Be Good for Goodness' sake
The Antitheist's Response to St. Augustine's Doctrine of Morality
By
As the Christmas and holiday season begins, so does the incessant playing of Christmas songs. One song, in particular, always raises a theological question in my mind. In Santa Claus Is Coming to Town—especially in my favorite interpretation by Dean Martin—the line “be good for goodness’ sake” always sticks with me. It reminds me of the Christian philosophy of St. Augustine of Hippo, one of the foundational thinkers of the Catholic Church, who argued that true goodness must be rooted in love for god. Yet, as an anti-theist, I find myself at odds with this view. Why should goodness require divine oversight? Why must morality be tethered to faith rather than standing on its own merits?
St. Augustine’s extensive theological and philosophical work, especially in Confessions, provides a window into his understanding of human nature, morality, and the ultimate purpose of good deeds. Augustine famously wrote, “Fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in te” (“You have made us for Yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You”) (Confessions, Book I, Chapter 1). This encapsulates his belief that all human longing, including the desire to do good, is ultimately a longing for god. For Augustine, good deeds performed without reference to god are incomplete, as they fail to address the soul’s ultimate purpose.
The Role of Grace in Morality
Central to Augustine’s theology is the idea that human beings are incapable of true goodness without divine grace. He viewes humanity as inherently flawed due to original sin, a concept that colors much of his work. In Confessions, he famously lamented, “Non possum bonum velle nisi adiuvet me Deus” (“I cannot will what is good, unless You help me”) (Confessions, Book VIII, Chapter V). From Augustine’s perspective, even the most altruistic actions are tainted by self-interest unless transformed by god’s grace.
This dependence on grace raises significant questions for those outside the faith. Can a person who does not believe in god still be virtuous? Augustine’s answer, though nuanced, often leans toward “no.” He argued that actions performed without reference to god’s will may achieve temporal good but lack eternal significance.
The Problem of Exclusivity
One of the most challenging aspects of Augustine’s theology is its exclusivity. His framework suggests that non-believers, no matter how virtuous, are fundamentally disconnected from true goodness. This creates a troubling dichotomy: belief, not action, becomes the ultimate measure of moral worth. Augustine’s assertion that “Bonum nostrum est vita cum te in aeternum, et alienati eramus a vita ista per peccatum” (“Our good is life with You forever, and we were alienated from that life by sin”) (Confessions, Book IV, Chapter XII) illustrates this exclusivity.
How is it just to dismiss the goodness of those who live moral lives outside of faith? By tying morality to divine love, Augustine’s framework undervalues the contributions of non-believers and diminishes the shared human capacity for empathy, reason, and altruism. Many who live without a need for divine justice dedicate their lives to acts of kindness, justice, and compassion—actions that hold inherent value, irrespective of their lack of religious orientation.
Goodness as a Universal Endeavor
Returning to the line “be good for goodness’ sake,” it challenges Augustine’s claim that morality requires a divine source. Instead, it celebrates the autonomy of human ethics. Secular philosophies, from the humanist ideals of the Enlightenment, emphasizing that goodness arises from shared human values. These traditions demonstrate that morality does not require belief in god but flourishes through reason, empathy, and the recognition that not only humans but many complex life forms have evolved to feel joy in kindness.
While Augustine’s work remains a cornerstone of Christian thought, his emphasis on divine grace and love of god as prerequisites for goodness is not universally applicable. Many non-believers dedicate their lives to altruism, justice, and the betterment of society, driven by values that need no divine sanction. To call acts of kindness performed without reference to divine justice of lower or no value raises a profound question: what kind of divinity, which according to Christian doctrine is magnanimous and filled with kindness, would demand such unwavering loyalty and faith that it disqualifies the genuine acts of kindness of those who do not dedicate themselves to him? If a god’s love is conditional upon such devotion, such demands for devotion seem more petty rather than truly divine. This invites a broader reflection: should reverence be given to a god whose criteria for worthiness diminishes the inherent value of goodness and kindness unanchored to faith.
The foundations of Christianity emphasize a forgiving God who pardons the thief for his sins upon repentance, and at times extends forgiveness even to those who do not explicitly repent but remain faithful to Him. If the ultimate goal of this God is to inspire kindness, how can a sinner who maintains faith escape punishment, while a well-meaning person, whose only “sin” is a lack of belief in God, be condemned? This paradox lays bare a stark hypocrisy at the heart of such a moral framework: it celebrates faith over action, reducing the worth of altruism and compassion to mere irrelevance in the absence of belief. It forces us to confront whether a framework so dismissive of genuine human goodness can claim any moral authority at all.
The Non-Believers’ Moral Framework
As the Christmas season unfolds and Dean Martin’s crooning echoes through festive gatherings, I am reminded of the simplicity of the phrase “be good for goodness’ sake.” It serves as a counterpoint to Augustine’s theology, proposing that goodness does not need to rest on the love of any form of divinity but can stand firmly on its own, rooted in our shared humanity. Augustine’s reflections on the nature of goodness are invaluable, yet they highlight the divide between a faith-based morality and one grounded in human reason and empathy.
In the end, the call to “be good for goodness’ sake” invites one to embrace a moral stance that values deeds over creeds and actions over beliefs. It challenges us to act rightly not for fear of hell or love of god, but for the love of humanity and the sake of goodness itself.