Sunday, November 02, 2008
Sunday Reflection: Good People and People of Faith
Last week, in the comments section to my Sunday Post, Christine (who is pictured above, boxing) posed an intriguing idea that I have been thinking about all week:
There are no rules that say someone can only be considered a 'good' person if they are a person of faith. You can in fact be a very spiritual person and have nothing to do with organized religion.
I think I agree with both of her ideas-- that one can be a good person even without faith, and that many spiritual people are not a part of an organized religion.
First, on the question of whether there are "good" people who are not religious, I would have to say there are such people, and I know some of them. One of them, in my own family, lives a life more consistent with Christian principles than I do. He lives simply and humbly by choice in a way I do not, and has dedicated much of his vocation and energy to helping the poor, the oppressed, and those who have been abused. Even if I accept the definition of being "good" as living life by Christ's precepts (something that, of course, assumes my beliefs, not his), he is very good-- even much better than I am.
On the second idea, I would also accept that there are spiritual people who are not a part of an organized religion. Some of them, of course, are not spiritual in the same way that I am, and others may have many of my beliefs. With them, I would agree on one central thing: That I and they do not need a hierarchy (other than that of God & man) to structure our spiritual beings. I would probably differ from them, though, in practice, in that I need community to nurture my own spirit, even when I conflict with the beliefs of some or most of the people in that community.
What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
Personally, I think that all that's required to be "good" is to genuinely care about the plight of other people, to work to improve the world as much as possible and to attempt to cause the least amount of suffering as possible. I don't think that religion has to be involved, although there are many religions which have the same basic beliefs as I just stated, and offer their teachings as a guide to help followers achieve those goals. Unfortunately, too often people get sidetracked by the minutia of the faith and by the fallible nature of humanity to step back and realize that overall, your actions and beliefs should try to accomplish those three basic things.
I am the Tiger (fan), I am also a Leo - ha! I never got to dress up as a Tiger for Halloween.
Let me give you a little background.
I went to church as a kid, both Presbyterian and Unitarian. I also participated in youth groups at the Lutheran church and FCA during high school. The later, because I was searching and also because my friends were involved. No one twisted my arm.
I found as I grew older that my parents had taught me how to make good decisions and not to hurt others. Do unto others....
When I was working, I would spend time talking with our office Nurse (Marge, a very devout Catholic). She is was one of the nicest, kindest people I know. She equated being a good, nice and kind person with being a religous person. This struck me as odd and I asked her what religion had to do with being good and caring, etc. She could not answer me as she had never thought about it outside the realm of her catholicism.
I realized at that point that I was comfortable with myself and my beliefs and my ability to make good ethically moral decisions in my life.
I have many, many friends who need the community they find with their church and the guidance it provides in their lives. I am respectful of that.
We are individuals in this big world and each of us needs to use what is available to us to make it through the day, the week,the year. It is how we find balance. We all try to achieve that balance in different ways, each and every one of us. And being respectful of that is the most important thing we can do each day.
Let me give you a little background.
I went to church as a kid, both Presbyterian and Unitarian. I also participated in youth groups at the Lutheran church and FCA during high school. The later, because I was searching and also because my friends were involved. No one twisted my arm.
I found as I grew older that my parents had taught me how to make good decisions and not to hurt others. Do unto others....
When I was working, I would spend time talking with our office Nurse (Marge, a very devout Catholic). She is was one of the nicest, kindest people I know. She equated being a good, nice and kind person with being a religous person. This struck me as odd and I asked her what religion had to do with being good and caring, etc. She could not answer me as she had never thought about it outside the realm of her catholicism.
I realized at that point that I was comfortable with myself and my beliefs and my ability to make good ethically moral decisions in my life.
I have many, many friends who need the community they find with their church and the guidance it provides in their lives. I am respectful of that.
We are individuals in this big world and each of us needs to use what is available to us to make it through the day, the week,the year. It is how we find balance. We all try to achieve that balance in different ways, each and every one of us. And being respectful of that is the most important thing we can do each day.
Justin,
Why does your definition of "good" only relate to how people interact with others? Do you think I can't be good unless I care about the "plight" of others?
I, for instance, think that a person can be "good" without such efforts. I'll give you a hypo. Does a person who lives in the wilderness and meets your defintion of causing the least amount of suffering (by basically being off the grid) get labeled as a "bad" person merely because he isn't concerned about the plight in the rest of the world or doesn't work to improve it?
Why does your definition of "good" only relate to how people interact with others? Do you think I can't be good unless I care about the "plight" of others?
