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

[Bootstrap]

I mentioned Hallpike in another thread today. Christopher Hallpike wrote this book, which I intend to read but haven't yet:

Do We Need God to be Good? An Anthropologist Considers the Evidence.
https://www.hallpike.com/book/do-we-nee ... o-be-good/

... the values of our civilisation cannot remain alive indefinitely without the religious belief that inspired them. Public moralities which dispense with God tend automatically to go in one of two directions. The first is worship of the individual and the Self, which is the inherent direction of the modern Western world, in which humility and self-denial are increasingly seen as morbid and ridiculous, while narcissism and self-admiration, greed, material self-indulgence, and the assertion of individual rights against the common good are increasingly pervading society. (Are Humanists really proud of all this as a form of liberation from religion?)

The other direction is the worship of the state, and the last hundred years have given us plenty of opportunity to observe the benefits of being ruled by dictatorships of atheist rationalists. It is rather obviously not the case that professedly atheist political regimes have been humane and of high moral calibre; on the contrary, they have all been exceptionally brutal, corrupt, and tyrannical, based on lies and the systematic degradation of personal relations by their complete contempt for the moral dignity of the individual. This alone should cure us of the delusion that no longer believing in God is the key that will somehow release a tide of good will among men.

It is only the worship of God that can deliver us from these alternatives, because only a Divinely ordered world can maintain a proper balance between the claims of individual and society. God requires us, on the one hand, to respect the social order, to show humility in our relations with other people, and to restrain our physical appetites, but on the other requires the state and society to respect the dignity of the individual and the claims of spiritual life. The moral unity of the human race as children of God, who loves each individual, and the superiority of spiritual over material values and of humility over pride only make sense in a religious context.

Interesting thought. You have to worship something. If you look at societies, here are the usual choices:

• Worship the individual and self.
• Worship the state.
• Worship God.

You have to choose. And there are consequences. We can see that throughout the history of the world.

[Ken]

I would suggest that his premise is flawed and limited.

First, you do not have to worship anything. At least in the sense of adoration. The dictionary definition of "worship" is reverence and/or adoration. One can simply "respect" the individual, "respect" the state, and "respect" God without being worshipful about it.

Second, it is not a zero sum game. respect for the individual, state, and God are not in conflict. We do not start with a certain available quantity of respect or "worship" that we have to carefully parse out among those three. I can have respect for both the individual and the state simultaneously. And seek to develop a state that respects the individual. Which is more or less where the founders of the United States were going with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Perhaps imperfectly. But there is always a search for balance. Likewise some people combine religion and individualism. That is more the protestant direction. Others combine religion and the state. That is more the historic Catholic direction.

Third, the individual versus the state is not necessarily the correct dichotomy for human organization. David Graber in his book "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity," argues that human history is really more of a conflict between communities that want to be self-governing (egalitarian) and communities that want to rule top-down (authoritarian). Neither is necessarily individualistic. But they are two fundamental forms of human organization that are in constant conflict. One classic example of this conflict is Athens (egalitarian/democratic) versus Sparta (top-down/authoritarian).

Finally, the individual, state, and God are not the only three possible subjects for "worship." I can think of others. For example:

Nature. Many Native American tribes centered their world view on the worship of and understanding of nature. They were not individualistic, they were not state-centered. And they did not worship a single all-powerful God in the Judeo/Christian sense. Their entire value structure was centered on the understanding of and respect for nature.

The Arts: Many people view artistic endeavors as the highest expression of humanity. Art, music, literature, theater, etc. Ancient Greek society was centered on art, literature, theater, music, and so forth. Poets and playwrights were among the most revered members of society.

Science and Exploration: Many people view scientific exploration and discovery as the highest expression of humanity, and curiosity as the most fundamental human characteristic. From the age of discovery 500 years ago to the current explorations into the universe, nature of life, and quantum realm.

All of those three above are human values that are not centered on either the individual or the state. And I'm sure we could come with others.

[Franklin]

Interesting thought. You have to worship something. If you look at societies, here are the usual choices:

• Worship the individual and self.
• Worship the state.
• Worship God.

You have to choose. And there are consequences. We can see that throughout the history of the world.

I fully agree except that "Worship God" should be generalized to "Worship religious entities". The Ancient Greek pantheon of gods worked fine, but when the Athenians lost their religion they became degenerate. Even the Japanese Shinto spirits are fine. Religion provides alternatives to self and the state.

[Neto]

Reminds me of Bob Dylan's song - "You gotta' Serve Somebody"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC10VWDTzmU

[Neto]

Just think how bad it would be if there were no remnants left at all of the image of God on humanity. I don't think we can imagine the half of it.

[Ken]

Just think how bad it would be if there were no remnants left at all of the image of God on humanity. I don't think we can imagine the half of it.

An actual secular humanist (I think that is the term Hallpike uses) would say that there would be no difference and no change. That all religion is a human construct, not that it is wrong or false. Or to put another way. The teachings of the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist texts, etc. all reveal fundamental moral truths. But since they are all texts written by humans, they contain natural moral truths discerned by man, not transcendental or mystical truths that must be revealed by an all-powerful God. The secular humanist would not argue that the Bible is wrong or false or a forgery, but that humans have an innate ability to discern right from wrong by themselves in contrast to the Christian belief that such moral codes must be revealed by God. And that this is why most cultures around the world have similar moral codes. For example, most of the native peoples in the Americas followed most of the moral codes of the 10 Commandments long before any exposure to Europeans and Christianity (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, honor your father and mother, etc.). As do eastern religions like Buddhism.

