knowledge, it is possible for us to know the self-evident principles of the natural moral law, but not acknowledge the existence of God. Unlike the first principles of the moral law which are self-evident, the existence of God is not self-evident to us.

But what is true in the order of knowledge, is not true in the order of being. In the order of being, there can be no natural moral law without the existence of God. In the order of being, implicit in the belief of a natural moral law is the existence of God. A moral law makes no sense without a Divine Legislator.

So if my atheist reader is sincere that he believes in a natural moral law which tells him that he ought to "do good for goodness' sake," then he already implicitly recognizes, in the order of being if not yet in the order of knowledge, that there must be a God.

Why is this?

It is because the existence of a moral law implies a Lawgiver, a Mind behind the law. There is either Mind behind this law or there is not, and if not, then the moral law is built on arbitrariness, which means it is not law at all.

As the poet Eugene Warren put it in his poem "Christographia XIV":

Is it chance
or dance moves
the world?
Is the world
blind and dumb
or bloom, festal?
A vain jest,
or holy feast?

What is true of the world is true of the moral realm, and so we might adapt Warren's poem to our purposes:

Is it chance
or dance moves
the moral law?
Is the moral law
blind and dumb
or bloom, festal?
A vain jest,
or holy feast?

The natural law my atheist reader acknowledges-"do good for goodness' sake"-is the result either of chance, or the result of dance. ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 72 Comments

anecdotal example of an atheist
7 months ago
I stumbled on this article and I read it. I hope the author's conclusions were not solely inferences from the statement about what the implications of an atheist saying "be good for goodnesses' sake" without actually discussing these points with the atheist he is talking about.

I say this hope since I definitely disagree with anyone who says there is a general good that can apply in every situation. An atheist may have said otherwise to the author or those may be the author's inferences. At any rate, I would disagree with that atheist. Rather, what is the "good" choice can only be decided by predictions of what the consequences will have on oneself, others, and the world at large. Also it should be assumed that the roles could easily be reversed tomorrow. I.e. a social contract.
DLL
1 year ago
Faith in God is a decision of wisdom. There is no "blind faith" in any of this. It is not childish or faulty and unscientific thinking. Christ is all in all,as God is all in all,and the Holy Spirit is the fire in all,that refines each and every humanbeing. This God is Trinitarian,one God in 3 persons. God is fact because the fact be known,God introduced himself to Moses. Psalms predicts of his direct intervention as a human person in the form of Christ who will live in time,Christ acts in time,dies,is Resurrected,Ascends to Heaven and is that same Holy Spirit as is received by the Apostles at Pentecost. After the Ressurection for 50 days,Christ reveals to the Apostles how the Scriptures refer to Him and His coming. In life Jesus came to live among and to educate sinners in the ways of heaven,so that all people's would become obedient to God,so that evil in the world could end. On the Cross Jesus saves those who believe in God. After the Ressurection Jesus appears and educates those with faith. Those without faith in God already rejected and were satisfied with rejecting Christ during the crucifixion. To them Ressurection would not make them believe ever,as it would simply be a feat that was stranger than Science or science fiction. Faith is a Gift from God and no child's play.
Rob
1 year ago
Mike, what gives you the impression that Christians teach their children what to think versus how to think? Faith and logic are not oppossed and nor does someone's ability to think for themselves become suspended merely because their parents teach their children their faith. But in all people, the decision for faith must be their own. This philosophy sort of implies that Christians by and large have suspended critical thinking. Hardly. But explain this philosophy further because I'm not sure I understand.
Juneau Alaska
1 year ago
Rob, I didn't say not to teach children. That's silly. I said (in the context of religion/faith) that I am against teaching them certain things. If you want to understand my philosophy in a nutshell, Rob, I contend that it is more important to teach children how to think rather than what to think.*/*/*/*/*/*/* Judy, it's easy enough to Google the anti-atheist prejudice study. There is speculation that the reason atheists are on par with rapists as far as trust goes is because in a different survey, more than half of Americans believe one needs belief in a deity in order to be moral (2002 Pew poll). It's interesting that the University of Oregon and British Columbia study indicated that atheists weren't necessarily disliked, but rather distrusted. That's quite an amazing corollary if you think about it. -Cheers! ~Mike
Judy
1 year ago
Rob: Your post to Mike was good. Sometimes it takes others w/fresh eyes to interpret to others what another really means or is trying to say. It is always good to help. Especially one like me,who does not like to ramble, but does at times! My mind is so full! I don't know if I put it across well sometimes. Always good for one to proof read for another. Blessings...
Judy
1 year ago
Juneau Alaska: Mike, today will be my last day on the board for a couple of weeks. I am glad to have had this opportunity to "chat". I sincerely hope Vance and DLL and others here pick up where I left off. Like Vance said, "He is glad that you are here. You do bring up good points, and they DO need to be answered and discussed, in a respectful manner. I do not agree w/you or the stats, (because it is not my opinion): that atheists are on the same plane as rapists in regard to trustworthiness. That is absurd! Your answer about aristocracy and science was answered: "...while individual scientists may be arrogant, the scientific method is scrupulously honest w/its greatest strength being the ability to expose human bias'. Bravo! I agree. It is w/o that human bias that one can be the most God-like.