I, for instance, think that a person can be "good" without such efforts. I'll give you a hypo. Does a person who lives in the wilderness and meets your defintion of causing the least amount of suffering (by basically being off the grid) get labeled as a "bad" person merely because he isn't concerned about the plight in the rest of the world or doesn't work to improve it?
# posted by 
: 5:31 PM
: 5:31 PM
I agree with Osler, with Justin and Christine. I do tend to need the community of other people I find in a church, but I have not always gravitated toward one. And some of who I would consider the "best," i.e. most caring and selfless people, I've known have not been part of organized religion. I'd go even further and say that some of the most caring people I've known have not believed in God at all.
So what does this make them?
So what does this make them?
# posted by : 6:06 PM
: 6:06 PM
dallas_ada:
I suppose in the hypothetical you propose, a person living completely off the grid with no contact with anyone else could be considered "good," or at the very least, not harmful. The question is, is this person really good? It's a well-known fact that there is horrible suffering endured by millions every day, so the question becomes, is it enough merely to not contribute more to it? So using your hypothetical, let's say that a person has found a way to not contribute one iota to the suffering of the world. Is that enough? Is it enough, knowing that there is poverty, famine, disease, war, and misery abundant in the world, to not lift a finger to try and improve things? I suppose you could argue that by not worsening the suffering, you are doing good, but you could also argue that being aware of it and still not trying to help is de facto worsening the suffering, since you could be expending effort to help and choose not to do so.
It's an interesting hypothetical, and one that I'm not sure I know the answer to. All I know is that I don't live in a cabin in the woods isolated from society (yet), so being a "good" person requires all 3 things from me.
I suppose in the hypothetical you propose, a person living completely off the grid with no contact with anyone else could be considered "good," or at the very least, not harmful. The question is, is this person really good? It's a well-known fact that there is horrible suffering endured by millions every day, so the question becomes, is it enough merely to not contribute more to it? So using your hypothetical, let's say that a person has found a way to not contribute one iota to the suffering of the world. Is that enough? Is it enough, knowing that there is poverty, famine, disease, war, and misery abundant in the world, to not lift a finger to try and improve things? I suppose you could argue that by not worsening the suffering, you are doing good, but you could also argue that being aware of it and still not trying to help is de facto worsening the suffering, since you could be expending effort to help and choose not to do so.
It's an interesting hypothetical, and one that I'm not sure I know the answer to. All I know is that I don't live in a cabin in the woods isolated from society (yet), so being a "good" person requires all 3 things from me.
Christine--
That's right! We were in FCA together at GP North. Of course, I think I originally joined only because I thought Pam Stewart was a goddess.
That's right! We were in FCA together at GP North. Of course, I think I originally joined only because I thought Pam Stewart was a goddess.
Tyd - Pam Stewart played basketball and was on the track team (1980 grad). She had nutty booster club parents like me.
Prof, I remember FCA was like another meeting of the cross country team at north. Except we didn't have to go running. All the Schmidt's, Lugo's and Hammer's. It was really a nice group of people I still remember. Was Guarke the advisor? I don't remember
Prof, I remember FCA was like another meeting of the cross country team at north. Except we didn't have to go running. All the Schmidt's, Lugo's and Hammer's. It was really a nice group of people I still remember. Was Guarke the advisor? I don't remember
This is rather analogous to Plato's arguments about holiness in the Euthyphro. In that dialogue, Socrates convinces his interlocutor that it is insufficient to define piety as either what the gods love or what the gods disapprove of. Socrates says instead that piety must be a part of those actions that are subsumed under goodness, and that goodness cannot simply be what the gods command or what the gods love, because if it is what the gods command then goodness is nothing more than the directive of a tyrant (which doesn't jive with the intuitions we have about goodness) or it is still undefined, because the fact that the gods love it does not identify what it is.
The dialogue ends with Socrates still unfulfilled; however, he gives us a clue -- goodness is something we have to seek after. Ethical correctness in action isn't something we can reduce to a formula. Being good isn't something we can just learn a bunch of rules and go from there. Ultimately, we just have to make rational, considered decisions about how best to act, guided only by our principles.
Now, as to where those derive from, I find it unsatisfactory to consider that they might be handed to me by divinity or clergy when my own reason is not defective, but then again, I'm a Kantian. I think goodness is a universal standard to which even God must submit if God is to be called good.