It is kind of a strawman argument to argue that the world is full of both good (which is of God) and evil (which is of the devil) and that if you take away God, all you are left with is the evil.

The actual secular humanist argument would be that of course the world is full of both good and evil. But we have it within ourselves as humans to discern the difference and act towards the good. We do not need an all-powerful God to do that for us. Hence the title of the book "Do we need God to be Good?"

[Neto]

Just think how bad it would be if there were no remnants left at all of the image of God on humanity. I don't think we can imagine the half of it.

An actual secular humanist (I think that is the term Hallpike uses) would say that there would be no difference and no change. That all religion is a human construct, not that it is wrong or false. Or to put another way. The teachings of the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist texts, etc. all reveal fundamental moral truths. But since they are all texts written by humans, they contain natural moral truths discerned by man, not transcendental or mystical truths that must be revealed by an all-powerful God. The secular humanist would not argue that the Bible is wrong or false or a forgery, but that humans have an innate ability to discern right from wrong by themselves in contrast to the Christian belief that such moral codes must be revealed by God. And that this is why most cultures around the world have similar moral codes. For example, most of the native peoples in the Americas followed most of the moral codes of the 10 Commandments long before any exposure to Europeans and Christianity (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, honor your father and mother, etc.). As do eastern religions like Buddhism.

It is kind of a strawman argument to argue that the world is full of both good (which is of God) and evil (which is of the devil) and that if you take away God, all you are left with is the evil.

The actual secular humanist argument would be that of course the world is full of both good and evil. But we have it within ourselves as humans to discern the difference and act towards the good. We do not need an all-powerful God to do that for us. Hence the title of the book "Do we need God to be Good?"

Yes, I am fully aware of their arguments in this respect. (I was 'schooled' in this, even at the Bible college where I took these courses, because we used secular text books, and my anthro prof was actually a "theisitic evolutionist".) They have, however, a serious unanswered question. They classify humankind as basically just another species of animal. They have, then, the task of determining how this "human discernment" developed. Anthropologists of the secular sort will suggest that humans simply saw the advantages of being a part of a group, and over time realized that things like 'marriage' were necessary for cooperation in other areas to work. Considering the many different possible paths of "discernment" that might also work to a somewhat similar degree, it is incredible that so many different (and totally isolated) people groups came up with such similar solutions.

Another question centers on observations that many cultures have stories and jokes which criticize their own culture's value system. Interestingly, these cultural values also tend to be in areas in which they differ from Biblical instruction.

So no, I do not think it is a contrived ('straw man') argument in the the least. (I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before.) One can also point to instances where people, whether Christian or not, take courses of action which are not in the least beneficial to themselves in any way at all. That is, completely altruistic. But it is utterly impossible for anyone to know what the world would be like if God had not created humanity in his own image. I do fully realize that the secular world will not accept this, but neither do I accept their arguments. (I also realize that continuing this here is probably pointless.)

[Ken]

Just think how bad it would be if there were no remnants left at all of the image of God on humanity. I don't think we can imagine the half of it.

An actual secular humanist (I think that is the term Hallpike uses) would say that there would be no difference and no change. That all religion is a human construct, not that it is wrong or false. Or to put another way. The teachings of the Bible, the Koran, the Buddhist texts, etc. all reveal fundamental moral truths. But since they are all texts written by humans, they contain natural moral truths discerned by man, not transcendental or mystical truths that must be revealed by an all-powerful God. The secular humanist would not argue that the Bible is wrong or false or a forgery, but that humans have an innate ability to discern right from wrong by themselves in contrast to the Christian belief that such moral codes must be revealed by God. And that this is why most cultures around the world have similar moral codes. For example, most of the native peoples in the Americas followed most of the moral codes of the 10 Commandments long before any exposure to Europeans and Christianity (do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, honor your father and mother, etc.). As do eastern religions like Buddhism.

It is kind of a strawman argument to argue that the world is full of both good (which is of God) and evil (which is of the devil) and that if you take away God, all you are left with is the evil.

The actual secular humanist argument would be that of course the world is full of both good and evil. But we have it within ourselves as humans to discern the difference and act towards the good. We do not need an all-powerful God to do that for us. Hence the title of the book "Do we need God to be Good?"

Yes, I am fully aware of their arguments in this respect. (I was 'schooled' in this, even at the Bible college where I took these courses, because we used secular text books, and my anthro prof was actually a "theisitic evolutionist".) They have, however, a serious unanswered question. They classify humankind as basically just another species of animal. They have, then, the task of determining how this "human discernment" developed. Anthropologists of the secular sort will suggest that humans simply saw the advantages of being a part of a group, and over time realized that things like 'marriage' were necessary for cooperation in other areas to work. Considering the many different possible paths of "discernment" that might also work to a somewhat similar degree, it is incredible that so many different (and totally isolated) people groups came up with such similar solutions.

Another question centers on observations that many cultures have stories and jokes which criticize their own culture's value system. Interestingly, these cultural values also tend to be in areas in which they differ from Biblical instruction.

So no, I do not think it is a contrived ('straw man') argument in the the least. (I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before.) One can also point to instances where people, whether Christian or not, take courses of action which are not in the least beneficial to themselves in any way at all. That is, completely altruistic. But it is utterly impossible for anyone to know what the world would be like if God had not created humanity in his own image. I do fully realize that the secular world will not accept this, but neither do I accept their arguments. (I also realize that continuing this here is probably pointless.)

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.

[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.

[silentreader]

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?