# Do YOU need God to be good? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 21, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968 "2011-12-21T17:56:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![lavenderviolet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/cdc98d/32.png) [@lavenderviolet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lavenderviolet)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/41 "2011-12-22T05:21:45Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > But if those people all that long while ago weren’t afraid that God would get them for being mad back when social mores were still being sorted out, would we really have the same morals as we do now? It’s hard to say since people invented religion right after language. I agree with you. No, clearly an individual person doesn’t have to believe in God to be “good”. Nonetheless, atheists are a product of the society they were raised in and in that sense they are influenced by society’s religion even if they don’t believe the religion itself. I don’t really believe people are born with any particular morality. I mean, look at feral children that grew up without getting social training. I am not aware of any evidence that they have any innate understanding of “good”/moral behavior. We get that from our society, and a lot of what we have been trained by society to consider “good” behavior has come from religious traditions. It’s quite possible that an atheist might feel good about giving money to the poor because of a moral idea that society drilled into that atheist that was originally derived from the Christian concept that we should care about the poor, even if the atheist rejects all aspects of the religion itself. Do I think that fewer people kill or steal if they honestly believe that they are under 24/7 surveillance by a vengeful God? Yeah, I do. Just like I believe people will generally be less likely to commit crimes if they know they are on video surveillance (though some still may of course). Heck, I’ll include myself in that. I am more likely to go the speed limit if I know a cop is going to be watching. Does that make me “less moral”? Maybe, but I think it’s human nature to be that way. In a lot of cases, it’s perfectly logical to only follow rules when you think that a violation will be noticed and punished by someone. THIS DOESN’T PROVE THAT GOD IS REAL. It’s just admitting that in some ways religion does serve a purpose for social order. Some atheists seem to be afraid that if they admit certain things (such as that religion does help with enforcing certain behavior standards, or if they were to admit that they don’t LIKE the idea that there is no afterlife) that somehow means that atheism is wrong. It doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/42 "2011-12-22T06:39:37Z")
> [@lavenderviolet](#): > > . . . look at feral children that grew up without getting social training. I am not aware of any evidence that they have any innate understanding of “good”/moral behavior. . . . But feral children are usually cold, hungry, scared, and alone. If, instead, you could strand a bunch of babies on an island somewhere, have them all nursed by robots (there was a nifty sci-fi story on that…) so that they’re warm, fed, sheltered, and safe – but without teaching them any language at all – I think they would instinctively develop “good” behaviors. (And, yeah, some bad ones too…) Now, where to apply for grant funding… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/43 "2011-12-22T08:37:53Z")
> [@lavenderviolet](#): > > I don’t really believe people are born with any particular morality. I mean, look at feral children that grew up without getting social training. I am not aware of any evidence that they have any innate understanding of “good”/moral behavior. We get that from our society, and a lot of what we have been trained by society to consider “good” behavior has come from religious traditions. In large part because what people are taught generally agrees with their innate moral instincts; when it doesn’t people tend to rebel or subvert those social teachings. Dictators, kings and religions have for millennia tried to propagandize people into behaving unnaturally, and it doesn’t work well and often not at all. If human behavior really was completely determined by society, we’d all be ruled by the descendants of the first person who managed to set himself up as king or high priest and had everyone taught to revere and obey him. Several branches of Communism deliberately tried to reshape human nature and failed completely. Society can shape a lot, but we have inborn tendencies and desires; the slaves still tend to desire freedom no matter how often you tell them they deserve to be slaves. > [@lavenderviolet](#): > > Do I think that fewer people kill or steal if they honestly believe that they are under 24/7 surveillance by a vengeful God? Yeah, I do. But the evidence shows the opposite. > [@lavenderviolet](#): > > Some atheists seem to be afraid that if they admit certain things (such as that religion does help with enforcing certain behavior standards, or if they were to admit that they don’t LIKE the idea that there is no afterlife) that somehow means that atheism is wrong. But religion [doesn’t help](http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/religious-belief-and-societal-health/) in enforcing those social rules. The idea that it does is just a baseless claim by the believers. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/44 "2011-12-22T08:42:18Z")
I don’t, and I pity people whose motivation to do what they consider right is fear of punishment. Living in fear seems terribly tiresome. ---
**Author:** ![Waxwinged](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@Waxwinged](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waxwinged)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/45 "2011-12-22T12:22:04Z")
I do not. Conscience is a much harsher mistress. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/46 "2011-12-22T13:05:39Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Long post, and I certainly don’t agree with most of it, but (as an atheist) I like this last bit. For the record I don’t believe that evil exists, I think that some people just get really misguided. I would tend to agree with that. What does exist is the ability to ‘inflict’ one’s misguided views onto others, which allows it to grow. Going from scriptures, which yes I know atheist and such, but anyway, the whole thing started on the human end because Eve was ‘misguided’, which is what we would be living in today. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/47 "2011-12-22T13:27:55Z")