I think that people's orientation toward the divine (even those like me who don't adopt such an orientation) is informed by this same unfolding dialectical process. There are some things that the analytic mind cannot penetrate (and how this frustrates lawyers!), and we can only understand it through considering opposites -- goodness and evil, materiality and spirituality, the mundane and the divine, the sacred and the profane.
The dialogue ends with Socrates still unfulfilled; however, he gives us a clue -- goodness is something we have to seek after. Ethical correctness in action isn't something we can reduce to a formula. Being good isn't something we can just learn a bunch of rules and go from there. Ultimately, we just have to make rational, considered decisions about how best to act, guided only by our principles.
Now, as to where those derive from, I find it unsatisfactory to consider that they might be handed to me by divinity or clergy when my own reason is not defective, but then again, I'm a Kantian. I think goodness is a universal standard to which even God must submit if God is to be called good.
I think that people's orientation toward the divine (even those like me who don't adopt such an orientation) is informed by this same unfolding dialectical process. There are some things that the analytic mind cannot penetrate (and how this frustrates lawyers!), and we can only understand it through considering opposites -- goodness and evil, materiality and spirituality, the mundane and the divine, the sacred and the profane.
I remember Jenny Lugo I have the a980 GPN yearbook. I will have look all of these people up.
Did you ever know Dave Trask? We were friends and my mom made him tutor me in math.
Did you ever know Dave Trask? We were friends and my mom made him tutor me in math.
Lane ~
A lot to digest with my morning coffee and oatmeal.
The dialogue ends with Socrates still unfulfilled; however, he gives us a clue -- goodness is something we have to seek after. Ethical correctness in action isn't something we can reduce to a formula. Being good isn't something we can just learn a bunch of rules and go from there. Ultimately, we just have to make rational, considered decisions about how best to act, guided only by our principles.
- I like this senitment
Twd ~
I don't remember Dave Trask, although I knew someone named Terri Trask. Perhaps Dave's sister.
A lot to digest with my morning coffee and oatmeal.
The dialogue ends with Socrates still unfulfilled; however, he gives us a clue -- goodness is something we have to seek after. Ethical correctness in action isn't something we can reduce to a formula. Being good isn't something we can just learn a bunch of rules and go from there. Ultimately, we just have to make rational, considered decisions about how best to act, guided only by our principles.
- I like this senitment
Twd ~
I don't remember Dave Trask, although I knew someone named Terri Trask. Perhaps Dave's sister.
I have a couple-ish questions:
1. What is "good"? Can we only define it with examples?
2. Why do we care? Why do we all (generally) want to be "good" regardless of our faith or non-faith backgrounds? Is it a Form we just can't escape? Is it a man-made idea? If so, why did man make it?
It's always interesting when folks start talking about what "good" is.
Most people want to be good...but no matter what their religious background is or isn't, it almost always comes down to "what I think good is."
I'm not sure what this means...maybe I'm just too cynical. I just think its interesting that we (myself included) all want to be "good", but since "goodness" is so elusive we typically define it so that we can attain it.
1. What is "good"? Can we only define it with examples?
2. Why do we care? Why do we all (generally) want to be "good" regardless of our faith or non-faith backgrounds? Is it a Form we just can't escape? Is it a man-made idea? If so, why did man make it?
It's always interesting when folks start talking about what "good" is.
Most people want to be good...but no matter what their religious background is or isn't, it almost always comes down to "what I think good is."
I'm not sure what this means...maybe I'm just too cynical. I just think its interesting that we (myself included) all want to be "good", but since "goodness" is so elusive we typically define it so that we can attain it.
Erik--
The definition of good is a key. I used adherence to what Christ taught in my example, since that is what I use personally (though I know it is not a standard everyone, or even most people, would use). And, by that standard, I concluded that I know people who are not religious who live out that faith better than I do.
The definition of good is a key. I used adherence to what Christ taught in my example, since that is what I use personally (though I know it is not a standard everyone, or even most people, would use). And, by that standard, I concluded that I know people who are not religious who live out that faith better than I do.
Prof. Osler-
I guess the point I was making is that everyone (generally) wants to be "good"...but the idea is just so elusive that we often end up conforming "good" to ourselves. Like you, many of us see others who are not religious that appear to live out our faith better than we do...
Of course, I don't think Christ's teachings are attainable by anyone...and that is part of the struggle...whether a person is religious/spiritual or not, I think we all realize that there is a thing called "good" and that we are not it
...perhaps what matters is not how we attempt to attain "goodness" but how we deal we the fact that we cannot
I guess the point I was making is that everyone (generally) wants to be "good"...but the idea is just so elusive that we often end up conforming "good" to ourselves. Like you, many of us see others who are not religious that appear to live out our faith better than we do...
