Do We Need God to be Good? (Christopher Hallpike)

[Neto]

I was just trying to express as best as I could the argument of the book which I haven't read but I did go read the summary on the author's web site. It is not a new book, but from 2016 and apparently wasn't super widely read because only about 200 mostly positive reviews on Amazon.

Essentially I see him making the argument that we can all discern good from evil and so forth. That is inherent human nature. But that we need direction or an object to worship and if not God, then individualism or the state. And if we do not worship God then we eventually spiral off into disaster with worship of ultra-selfish individualism, or worship of totalitarian state-ism.

It is that second part of his argument that I am not convinced of. And for the reasons I expressed in my first post. I don't think those are the three mutually-exclusive options.

I apologize. I misread you. I thought you were expressing your own opinion, so I wanted to give mine.

I DO agree that discerning the difference between good and evil is a part of human nature. I just believe that human nature, although tainted by sin, still exhibits the results of having been created by God, and that this concept of good & evil we all have within us is a reflection of that.

Doesn't that come from Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree?

A thought provoking question. I suppose I would tend to understand the offer of The Satan to 'know' good and evil was to be able to experience both. But it was a lie. The result was that true good could no longer be experienced. It HAD BEEN experienced by them, but was no longer to be fully realized. But I'm just thinking off of the top of my head here. Maybe it would be better to just say that 'knowing good' means full obedience, and 'knowing evil' is the bent toward using free choice to choose evil. Or maybe it's enough to just know good, and then one 'knows' that whatever isn't good, is evil. Or, the remnant of the image of God is having some knowledge of good, a challenge to evil that exists in all humankind.

What are your thoughts?

[Ken]

I apologize. I misread you. I thought you were expressing your own opinion, so I wanted to give mine.

I DO agree that discerning the difference between good and evil is a part of human nature. I just believe that human nature, although tainted by sin, still exhibits the results of having been created by God, and that this concept of good & evil we all have within us is a reflection of that.

Doesn't that come from Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree?

A thought provoking question. I suppose I would tend to understand the offer of The Satan to 'know' good and evil was to be able to experience both. But it was a lie. The result was that true good could no longer be experienced. It HAD BEEN experienced by them, but was no longer to be fully realized. But I'm just thinking off of the top of my head here. Maybe it would be better to just say that 'knowing good' means full obedience, and 'knowing evil' is the bent toward using free choice to choose evil. Or maybe it's enough to just know good, and then one 'knows' that whatever isn't good, is evil. Or, the remnant of the image of God is having some knowledge of good, a challenge to evil that exists in all humankind.

What are your thoughts?

Ultimately this is all part of a higher order question. If you believe that humans and the world are the deliberate and planned creation of an all powerful God, then all of human nature is ultimately part of God's creation, including good and evil. That conclusion necessarily has to follow.

If, on the other hand, you do not believe that humans and the world are the deliberate and planned creation of an all-powerful God. Then it is perfectly rational to believe that good and evil are just naturally part of human nature. That we all have the capability to do good or do evil within us, the ability to discern the difference, and the free will to choose.

I don't think the question of the nature of good and evil is resolvable because it originates from whether or not you believe in the existence of an all-powerful God. And that is an article of faith, not proof. If there was proof then there would be no need for faith. So the search for proof that good and evil have a divine origin is ultimately futile.

I do think the second part of Hallpike's argument is the more interesting one. That is the argument that without a God to worship we are ultimately forced to worship either individualism or statism, and that either path leads to ruin. I find that to be the least compelling part of his argument.

[Neto]

Doesn't that come from Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree?

A thought provoking question. I suppose I would tend to understand the offer of The Satan to 'know' good and evil was to be able to experience both. But it was a lie. The result was that true good could no longer be experienced. It HAD BEEN experienced by them, but was no longer to be fully realized. But I'm just thinking off of the top of my head here. Maybe it would be better to just say that 'knowing good' means full obedience, and 'knowing evil' is the bent toward using free choice to choose evil. Or maybe it's enough to just know good, and then one 'knows' that whatever isn't good, is evil. Or, the remnant of the image of God is having some knowledge of good, a challenge to evil that exists in all humankind.

What are your thoughts?

Ultimately this is all part of a higher order question. If you believe that humans and the world are the deliberate and planned creation of an all powerful God, then all of human nature is ultimately part of God's creation, including good and evil. That conclusion necessarily has to follow.

