Can a person be good without a belief in a Supreme Being (god or goddess)?

[°Leprechaun]

Yes, of course.

[LBJer]

Yes, of course.

Not only can they be good, but why would a Supreme Being itself necessarily be morally good?

[Utah Neolib]

Yes, as belief in a supreme being has nothing to do with if you are a good or bad person. Did you help that person 15 years ago? If so, than that makes you a decent person. One act alone does not make someone good, but if you have a continuous track record of helping people, or at least being “average” than you are a good person. Not every bad thing you did makes you a bad person either

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

No, because people aren't good or bad, only predisposed to more or less moral or immoral patterns of thought and behavior.

[Kingpoleon]

They cannot be considered good under their own framework, since under naturalism there is no objective Goodness. They can be objectively good, because naturalism is false, but for them to recognize goodness as meaningful is self-refuting.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

They cannot be considered good under their own framework, since under naturalism there is no objective Goodness. They can be objectively good, because naturalism is false, but for them to recognize goodness as meaningful is self-refuting.

There are plenty of non-theistic, non-naturalistic worldviews out there for the picking.

[Kingpoleon]

There are plenty of non-theistic, non-naturalistic worldviews out there for the picking.

I’ve always found moral Platonism confusing. If the Form of the Good is or ought to be sovereign over all of reality, surely then this borders on theism? But if it just exists and has no actual sovereignty, then what distinguishes it from the Form of the Bad?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Anyone who thinks they are good, with or without faith, has lost the plot. True spiritual life begins with the realization that nobody is good.

[John Dule]

True spiritual life begins with the realization that nobody is good.

... Or at the very least, with a healthy amount of doubt as to one's own righteousness-- which is something that a belief system predicated on the eradication of doubt will never be able to cultivate.

[Associate Justice PiT]

True spiritual life begins with the realization that nobody is good.

... Or at the very least, with a healthy amount of doubt as to one's own righteousness-- which is something that a belief system predicated on the eradication of doubt will never be able to cultivate.

     The belief system whose core eradicates the doubt of your own unrighteousness on the contrary seems quite suited to cultivating doubt of your own righteousness.

[Kingpoleon]

... Or at the very least, with a healthy amount of doubt as to one's own righteousness-- which is something that a belief system predicated on the eradication of doubt will never be able to cultivate.

Has anyone seriously suggested we ought to eradicate doubt? Or, rather, has essentially every theologian ever refused to accept this?

I must confess I find it rather bizarre that a moral non-realist is telling a moral realist what he ought to do or ought to believe. Surely ought statements constitute a sort of cognitive error born of subjective experience, and there is no real reason we ought to do anything if moral error theory is correct.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't need to know how a car works to drive one. A crude analogy perhaps, but I likewise
 do not need to understand what is the original source of goodness to do good things.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't need to know how a car works to drive one. A crude analogy perhaps, but I likewise
 do not need to understand what is the original source of goodness to do good things.

Perhaps. But if you actively deny that cars objectively exist as more than a figment of brain chemicals, then it is a little inconsistent to drive a car anyway.

[°Leprechaun]

I don't need to know how a car works to drive one. A crude analogy perhaps, but I likewise
 do not need to understand what is the original source of goodness to do good things.

Perhaps. But if you actively deny that cars objectively exist as more than a figment of brain chemicals, then it is a little inconsistent to drive a car anyway.

my point is that I believe that goodness exists but I do not necessarily equate that with the "god" concept which is a more enigmatic concept than "good".

[°Leprechaun]

     Anyone who thinks they are good, with or without faith, has lost the plot. True spiritual life begins with the realization that nobody is good.

That is true. It is also true that a person, with proper insight, can better oneself, if not becoming perfect, necessarily.

[John Dule]

... Or at the very least, with a healthy amount of doubt as to one's own righteousness-- which is something that a belief system predicated on the eradication of doubt will never be able to cultivate.

Has anyone seriously suggested we ought to eradicate doubt? Or, rather, has essentially every theologian ever refused to accept this?

