Survey: Most Americans Believe You Do Not Need God to be Good

timothyu · Jul 21, 2020

Loving all as self as a personal philosophy rather than putting self interest ahead of others, is a normal and common attitude among many who have never heard of the Jewish/Christian God. It has always been half of our schizophrenic makeup, but perhaps less tolerated in an empire remodelled from it's original intent to one of gain at the expense of others.

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
You tell us what the poll is "really" about then.

Well, it is interesting to think on how i'd answer this question, the exact one asked, as in their background material here:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/.../07/PG_2020.07.20_Global-Religion_TOPLINE.pdf

Because I could select their available answers either way, in a reasonable way, in order to emphasize one salient point or another.
("It is not necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values"
vs
"It is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values")

Such as:

Yes, people can do right actions without God, and we need to help clear up misunderstandings among non-believers on that, so we'd say one doesn't need God to do moral things.

Or

Nevertheless, there is a higher level of right action, such as for instance to truly love an enemy, that isn't commonly doable in every situation for most people without God (some can sometimes).

That I could chose which salient point to emphasize, and thus answer either way, tells me that some people did answer by choosing some salient point as what they wanted to emphasize.

So, we can't read a lot into the question as worded then.

But, I did notice another thing in the source pdf I linked: In the U.S. since Trump became president, now more people are emphasizing the salient point that one could do moral actions without God. That might well be connected to the sharp contrast between Trump claiming he is Christian and the visibly non-Christian actions he does (such as personal attacks on people via twitter, including random celebrities at times, etc.).

FireDragon76 · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
A new Pew Research poll reveals the fast-changing attitudes of what it means to be good.

Younger Americans have a much higher percentage: Only 27% of people ages 18-29 link godliness and goodness.

View attachment 281430
Another interesting finding is that those with more education are less likely to see belief in god as necessary.

View attachment 281431

I'm curious what are we to make of the data about Japan, since the largest religious groups in Japan are non-theistic. Even Shinto, a religion that is pervasive in Japan but not a matter of formal belonging, does not have the same concept of divinity as in monotheism, necessarily.

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

Halbhh said:
Nevertheless, there is a higher level of right action, such as for instance to truly love an enemy, that isn't commonly doable in most situations for most people without God.

I am not sure this is true. It seems that conservative Christians are likely to support acts which I would describe as unloving: the death penalty and war, for example. I have also witnessed non Christians be highly forgiving of people who harm them. I think it has more to do with personality traits than ones religious orientation.

Christianity makes a fundamental claim that people are born in need of salvation. That implies something about whether we are naturally good. Most Christian theology proposes that God ameliorated this problem of lacking goodness by sending Christ to die for the sins of his people. I know there are differences between Calvinists, Armenians, Catholics, the Eastern church etc...but they tend to all agree with the Apostles Creed which confesses the need for forgiveness.

It seems that the trend world wide--and specifically in the United States, the belief in what it means to be or attain goodness is changing quickly. The culture seems to define goodness differently than in the past.

timothyu · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
A new Pew Research poll reveals the fast-changing attitudes of what it means to be good.

It is interesting that although the question focused on what it means to be good, somehow God was put in the equation. Everyone self defines what is good or evil depending upon how it suits their own purpose. The result of stealing the fruit of the tree of Knowledge. Look at how good has been redefined in the recent weeks across the world to serve a group rather than society or humanity in general. Self interest defines what is good and evil. Self interest was original sin.

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
I'm curious what are we to make of the data about Japan, since the largest religious groups in Japan are non-theistic. Even Shinto, a religion that is pervasive in Japan but not a matter of formal belonging, does not have the same concept of divinity as in monotheism, necessarily.

That's a good point. Even at he beginning of the 20th century, they believed in the deity of the Emperor. Not in the same way as deities in Western cultures, but I wonder if that still contributes to their idea of goodness. Maybe they tie the concept to honor.

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

timothyu said:
It is interesting that although the question focused on what it means to be good, somehow God was put in the equation. Everyone self defines what is good or evil depending upon how it suits their own purpose. The result of stealing the fruit of the tree of Knowledge. Look at how good has been redefined in the recent weeks across the world to serve a group rather than society or humanity in general. Self interest defines what is good and evil. Self interest was original sin.

I think the concept of goodness has never been static. It changes from person to person, between cultures, and over time. I don't see it as objective--but cultural.

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
I am not sure this is true.

I am (sure it's true, for that hard one: "love your enemy"), only by dint of experience. I was a non believer (at least intellectually) and had a real enemy of a kind in my late 20s, and tried to test that proposition "love your enemy" which I thought would not work out well. It worked shockingly well, making him into a friend and us both happy to see each other even years later. It was just shocking to me. Ask if you want more on that one. But it was fantastically difficult to do, in that first minute, and was physically spent just from the mental and emotional effort, and trembling, and unable to drive for a while, and felt out of my body. That's how hard it was to do, in person. But now it's not that hard. It's not hard now. So, that's just actual, real, experience, first hand.

