, because Zuckerman argues he's found just that. Here's our question: How do traditional Christians explain places where there is very little religious belief but there is a clear presence of good, respectable morals and civlity?
Zuckerman studies cultures or societies where folks are:
1. Moral.
2. Happy.
3. Irreligious.
Where?
Zuckerman studied Denmark (esp) and Sweden.Here are some facts:
First, Denmark is one of the happiest countries in the entire world -- according to happiness studies those Danes are near the top every year. They have great life expectancy, wealth/GDP (8th in world), economic equality, gender equality, health care, education, technology, lack of corruption -- very good quality of life.
Second, Denmark is one of the least religious -- measured by normal markers like church attendance (9%), Bible reading, prayer, belief in God (only 51%; USA is at 90%), belief in life after death (33%), belief in heaven (18%), etc -- countries in the world.
Third, Denmark is noted for its decency, civility, and good behavior -- and it is known for the absence of crime, etc..
Danes don't fear death as many religious cultures do; and neither do they think there is meaning to life as much as many cultures. Their religion is inherent to their culture, they pay taxes to the church, etc., but Denmark is noted by "cultural religion" -- a high proportion practice religious rites but do not believe in the supernatural dimensions.
By the way, I'm not sure Zuckerman takes into consideration the hangover of a Christian culture on the present morals of the Danes (and Swedes) and I'm not sure the argument of many isn't "universal grounding for ethics" require belief in God more than good moral behaviors only flow out of belief in God. But, he's got a good book and he's got stuff from Laura Schlesinger, Jerry Falwell, and others that contend that without belief in God a society will become immoral.
I suspect many will suggest that there's more religion in the Danes and Swedes than they let on and that overt beliefs and practices are not always the only indicator of religious beliefs. But in normal measures, he's got the facts on his side.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Tony (8), T (30), Matt Edwards (28), thank you for the reminder that becoming tranformed into Christlike beings who can spread Christ's healing in the world is the real goal and that "happiness" and "morality" as ends are distractions. This is powerful. And it underlines why debating about whether the Internet is really a community is also a distraction. Thank you.
Hmmm. This has been in the back of my head all day. Obviously I'm markedly different from most of those commenting and from C.S. Lewis. My first thought was: Of course people can be moral without the concept of a God. All you really have to do is consider Buddhism.
And that remains my thought even after the entire day. Buddhism provides what I consider to be an intrinsically moral social framework. It's morality is not the equivalent of Christianity's nor does it flow from the same dynamic. But it is certainly moral in theory by any definition of 'moral' I'm familiar with. And it hasn't done any worse in practice than Judaism or Christianity.
Now, in a somewhat more theistic, but decidedly unChristian venue, I would also say that Hinduism can provide a moral framework as well. I was always more comfortable with its spiritual referents than with the more atheistic (or at least agnostic) framework of Prince Siddhartha.
Or am I missing the point?
I find Jesus compelling. I find the picture of a God of consuming love both frightening and irresistible. But I'm not Christian because I believe that somehow all stable moral frameworks somehow vanish without belief in that God. I'm Christian because I've come to believe that the Resurrection is reality.
If we say that we need something outside ourselves if we want a foundation or standard for morality, and we say that it is God that provides that standard for what is moral, then on what basis can we humans say that God is morally "good" -- at least in any way that isn't circular?
If we say that God is good, we must be using a standard separate from God's that allows us to make that evaluation. Otherwise its a tautology -- God defines what is morally good, God is therefore good.
This is a roundabout way of saying I agree with Scott M; I suspect that we don't need God to have a foundation for morality.
This isn't meant to deny that God exists, or any of the other beliefs of our faith.
Well, the thread is dying I think, but Eric there is a difference between God's nature and His character. "Good" is defined by His nature - God doesn't get to decide what "good" is. God is good, because of His character - He is consistent with His good nature and never goes against it.
Phil M,
Making a distinction between God's character and His nature doesn't seem to me to resolve the issue I raised. What you say still seems circular: God's nature defines good; by acting consistently with that nature (i.e., his character), He is good.
When Christians say that God is good, they seem to be saying much more than that God never goes against His nature. We seem to be using some sort of standard for moral goodness beyond what you suggest.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.