Can a non-Christian truly do good in the sight of God? Why or why not?

talaniman

That was my whole point, we all have a choice of the actions we take, and with that choice comes blessings, or consequences. I believe also that our actions do effect others to one degree or another, and should be considered when we do take any action.

ordinaryguy

It wouldn't be redundant to respond to this question, since you haven't done it before.

lobrobster

I was about to respond to this, but to be honest... Wasn't sure how to counter it. I try to refrain from spewing and am hesitant to say something unless I'm reasonable sure that I'm right, or at least giving a sound answer. I'll admit, this question gave me pause. Is evidence in the eye of the beholder? My first reaction was that this was an absurd statement! But the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was having difficulty refuting it.

My first inclination is that evidence is evidence. Very much unlike beauty, which IS subjective. The problem I had was... How we 'interpret' evidence may very well be subjective and in the eye of the beholder. But here's the difference...

Science uses evidence to form theories. Then science rigorously tests those theories and uses them to make predictions! It literally tries to falsify its own theory. Nothing is ever proven in science. However, it only takes a single false prediction to destroy a theory. The longer a theory goes without being falsified, the stronger the theory becomes.

The problem with all this theistic mumbo-jumbo (if you'll excuse the expression), is that none of the theories or evidence which get espoused by theists can be subjected to scientific testing. So getting back to the ghost in my closet...

I could give you several bits of evidence I feel proves my ghost is there. I might tell you that I feel its presence in the very depths of my being. I could tell you how my clothes had been mysteriously re-arranged. I could then conclude: What else but my ghost could have done that? This evidence may be very real to me. But it would be utterly useless to you. To everyone else in the world, it could be any number of things from my being delusional, to someone breaking into my house and tampering with my closet. At the end of the day, my 'theory' is useless because it is untestable.

Does that make sense? You use evidence to formulate theories. You then subject those theories to rigorous testing and predictions. So while evidence may be in the eye of the beholder, theories are NOT! And if you can't test a theory it's useless for any practical purposes.

I'd like to ask you a question and mean no offense by this, but what line of work are you in and/or what is your level of education? Again, no offense in any way, but I'm finding myself having to explain some very rudimentary principles of math and science in these religious forums. There's nothing wrong with not knowing about these subjects, but many people here make very glaring mistakes when it comes to applying both logic and knowledge in these subjects, and I'm wondering why.

workerbee

Many Athiests have contributed to the world in a positive way. It is pure ego to think that non christians need to be christians to do good. In my opinion christians throughout history have caused much more pain and suffering than any other group.

workerbee

sGt HarDKorE

athiests can go to heaven too says pope benedict..

Here is my proof, ZENIT - Commentary on Psalm 136(137)

workerbee

Seeing that Athiests don't believe in the silly supersition of heaven that means nothing. I am not sure popes can't go to heaven, many of them having fathered lots of illegitimate children and and killed many innocents

workerbee

turtlegirl15

If you beleive in him/her, he/she will love you. you dont have to be Christian to beleive in God, you have to beleive Jesus Christ is the son of God. If you know he is there then know he is watching you. he will always be with you.

ordinaryguy

Good. Now we're getting somewhere.
I don't think we disagree in any fundamental way about how scientific methodology works, but I would put it a little bit differently.

The role of theory is to provide a coherent explanation that accounts for all available evidence. More than that, it's theory that tells us where to look for evidence, and even what constitutes relevant evidence. Evidence consists of observations and measurements. Sometimes evidence is derived from designed and controlled experiments, other times that's not possible and evidence comes from observing and measuring phenomena and processes that occur naturally.

In either case, it's theory that tells us what is important to observe and measure, as well as how to understand and interpret our results. The accumulation of evidence that a theory can't adequately explain and harmonize with previously available evidence is what leads to extensions, refinements, and reformulations of the theory.

It probably is a bit of an overstatement to say that evidence is subjective, but it isn't too much to say that people with radically different theoretical models in mind will not only interpret some evidence differently, they are also very likely to disagree about what constitutes legitimate evidence in the first place.

I think what happens so often when religionists and rationalists try to communicate is that each approaches the world and their own experience of it with theoretical frameworks that are so different that they can't even agree on what evidence is, never mind how to interpret it.

Actually, this isn't quite true. There is a fair body of research on the effects of intercessory prayer, and the results of these studies and the ensuing debate makes for fascinating reading if you're interested in this sort of thing. Google "scientific study intercessory prayer" if you're interested. The thing I take away from what I've read about it is how very hard it turns out to be to operationalize the concepts and fit them into the framework of scientific methodology. A major reason for these difficulties (as I see it) is the lack of a coherent theory of how the natural and supernatural realms might relate and interact.

Critiques of these studies (which have generally concluded that there is little or no measurable effect of intercessory prayer) come from both sides of the "belief spectrum". Scientific rationalists often say something along the lines of "This is a waste of time because the scientific method is only applicable to natural phenomena", while religionists often say something like "Well, no wonder, God doesn't work like that".

I'd say that theories are what directs the eye of the beholder to the evidence.
I think this goes a bit too far, but maybe it depends on what your "practical purposes" are. I would say that an untestable theory is immune to improvement, but if its purpose is to give comfort and meaning to its adherents, and it works for that, maybe it's as good as it needs to be.

Do you think there are any questions that are meaningful and interesting that the scientific method is unable to address? Is there any job worth doing for which it is just not the right tool?
I have a BS in Electrical Engineering, and a MS and PhD in Economics, with an emphasis in statistics and econometrics. How about you?
If you had stopped with your question, it would have been easy not to take offense. Now, it's harder, but I'm trying.

lobrobster

Really, I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I see such glaring errors in math and science here. One common example is that since the existence of god can neither be proved nor disproved, it must mean there is a 50/50 chance he exists! That's just ludicrous!

I'm willing to read (more) on prayer (let me know if you have any specific links). So far, everything I have read shows that it is pure bunk! The odds of a prayer being answered are exactly the same as the odds of that event occurring anyway. Coincidence? And there is ample evidence in prayers NOT being answered. Why in the history of mankind, has god never answered the prayers of an amputee? Even the most ardent believers wouldn't expect to re-grow a limb.

Yes, I think there are things that are immeasurable by science. Relative happiness, love, beauty, meaning, etc. But we aren't talking about any of those things. We are discussing the specific question of whether or not something exists. That CAN be a scientific question. A universe with (say, a Christian god for example), may be very different than a universe without one.

And throughout all of this, I am not, nor have I ever, said there most definitely isn't god. I'm simply saying there is no compelling reason for me to think there is. And if someone does, then they are obliged to provide evidence there is. That's a big difference.

I think you and I agree on much more than our correspondence in this thread would let on. We agree that it matters on what 'type' of god we're talking about before we assign a probability. That's huge. I think we also agree on other things. But I'm a little less willing to bend the scientific method or how it is used. Should science be the most important thing in our lives? No. But it's how we understand our world. And at the end of the day, scientific theories must make accurate predictions. It's for this reason, I think gods and religions are useless when it comes to understanding how the universe works.

Sad Soul

Something's off with the argument here. So you're saying that the non-believer that does good in his life, can't have eternal salvation from God because he doesn't believe in eternal salvation? So what happens to the non-believer who happens to be a good human being? He goes to hell then?

What?

So you're telling me that the way you interpret God is that even though someone is a good human being, because he doesn't believe in heaven or hell, God will definitely choose to give him hell? But the non-believer does not believe in hell either. How does this make sense when your argument is that despite being a good person "God can't give the non-believer heaven clearly because he does not believe in heaven".