Oh yes, Judy is judy. A human error. However, if I see a Judy that is not me (I have before, and one stay's on the board, (yeah!) i will change to lower case. Addressing adjectives: Whether it be true or false: you are correct. Most any Catholic would tell you so. But Mike, I choose NOT to live in a world where anyone can use whatever negative emotions or adjectives they wish. We are what we are by association. And as far as blind faith clergy, I beg to differ. May I present the historical Jesus of the Bible, not some made up so called literary story. (Hope I'm not boring you) The historical Jesus of the Bible, is where our info comes from. His Life can not be denied. Major religions believe of His Life. Why am I going to believe someone else's theory? If there is one thing I learned in college, it's that Everyone has one! The Resurrection, of the Bible, history, and manuscripts are not theory. They are not the contrived fantasy. Really? All these people got together and decided to make up one fantastic story that has lasted 2000 years! And please don't compare that to Egyptian stone gods! Clergy or religious are not blind faith. In Today's Reading's, one can begin to see in the Acts, where the disciples who saw or heard first or second hand of Jesus Life and R., now become enlightened by the Holy Spirit: A teaching order must now be formed w/in this new group teaching of the Risen Christ.

I do hope you will feel energized to speak on > Safe topics. Yet, I understand. I will end saying, Catholics and Christians would like to have the same equality as atheism. And As secularism. We feel Our Rights are being taken away from us. So to me, that is why I said it is absurd to think atheists are compared to rapists in trustworthiness. I would further ask, who was comprised personally in the taking of the poll. How many people were in the poll? Of what backgrounds? And as far as stats are concerned, (Stats 101) Stats usually don't mean a hill of beans! Anyone can perform them! It's all credibility. Prayerful Blessings to you....
Rob
1 year ago
Juneau, not teaching children? I have always found that statement by atheist interesting. By virture of your life and the way you live it, you are always teaching them. And you have to teach them to function in this world. I find it odd when parents decide not to tackle things like eternity etc. Or allow children to make up their own mind in regards to morality. Personally, I think that is a gross direlection of duty as a parent. And there is a difference between teaching and brain washing. I think you might be implying the latter.
Juneau Alaska
1 year ago
Well thank you everyone for the conversations. I will try and comment from time to time from my perspective as an atheist. Many atheists are taking a page from gay organizations and have started using the term "coming out" to refer to being an atheist. Many think, just like gays were right to figure, that if you begin to see atheists as your doctors, your lawyers, your scientists, your teachers and your neighbors, you will stop fearing us. We have a tough ladder to climb. A recent survey from the University of Oregon and British Columbia showed that atheists are on par with rapists as far as trust level goes. That's our challenge, to be seen as more trustworthy than a rapist! I just want to be treated equally and have my credentials on any particular job speak for itself rather than my personal philosophy (or no belief!). Catholics already say, love the gay person, but hate the sin. It would be neat to see if the religious will one day say, "love the atheist" but challenge their ideas. I will try to stay out of the strictly religious stuff because I generally have no problem with people practicing their faith privately or within their faith communities. Though I have to say, I am not big on children being taught certain things! I don't really care what votive to light on what day, or what color vestment a priest wears during Ordinary Time. I'll stay out of those areas unless they affect all Americans, in which case I would think I'd have the duty as a citizen to get involved. Cheers! ~Mike