Now, about whatever some group of people labeling themselves Christian do, there are 2 billion that identify themselves as Christian on Earth. As you could expect, in such a huge number, there is very variety of good and evil happening. Christ said the way to know whether or not a person belongs to Him is by whether or not they are visibly doing "love one another" --

John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another."

See? It's explicit, literal.

And also:
43“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
Luke 6 NIV

What are those fruits though?
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Galatians 5:23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

See?

So, ergo, the only possible conclusion from these kinds of express statements: only those doing as He said (generally, much of the time at minimum) could possibly be His. Of course, a person can have a bad day, stumble, do wrong. It's their average actions, on the whole, we can look to see.

So, if you only point to a group of worldly political people doing a wrong, and then suggest that represents Christians that would be an error. Better to go to a few churches and ask people face to face questions (once it becomes possible again).

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
I have also witnessed non Christians be highly forgiving of people who harm them.

Yes. Me too. I was part of a group that did that (though imperfectly of course), before becoming Christian.

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
That implies something about whether we are naturally good.

That's right.

But, it has nuances. It's not that we are entirely good or entirely bad.

But, rather, we on our own, over time, can easily go very far wrong, even going into hate or striking back at someone, or taking advantage of people in ways that harm them for our own seeming gain, and a thousand other everyday, commonplace, almost universal wrongs people do at one point or another. Gossip at someone's expense (slanderous, most often). Slights. Cutting someone off in traffic. And on and on. Political slanders are very popular lately in America for instance. And greed. Also betrayals of relationship love.

So, what is 'good'....isn't so easy as just: Ha! I did a good thing (or 20), and didn't murder or rape anyone, didn't steal anything (or not big), so I'm good.

The real human condition isn't just the abstract alienation that was once a term used for it, but a true alienation that is more profound, which makes people tend to not love everyone (every last person they meet).

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

Halbhh said:
I am (sure it's true, for that hard one: "love your enemy"), only by dint of experience. I was a non believer (at least intellectually) and had a real enemy of a kind in my late 20s, and tried to test that proposition "love your enemy" which I thought would not work out well. It worked shockingly well, making him into a friend and us both happy to see each other even years later. It was just shocking to me. Ask if you want more on that one. But it was fantastically difficult to do, in that first minute, and was physically spent just from the mental and emotional effort, and trembling, and unable to drive for a while, and felt out of my body. That's how hard it was to do, in person. But now it's not that hard. It's not hard now. So, that's just actual, real, experience, first hand.

Now, about whatever some group of people labeling themselves Christian do, there are 2 billion that identify themselves as Christian on Earth. As you could expect, in such a huge number, there is very variety of good and evil happening. Christ said the way to know whether or not a person belongs to Him is by whether or not they are visibly doing "love one another" --

John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another."

See? It's explicit, literal.

And also:
43“No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.
Luke 6 NIV

What are those fruits though?
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Galatians 5:23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

See?

So, ergo, the only possible conclusion from these kinds of express statements: only those doing as He said (generally, much of the time at minimum) could possibly be His. Of course, a person can have a bad day, stumble, do wrong. It's their average actions, on the whole, we can look to see.

So, if you only point to a group of worldly political people doing a wrong, and then suggest that represents Christians that would be an error. Better to go to a few churches and ask people face to face questions (once it becomes possible again).

I understand your belief is that the Bible is true and reflects a standard of goodness; I just see no reason to believe that. There are many religions that claim to be the right one, they seems to have the same basic morality as every other culture (at least for their in group). The more we learn about human nature, the more it appears to not have theological groundings. I think this accounts for why Americans--and other advances cultures (wealthy and educated) are having a change of perspective concerning our moral foundations.

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

Halbhh said:
That's right.

But, it has nuances. It's not that we are entirely good or entirely bad.

But, rather, we on our own, over time, can easily go very far wrong, even going into hate or striking back at someone, or taking advantage of people in ways that harm them for our own seeming gain, and a thousand other everyday, commonplace, almost universal wrongs people do at one point or another. Gossip at someone's expense (slanderous, most often). Slights. Cutting someone off in traffic. And on and on. Political slanders are very popular lately in America for instance. And greed. Also betrayals of relationship love.

So, what is 'good'....isn't so easy as just: Ha! I did a good thing (or 20), and didn't murder or rape anyone, didn't steal anything (or not big), so I'm good.

Good is very imprecise. A poll like this ask questions about goodness and each person polled will fill in the blank and insert their own idea of what goodness means to them. In that way, the poll is imprecise.

FireDragon76 · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
That's a good point. Even at he beginning of the 20th century, they believed in the deity of the Emperor. Not in the same way as deities in Western cultures, but I wonder if that still contributes to their idea of goodness. Maybe they tie the concept to honor.

The concept of kami in Shinto isn't really well translated as "god", but that's how westerners have often attempted to do so. That lead to alot of misunderstanding of the Emperor's traditional role in Japanese life. In many ways, the belief that the Emperor is a "living kami" isn't unlike alot of medieval European attitudes towards royalty, and we see echoes of that in our own culture with the cult of celebrity.