I must confess I find it rather bizarre that a moral non-realist is telling a moral realist what he ought to do or ought to believe. Surely ought statements constitute a sort of cognitive error born of subjective experience, and there is no real reason we ought to do anything if moral error theory is correct.

It's called an "opinion."

[Kingpoleon]

It's called an "opinion."

Sure, a moral non-realist can have opinions, but he can’t really maintain that it’s good for others to agree with him. If his conception of reality is true, then it is not intrinsically good to have true beliefs and the moral non-realist is unable to seriously suggest that anyone should agree with him if his arguments work. If he thinks people should agree with his conceptualization of reality if it is true, then he is not a moral non-realist.

[John Dule]

It's called an "opinion."

Sure, a moral non-realist can have opinions, but he can’t really maintain that it’s good for others to agree with him.

If one sets a particular goal for an action, then one can objectively assess whether or not that action brings one closer to that goal. My personal goal is greater efficiency in all aspects of life, and my political/philosophical beliefs and actions are tailored to achieving this goal. Thus, those beliefs and actions are "good."

There is no objective thing called "goodness," but objective reality does exist, and one must interact with it to achieve one's goals.

[Figueira]

I would go as far as to argue that being good purely for the benefit of a supreme being doesn't really count as being good. Of course, religion can certainly influence people to be good in more nuanced ways, which is cool.

[Kingpoleon]

if one sets a particular goal for an action, then one can objectively assess whether or not that action brings one closer to that goal. My personal goal is greater efficiency in all aspects of life, and my political/philosophical beliefs and actions are tailored to achieving this goal. Thus, those beliefs and actions are "good."

There is no objective thing called "goodness," but objective reality does exist, and one must interact with it to achieve one's goals.

Sure, I’m not denying that a moral non-realist can indulge in the naïveté of existentialism; I’m just denying that a moral non-realist is being coherent when suggesting that others ought to agree with them on any given thing because even if their views are true, the moral non-realist necessarily holds that truth is not intrinsically good, but merely subjectively so.

[THG]

     Anyone who thinks they are good, with or without faith, has lost the plot. True spiritual life begins with the realization that nobody is good.

[John Dule]

if one sets a particular goal for an action, then one can objectively assess whether or not that action brings one closer to that goal. My personal goal is greater efficiency in all aspects of life, and my political/philosophical beliefs and actions are tailored to achieving this goal. Thus, those beliefs and actions are "good."

There is no objective thing called "goodness," but objective reality does exist, and one must interact with it to achieve one's goals.

Sure, I’m not denying that a moral non-realist can indulge in the naïveté of existentialism; I’m just denying that a moral non-realist is being coherent when suggesting that others ought to agree with them on any given thing because even if their views are true, the moral non-realist necessarily holds that truth is not intrinsically good, but merely subjectively so.

Whether or not something is subjective is immaterial to its importance or value.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

True spiritual life begins with the realization that nobody is good.

... Or at the very least, with a healthy amount of doubt as to one's own righteousness-- which is something that a belief system predicated on the eradication of doubt will never be able to cultivate.

The eradication of doubt absolutely undermines the predicate of faith, and those two things are not contradictory. Even the Bible defines faith as "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Not unquestioned certainty, but confidence. Any belief system requires faith that you perceive truth as it exists, but all belief systems are biased by culture and life experience. If your main goal in life is to win every argument and be factually correct about unknowable things - especially those which are of no practical or moral use to us in this lifetime, such as the nature of the afterlife (be it Heaven/Hell, reincarnation, or something else, including no afterlife at all) - then I think you've missed the point of the game. Both faith, doubt, and humility produce good fruit when those things are put into action appropriately.

[Samof94]

I would go as far as to argue that being good purely for the benefit of a supreme being doesn't really count as being good. Of course, religion can certainly influence people to be good in more nuanced ways, which is cool.

It can also produce people like the Taliban or the Westboro Baptist Church though.