Of course, I don't think Christ's teachings are attainable by anyone...and that is part of the struggle...whether a person is religious/spiritual or not, I think we all realize that there is a thing called "good" and that we are not it
...perhaps what matters is not how we attempt to attain "goodness" but how we deal we the fact that we cannot
First let me say that I enjoy these Sunday reflections, Professor, they are challenging and attract people with a variety of beliefs!
Some of the finest people I have met do not share my religion, or even my belief in God, but most all do seem to share qualities by which I define "good": respect for life(human, animal, plant), generosity towards others, and protection of the weak (my definition of "good" sounds almost like the chivalric code, too many Arthurian romances!). Yet what Jesus adds to this is at once just as simple and yet quite unintuitive. He said that the greatest love is to lay down your life for a friend, but he also taught us to love our enemies. I agree that one who does not believe that Jesus is who He said He is may follow His path, and even benefit from His truths. Yet, in doing so, that person cuts himself off from the source and purpose behind this goodness. It is like running a marathon but missing the water stations along the way and the party at the finish line. Disconnected from the true Vine, our fruit will ultimately wither and die.
Faith and religion should fuel the good inside of us and hone these instincts into tools to do what is both just and merciful, even if it is against our animal instinct. Without the Spirit, we cannot always discern what is truly good from what is evil, and we also deny ourselves the comfort offered by God when evil appears to prevail over good.
Some of the finest people I have met do not share my religion, or even my belief in God, but most all do seem to share qualities by which I define "good": respect for life(human, animal, plant), generosity towards others, and protection of the weak (my definition of "good" sounds almost like the chivalric code, too many Arthurian romances!). Yet what Jesus adds to this is at once just as simple and yet quite unintuitive. He said that the greatest love is to lay down your life for a friend, but he also taught us to love our enemies. I agree that one who does not believe that Jesus is who He said He is may follow His path, and even benefit from His truths. Yet, in doing so, that person cuts himself off from the source and purpose behind this goodness. It is like running a marathon but missing the water stations along the way and the party at the finish line. Disconnected from the true Vine, our fruit will ultimately wither and die.
Faith and religion should fuel the good inside of us and hone these instincts into tools to do what is both just and merciful, even if it is against our animal instinct. Without the Spirit, we cannot always discern what is truly good from what is evil, and we also deny ourselves the comfort offered by God when evil appears to prevail over good.
This is a very interesting place. I remember an Osler(I'm thinking class of 1981 with a lot of hair?) I want to back up a few points others have made. #1 Pam Stewart was and probably still is a goddess. #2 everyone pretty much joined FCA with an ulterior motive (I did because I wanted to make the basketball team and coach Ritter ran FCA). Ritter was a good man. #3 I can't remember which Hammer was the older one I think it was Dan. He was a year or two older, and we had to listen to this creep sing some stupid song while he played the guitar. I think it was called Thank You God and it sounded a lot like Thank God I'm A Country Boy. The younger brother was a creep too and I spiked him intentionally when he was playing first base in a Babe Ruth League game.
As far as being "good" goes, a lot of lazy people feel pretty good about themselves and say they are "spiritual". The sad fact is that there are universal truths and many people are not willing to measure themselves against them. They want to pick and choose. That is fine, but if there really is a God, there probably really are standards of behavior that are expected of us. I agree that most priests, ministers, mullahs are poor examples. That doesn't excuse what most of us do every day.
There are people who follow almost every religion who are perfect examples of how we should treat everybody, but the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be religious are terrible examples. Just because the person next to you, or your minister is a loser, doesn't give you a pass to quit your church and become "spiritual".
Post a Comment
As far as being "good" goes, a lot of lazy people feel pretty good about themselves and say they are "spiritual". The sad fact is that there are universal truths and many people are not willing to measure themselves against them. They want to pick and choose. That is fine, but if there really is a God, there probably really are standards of behavior that are expected of us. I agree that most priests, ministers, mullahs are poor examples. That doesn't excuse what most of us do every day.
There are people who follow almost every religion who are perfect examples of how we should treat everybody, but the vast majority of people who consider themselves to be religious are terrible examples. Just because the person next to you, or your minister is a loser, doesn't give you a pass to quit your church and become "spiritual".
# posted by : 4:12 AM
: 4:12 AM << Home