If, on the other hand, you do not believe that humans and the world are the deliberate and planned creation of an all-powerful God. Then it is perfectly rational to believe that good and evil are just naturally part of human nature. That we all have the capability to do good or do evil within us, the ability to discern the difference, and the free will to choose.

I don't think the question of the nature of good and evil is resolvable because it originates from whether or not you believe in the existence of an all-powerful God. And that is an article of faith, not proof. If there was proof then there would be no need for faith. So the search for proof that good and evil have a divine origin is ultimately futile.

I do think the second part of Hallpike's argument is the more interesting one. That is the argument that without a God to worship we are ultimately forced to worship either individualism or statism, and that either path leads to ruin. I find that to be the least compelling part of his argument.

re: The idea that if humanity and all creation is the work of God requires that He is then also the Creator of both good & evil
I don't think this follows logically, from the Biblical record. According to the Scripture God created humankind with the ability to choose to follow His instructions, or not. That is, to exercise willful obedience, or willful disobedience. The fact that Adam & Eve chose willful disobedience instead of choosing to stay in close relationship with God is not God's doing, and cannot be laid at His feet. I would agree, however, with a statement that says that God created the world and humanity with the POTENTIAL for evil to come into it. (I'm not aware that this is plainly stated as such in the Scripture, at least to my recollection at this time, but I think that it is something that can be fairly assumed from how it all panned out. It is also assuming that God is "all-knowing" - that He knew how it would go. This is a very clearly stated in Scripture.)

As to the "second part of Hallpike's argument" (I did not read it. I have only responded to the synopsis given in the topic starter.):
I would tend to agree with your response in that regard, in that I do not think that the range of possible responses is limited to the two choices he reportedly gave. For instance, some people worship 'Mother Nature', which I would not define as a 'god' in the true sense. Animists do not really have a 'god' they worship, nor a clear belief in any 'supreme being'. (I am speaking from the beliefs of the Banawa, since it is their belief system which I know first hand. Anthropologists do not often have long-term exposure to the group they are describing, and there is a persistent tendency to describe what they see in "compliance" with what has previously been written about other similar groups, and following categories constructed within the discipline.) So I'll be specific: The Banawa did not have any belief in a supreme being. They also had no system of formal worship. Perhaps we need to define 'worship. I would not call efforts to control some superior spiritual force as 'worship'. That is what they were doing - a shaman would make a pact with a protecting spirit, who would then empower him to be able to survive the direct exposure to other spirits without being killed in the process. The shaman was the protecting spirit's path of influence into the shaman's 'work'. Through these powers, the shaman was able to inflict curses on people, or conversely, to remove them. His power was limited to the number of spirits he 'controlled', so he had to be careful not to do too many curses. When he removed a curse, he 'took control' over the spirit that had been put on the person, thus replenishing his power. (This understanding of their 'religious system' is based on a discourse by one of the older men, which I recorded, transcribed, and interlinearized.) But perhaps Hallpike was only speaking in regards to 'modern Western societies'. In that case, my comments here about animism do not really apply.

[I am still thinking about SilentReader's question.]

[silentreader]

I apologize. I misread you. I thought you were expressing your own opinion, so I wanted to give mine.

I DO agree that discerning the difference between good and evil is a part of human nature. I just believe that human nature, although tainted by sin, still exhibits the results of having been created by God, and that this concept of good & evil we all have within us is a reflection of that.

Doesn't that come from Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of the tree?

A thought provoking question. I suppose I would tend to understand the offer of The Satan to 'know' good and evil was to be able to experience both. But it was a lie. The result was that true good could no longer be experienced. It HAD BEEN experienced by them, but was no longer to be fully realized. But I'm just thinking off of the top of my head here. Maybe it would be better to just say that 'knowing good' means full obedience, and 'knowing evil' is the bent toward using free choice to choose evil. Or maybe it's enough to just know good, and then one 'knows' that whatever isn't good, is evil. Or, the remnant of the image of God is having some knowledge of good, a challenge to evil that exists in all humankind.

What are your thoughts?

Not sure, I guess. If this was their first introduction to Satan, which seems possible, but again, I'm not sure, then I am thinking that it was probably the first time they needed to make a choice between good and evil. It seems they knew and experienced good because they had a close relationship with the LORD. But they possibly did not know or had not experienced evil. Therefore what Satan presented to them, disobedience or evil, he presented as an attractive unknown alternative......speculating somewhat.