I can’t vote yes or no on this since I don’t believe God exists. Since that being does not exist, one cannot need or not need God to be good. It’s a false dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/48 "2011-12-22T13:47:44Z")
I guess the answer to the question in the OP is No, since without God one can define “good” to mean literally anything you like. Therefore any idea as to what “good” means is no better nor worse than any other. And thus anything you do is good if you want to do it. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/49 "2011-12-22T14:04:11Z")
I don’t need God to be mostly good, most of the time. But if God were to appear to me in person and tell me to be good all of the time, or he was going to fuck me up something awful, I would probably be more good, more often. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/50 "2011-12-22T14:22:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > \without God one can define “good” to mean literally anything you like. I don’t understand this line of reasoning, especially since God has been used to define murder, slavery and torture as good. What is it about good–and apparently evil as well–that requires the concept of God for its definition. I recognize that it is challenging to define good, and that life can be unimaginably complex, with consequences both intended and unintended leading to outcomes which are simultaneously beneficial and pernicious. I do not see how God helps with any of that, nor even how he might help to define religious or spiritual good. And if we do need God to be good, doesn’t his demonstrable absence imply that he doesn’t really care if we are good or evil? Even if we give him a pass for his failure to intervene in what are unquestionably evil activities…? ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/51 "2011-12-22T14:24:31Z")
> [@lavenderviolet](#): > > I don’t really believe people are born with any particular morality. I mean, look at feral children that grew up without getting social training. I am not aware of any evidence that they have any innate understanding of “good”/moral behavior. In addition to **Der Trihs** ’ link, which was interesting, there was a study recently in the news about [empathetic rat behavior:](http://www.livescience.com/17378-rats-show-empathy.html) > [@](#): > > In the new study, laboratory rats repeatedly freed their cage-mates from containers, even though there was no clear reward for doing so. The rodents didn’t bother opening empty containers or those holding stuffed rats. > > To the researchers’ surprise, when presented with both a rat-holding container and a one containing chocolate — the rats’ favorite snack — the rodents not only chose to open both containers, but also to share the treats they liberated. > … > > “Helping is our evolutionary inheritance,” Mason told LiveScience. "Our study suggests that we don’t have to cognitively decide to help an individual in distress; rather, we just have to let our animal selves express themselves. Even rats help friends in trouble. Is it hard to believe humans might be hard wired to do so as well, without religion or training telling them it is “good”? I heard on NPR as well that this suggests that pro-social behavior evolved (i.e. hard wired) much earlier in mammals than previously thought. Being “good” to other members of your species can be seen as having nothing to do with morality, but is a pragmatic behavior. You take care of your friends, they take care of you, and your species is more likely to survive. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/52 "2011-12-22T14:38:34Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > I don’t understand this line of reasoning, especially since God has been used to define murder, slavery and torture as good. > > What is it about good–and apparently evil as well–that requires the concept of God for its definition. Nothing. It’s just believers trying to manufacture a good reason to be religious. Nor does the idea hold up under even casual scrutiny; if a god tells you to rape children, is raping children good? If he tells you it’s good today, bad tomorrow, and then says its bad again the day after that has the morality of child rape been flipping back and forth? And of course there’s the problem that since gods don’t exist and therefore don’t actually tell people what is and is not moral, in reality basing your morality on “God” means you are basing it on your own whims, on some leftover writings by long dead primitives, or on the claims of supposed speaker for your god. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/53 "2011-12-22T15:05:07Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > I don’t understand this line of reasoning, especially since God has been used to define murder, slavery and torture as good. > > What is it about good–and apparently evil as well–that requires the concept of God for its definition. I already said you don’t need God to define “good” - you can define anything you want as "good’, and it will be just as valid as any other definition. > [@](#): > > I recognize that it is challenging to define good, and that life can be unimaginably complex, with consequences both intended and unintended leading to outcomes which are simultaneously beneficial and pernicious. > > I do not see how God helps with any of that, nor even how he might help to define religious or spiritual good. Eliminating God simplifies immeasurably. You simply define “good” as anything you want. And your definition is just as good as any other. > [@](#): > > And if we do need God to be good… You don’t. Anything you want to do is good. There is no sustainable reason to say that any action is better than any other. Or worse. All morality is based on principles that are axiomatic. “Murder is wrong because it hurts people”. Why is hurting people wrong? Because people don’t like it. Why is it wrong to do things that people don’t like? Because they don’t like it. Ultimately you reach a point where you have to say “just because”. > [@](#): > > Even if we give him a pass for his failure to intervene in what are unquestionably evil activities…? There are no unquestionably evil activities. You or I may not like action X, but that does not establish as evil, if if there are a lot of you and I. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/54 "2011-12-22T15:48:48Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > … Being “good” to other members of your species can be seen as having nothing to do with morality, but is a pragmatic behavior. You take care of your friends, they take care of you, and your species is more likely to survive. Ah but within that framework the argument works in reverse: morality has every thing to do with what is ultimately pragmatic behavior from a genes-behavior POV. Again, and as **Shodan** also avers, what is “good” is ultimately axiomatic … but we are, as a species both wired to accept certain axioms almost as default, and to conform to the axioms of the group we are socialized into. The latter is key to societies and the invention of culture and thus to the success of the particular group, and by extension to the success of the genes of the members of that group. Religion has been a very effective and potent means throughout human history of exploiting that hardwired tendency of individuals to conform to the group’s axioms. Accepting that, the op question becomes: does accepting, axiomatically, a more _universal_ morality (for those who do), a concept of Right and Wrong that is believed to be Truth, and not _exclusively_ the result of evolutionary selective pressures and/or cultural selective pressures, imply a god concept of _some_ sort, even if it is a very subtle one? ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/55 "2011-12-22T16:17:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I already said you don’t need God to define “good” - you can define anything you want as "good’, and it will be just as valid as any other definition. > > Regards, > Shodan But don’t believers do the exact same thing? There are some groups who are against interracial marriage, and they look at that as if it is good. In some places burning woman accused of being witches is considered good. Sorry, but believers track record of deciding or changing what is good or not is very poor. So no, one does not need god to be good, however many do need god to be horrifically cruel. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/56 "2011-12-22T16:30:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I already said you don’t need God to define “good” No, you said the opposite (although I suspect you are trying to be ironic). > [@Shodan](#): > > … without God one can define “good” to mean literally anything you like. A proper definition includes everything it’s meant to include and excludes everything it’s meant to exclude. Saying that without God one can define “good” to mean literally anything you like _is_ saying that there is no definition without God. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/57 "2011-12-22T17:36:02Z")
> [@SiXSwordS](#): > > No, you said the opposite (although I suspect you are trying to be ironic). No, I didn’t. I said the answer to the question in the OP is No. > [@](#): > > A proper definition includes everything it’s meant to include and excludes everything it’s meant to exclude. Saying that without God one can define “good” to mean literally anything you like _is_ saying that there is no definition without God. But defining morality as “anything I like” includes everything it’s meant to include (things that I like) and excludes everything it is meant to exclude (things I don’t like). So there _is_ a definition, and it is just as good as any other. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/58 "2011-12-22T17:41:50Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > But don’t believers do the exact same thing? Yes they do, and their definition of morality is just as valid as any other. Phred Phelps is acting morally to exactly the same degree as Martin Luther King was. Both King and Phelps accept certain principles as axiomatically true. Axioms cannot be proven; otherwise they wouldn’t be axioms. “The long-term survival of the species” or “the good of society” or “the dictatorship of the proletariat” or “God hates fags” are all axioms. Attempts to prove them always wind up begging the question. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/59 "2011-12-22T17:46:49Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > Even rats help friends in trouble. Is it hard to believe humans might be hard wired to do so as well, without religion or training telling them it is “good”? I heard on NPR as well that this suggests that pro-social behavior evolved (i.e. hard wired) much earlier in mammals than previously thought. > > Being “good” to other members of your species can be seen as having nothing to do with morality, but is a pragmatic behavior. You take care of your friends, they take care of you, and your species is more likely to survive. Personally, I find it hard to make any conclusions about human behavior based on rat behavior. Rats don’t read or write. Does that mean that humans don’t read or write? From history we can see that people have practiced a great many different moralities at different times and places. The Mongols were quite happy to ride all over Asia, murdering everyone in their path. The ancient Romans made conquest, slavery, and mass-murder part of their mode of operations for centuries. 20th century totalitarian regimes were able to turn groups of ordinary citizens into death squads. Where was the hard-wired morality in all of these situations? On the flip side, there are also instances of humans who selflessly reach out to others. The local food bank gives away hundreds of thousands of meals each year, without qualifications and without expecting anything in return. But I’ve never seen anyone show up and hand over a case of green beans with stipulation that he’s doing it to promote the survival of the species. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968/60 "2011-12-22T17:51:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > … does accepting, axiomatically, a more _universal_ morality (for those who do), a concept of Right and Wrong that is believed to be Truth, and not _exclusively_ the result of evolutionary selective pressures and/or cultural selective pressures, imply a god concept of _some_ sort, even if it is a very subtle one? So,… Does being good imply God? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-need-god-to-be-good/606968.md?page=4)