Some forms of Shinto, such as Oomoto, do have believe in a Supreme Being, but their conceptualization doesn't have gender or other elements of personality that monotheists ascribe to God.

On the the whole, Shinto is more of a religious about communal practices and reverence for life than the sort of dogmatic and private beliefs that characterize western monotheisms.

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
The more we learn about human nature, the more it appears to not have theological groundings.

Yes we have a innate sense of fairness, which can be demonstrated in small children by fun, novel experiments. It would be interesting some from you on what you know of innate traits. I tend to read widely, and always enjoy reading new stuff like that.

(There is a 2nd aspect to this statement of yours I highlight. It can involve a premise like this: God doesn't exist (understandable premise some have), so therefore whatever exists is therefore not from God. To a believer, see, nature is what God has designed, basically, even if like me one sees it as being physics. So when you say something is in nature, to me you say that God has made it to be that way, heh heh. Put another way, one can't rationally deduce anything about God existing or not existing using nature/physics. Here's another wording: nature is also theology. But the scripture is not at all even slightly about science topics; it's entirely about our relationship with God.)

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
The concept of kami in Shinto isn't really well translated as "god", but that's how westerners have often attempted to do so. That lead to alot of misunderstanding of the Emperor's traditional role in Japanese life. In many ways, the belief that the Emperor is a "living kami" isn't unlike alot of medieval European attitudes towards royalty, and we see echoes of that in our own culture with the cult of celebrity.

Some forms of Shinto, such as Oomoto, do have believe in a Supreme Being, but their conceptualization doesn't have gender or other elements of personality that monotheists ascribe to God.

On the the whole, Shinto is more of a religious about communal practices and reverence for life than the sort of dogmatic and private beliefs that characterize western monotheisms.

I found the questionnaire. Click through the link and then click on "Top Line" under Report Materials. It would be interesting to know how various groups (like the Japanese) interpret the term God.

MehGuy · Jul 21, 2020

I'm surprised Japan and South Korea are so high and that Australia is so low.

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

FireDragon76 said:
is more of a religious about communal practices and reverence for life than the sort of dogmatic and private beliefs that characterize western monotheisms.

Odd, that is how I describe doing/being Christian: communal practices are the the 1,000 ways of doing "love one another" and "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you".... heh heh (I also have specifically have repeatedly spoken against a dogmatic, or man-made tradition side in some churches, as if their practice is only ritual, instead of living faith.) So, it's just funny to me there. Your Shinto is kinda, well, it's kinda my Christianity, at least in these 2 ways.

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

Halbhh said:
Yes we have a innate sense of fairness, which can be demonstrated in small children by fun, novel experiments. It would be interesting some from you on what you know of innate traits. I tend to read widely, and always enjoy reading new stuff like that.

(There is a 2nd aspect to this statement of yours I highlight. It can involve a premise like this: God doesn't exist (understandable premise some have), so therefore whatever exists is therefore not from God. To a believer, see, nature is what God has designed, basically, even if like me one sees it as being physics. So when you say something is in nature, to me you say that God has made it to be that way, heh heh. Put another way, one can't rationally deduce anything about God existing or not existing using nature/physics. Here's another wording: nature is also theology. But the scripture is not at all even slightly about science topics; it's entirely about our relationship with God.)

That was my opinion also when I was a Christian. In fact, people used to call science "natural theology." I am a naturalist in my orientation to methodology and my expectations about engaging with the world. I don't anticipate encountering anything supernatural in anything I do. If the supernatural exists, I would never know it. In fact, it is so inaccessible, it's as if it doesn't exist. I see no reason to conclude it is there, much less it provided humanity with a standard or right and wrong.

Caliban · Jul 21, 2020

MehGuy said:
I'm surprised Japan and South Korea are so high and that Australia is so low.

Me too. Is anyone on this forum Japanese or Korean?

Halbhh · Jul 21, 2020

Caliban said:
That was my opinion also when I was a Christian. In fact, people used to call science "natural theology." I am a naturalist in my orientation to methodology and my expectations about engaging with the world. I don't anticipate encountering anything supernatural in anything I do. If the supernatural exists, I would never know it. In fact, it is so inaccessible, it's as if it doesn't exist. I see no reason to conclude it is there, much less it provided humanity with a standard or right and wrong.

ah, how do you yourself see this? --

Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

Jesus here says that the entire essence of all correct law is this proactive full form of the 'golden rule' (a truth very widely recognized from cultures around the world actually, in at least partial forms, and also I think very widely discovered by individuals in their own epiphanies, individually). One thing that stands out in this formulation though is it is an all-the-time/all-situations form, and not only to refrain from doing what you'd not have done, but to proactively do for others as you'd have them do for you, which requires actions, instead of only restraint from action.

Survey: Most Americans Believe You Do Not Need God to be Good

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

A member of the less neotenous sex..

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Similar threads