by Joshua Jones

Created on: June 12, 2008   Last Updated: August 16, 2011

Before starting any philosophical discussion, one must always define the terms involved. In the tradition of Socrates, we will define the terms, not by making blatant generalizations, but by asking questions.

First, what is the nature of good? We would generally take this and say "that which is positive," or "that which is not bad." An intellectual might say that knowledge is positive, as there is no bad in knowledge, but knowledge can cause one to infer things which would be atrocious (such as Hitler's eugenics program based upon the theory of evolution). An Epicurean (one who sees physical gratification of the body the highest good) would say that fulfillment of desire is good, but we know that if every desire were fulfilled then mankind would sink into depravity and disease. Then we come to virtue. If we say that virtue is that which makes the soul feel positive by means of beneficence, honesty, and other things which the conscience deems right, that seems the best choice for "good" in our argument, as there is little drawback to virtue (unless you consider a lack of moral depravity a loss).

Now that we have the general idea of what we consider good, we may turn to the question of "what is religion?" This question may seem rather self explanatory but "when asking obvious questions one often comes to unobvious results." Many would say that religion is anything which you are undyingly devoted to. But are not there some people who say that they are Catholics and never see more than three masses a year? Or aren't there people undyingly devoted to art, philosophy, or a spouse? We cannot say that religion is quantified by its devotees. Is religion a man-made complex or is it divinely inspired in all its forms? If each form is divinely inspired then there is a problem, since many religions assert that they are the only religion. Every religion cannot be right if each claims to be the only "right" one. There must, then be one that is divinely inspired, but their validity is not in question. What do religions deal with? It is blatantly obvious that they deal with human interaction to God or moral perfection (god or gods included in that generalization. I will not get into the theology of capitalization). This would include Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, spiritualism, and even atheism (As it denies god's existence it deals with god's relationship to man).

Now that we know what both good and religion are, we must address whether or not one can be good without being religious. Where does man's conscience come from? If it is self-begot from evolution, as an atheist might assert, you still have the presence of religion and good together. Obviously you either believe in god or you don't (I know the agnostics will be angry, but if you can't make up your mind whether or not god exists then you don't believe in god). If everyone either believes in god or not that quantifies everyone as having religion, and therefore religion and good are inseparable. At the same time, evil is ever-present in humanity, as is religion, but we do not always associate those two. God, indisputably, is the furthest extent of good, therefore good and religion must be coupled. But can we say that those without god cannot be good in any way? We know that there are no perfectly good people, so not even those who are religious can be called good.

Honestly, we cannot say whether one can separate religion and good, but it seems unlikely.

Learn more about this author, Joshua Jones.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.