Earlier I diaried about an AP story concerning a little girl in Ethiopia, kidnapped to be forced into a marriage, who was rescued by a pride of Ethiopian lions that chased off her kidnappers and protected her until help arrived. On that diary, I posted a poll about belief in God.
Combined, "Unquestioningly--I know God is there," and "I'm a Red Sox fan, enough said," totalled 17 of 23 votes.
But one of the commenters offered a challenge to me, that I shall (inadequately, I'm sure) try to handle now.
(more below)
sagesource, who has been posting here for almost exactly as long as I have, posted the following (can't make those text boxes after all this time--I am shamed already):
"and...
...apologies for being a little harsh with your values, but I've never been able to understand or sympathize with what drives Godders. They exasperate me, especially American ones who get God and the USA confused (of course I don't count you among that mangy horde).
Why, really, would anyone want to find supernatural excuses for doing good? Having a god actually seems to corrupt the idea of the good, since it reduces morality to a set of commands that carry rewards if you follow them and punishments if you defy them. If morality were simply God's commands, then people like Mother Teresa made a good, pragmatic deal that doesn't demand a shred of morality attached to it -- a bit of discomfort here traded for the eternal joys of Heaven. (And in earlier Christian writing, this bargain is quite explicit.)"
It's an interesting argument sagesource puts forth. I'll try to answer it as best I can, being little trained in religion or theology:
Perhaps the distinction I'm about to draw applies to the continuing conservative evangelical/liberal evangelical divide (disclaimer: I'm actually reform Jewish, though ordained by the ULC, and spent the last year working for an evangelical, fairly liberal Democratic candidate).
My response is that I think your point may have oversimplified the nature of religious-based morality.
There are two integral parts of my education in Judaism that I like to share with people who wonder about the beliefs of Jews (or religious people in general). The first is that the name "Israel" itself means "One who wrestles with God," : the second is that the most famous of Jewish scholars, Rabbi Hillel (1st Century BC) is most famous for reconciling God's words (Torah) with the real world, asking questions of philosophy and faith such as, "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?" That's Hillel discussing social responsibility as it relates to the Jewish conceptualization of love.
Since I'm a real Hillel fan, let me give you an example of what I mean: A story goes that a gentile wished to convert to Judaism, and went to see another famous rabbi, Shammai. The gentile told Shammai that he would be converted only if he could be taught the whole of the Torah while standing on one foot. Shammai turned the gentile away for his impatience and flippancy. The gentile then went to Hillel, who accepted the challenge and, while the man stood on one leg, said the following: "That which offends you, do not do to others. This is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary: go and learn!"
Those teachings don't come directly from chapter-and-verse scripture (at that time, anyway). Those ideals of egalitarianism and community stem in large part from the communal protectiveness and notions of brotherhood that came with being chosen by God to be His(/Her) people on earth. By having God as the benevolent figure that both endowed humanity with creation and free will, and as the absolute arbiter of what constitutes a "good Jew/Christian/Muslim," it becomes necessary to distill God's teachings into themes and ideals.
Often this distillation takes the form of the "false teachers" that the Apostle Paul warned of in Corinthians/Thessalonians--those that pervert the spirit of the doctrines of faith in order to further their personal agendas. But even more often this takes the form of deep and contentious soul-searching within the individual believer as to his or her relationship with God. Part of the bargain is that God will only grant atonement to those that beg forgiveness from their fellow men for transgressions committed, so a social compact is implied in Judaism.
Remembering our initial assumption about God for the purposes of the discussion at hand (you wrote of God as a "supernatural excuse for doing good" in your above comment), then the contention you put forth (assuming we accept the validity of my position) boils down to the inner conflict inherent in a monotheistic "good v. bad" relationship being nothing more than a person's attempt to reconcile their own morality with the actions they take. Personally, I think anything that can promote such moral debates in individuals should be encouraged.
Beyond that, I can't really offer anything to your question except Pascal's wager, and odds are you've heard that one enough.
~JR