Vance
1 year ago
Cheers! Juneau Alaska Mike, I'm glad you came on this website because you raise important issues. First, this is a Christian-Judea country. Yes, your Dear Leader says it is not but who cares. His robot followers will automatically accept that without question. We Catholics and Protestants have forfeited the game to your guys decades ago going back to the infamous Stouks "Monkey Trial" over Darwinism. We have forfeited the game because the Catholic Hierarchy refused to be involved in politics. We Catholics have been dooped into voting for Marxist Democrats because our parents and grandparents did. More than half the Catholic Bishops and clergy gave support to Marxist Democrats like the Kennedy's and many others. They got involved in politics when it came to supporting Marxist Democrats and their causes. But after dancing with the devil, old satan is now collecting his dues. The anti-Christian Democrat Party is running rough shot over the Church and the Constitution. Mike, there is no peace between God and Satan. Both are at war. Christianity and atheism is like water and oil. The two can never be together. For this reason Atheists have zero tolerance for God and Jesus Christ. This is why Christians need to fight for their beliefs and not cede one inch to the Devil. You said that 13 states won't allow atheists run for office. Only 13?? If I had my way, it would be all 50 or 57 like your Dear Leader said. If the Catholic Hierarchy doesn't speak up and stand up, we will be celebrating Mass underground just like all nations ruled by Atheists.
Juneau Alaska
1 year ago
Judy (same as judy?), first off, I never asked for degree credentials. I knew when you said I brought that up that there must have been a misunderstanding as I never, ever, put stock in authority, only evidence. It would be like me saying that you said your favorite color is light brown. You'd be like, huh? Ok, I found it. You said that most atheists are confused, hurt/injured so I asked where you were taught or how you came to hold that opinion. Of course there is no degree called Ach.I (Atheists confused hurt/injured)! I just wanted to know how you picked up that opinion, sorry if it wasn't clear! Anyway, don't worry about that. Onward. You asked if the Royal Society would back the aristocrats. I don't understand how that would work. Scientists, particularly elite scientists (the Wayne Gretzkys/Michael Jordans of their field) typically offer opinions only within the narrow scope of their expertise. These scientists are among the most humble individuals I know. They claim no special knowledge, no absolutes, no definitive answers, just cautious speculation and probability based on hard work and evidence. Contrast that with the clergy of your choice who claim to have answers based on blind faith which may not be questioned! And atheists are called arrogant for just being atheist? Just think about that, It's a remarkable contrast. Anyway, while individual scientists may be arrogant, the scientific method is scrupulously honest with its greatest strength being the ability to expose human bias. I am worried I am going to be misunderstood about these last few sentences! I very much appreciate the direction our conversation has turned though Judy. Onward still. Regarding souls, I have no particular expertise to speak about them. I would have to listen with my skeptic meter fully charged like any new claim I'm presented with and ask the typical questions to determine plausibility. By the way Judy, as an aside, you do realize that even if I am arrogant, or rude, or mean, or selfish, or prideful, or some other less dignified attribute, those adjective would have zero bearing on the truthness or falseness of a claim, right? Emotion may persuade, but it never makes a claim true or false. Ever. Anyway, I did not know anyone was offended by my use of the closing, "cheers!" now how unfortunate is that! -Cheers! ~Mike

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment