Thanks for sharing, Qatada.
Allow me to be a little more specific.
Imagine an atheist recognises certain qualities in people who believe in God and appreciates those values (i.e. charity, modesty, hospitality etc etc)
Say this atheists decides to model those qualities for him/herself, because s/he recognises that there are benefits in it which may better him/her as a human being.
But, doing all that, this atheist still does not believe in God.
S/he sees the principles as wise and good, but entirely man-made rather than divine.
I repeat my original questions:
What do we make of those people?
Are they distorting our faith?
Are they on their journey to the truth?
Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?
Peace
John Mill proposed a "utilitarian principle". Immanuel Kant taught his "categorical imperative." Both were moral philosophers who called people to live according to principles that would be categorized, just as you have above, as "good and wise."
As to what to make of these people:
1) Are they distorting our faith?
They are not distorting our faith unless they claim to have gotten the principles themselves from our faith. In which case it is sort of like a person who wants the benefits of a wedding without going through the process of actually getting married. Yes, they have distorted the faith because they deny the very basis from which we develop these principles. But it is also possible that these people have arrive at the same principles independently. If that is the case, then, since they haven't considered God or religion it is hard to say that they would have distorted it. So, ultimately I guess it depends not on what they believe, but how they arrived at it as to whether one would say they have distorted something. One can only distort what one has actually utilized and then modified.
2) Are they on their own journey to the truth?
Well they are certianly on their own journey. Is it to the truth? I don't know that we can answer that in the present. We might think that they have some elements of the truth and if they just keep exploring they may find the rest of it. But, if you have ever watched baby animals leaving their nest, they all may take the same first few steps. Then they begin to veer off pursing whatever it is that interests them at the moment. So too I think with those who adopted our principles but not our God. We only know the steps they have taken thus far, we don't have any guarantee one way or the other about them eventually finding God or the truth or religion or not. They might. They might not. And until we know where their journey takes them, I don't think we can say what journey they are on. At best we can say that they are on a journey of discovery. If they tell us that they are searching after trught, then we accept that at face value and say they are on a search for truth. But a search for truth and a journey to the truth are not necessarily the same. Ponce DeLeon went out in search of the Fountain of Youth. Do we say that we was on a journey to the Fountain of Youth, or just in search of the famous fountain? Columbus is credited with "discovering" America, but when he left Spain no one said that he was on a journey to America, they said that he was searching for a new route to the spice islands of the orient. Therefore, it seems to me we can't say that a person is on a journey to the truth until we see where the journey actually them.
3) Is it deemed better to at least follow the prinicples of a religion, even without believing in God? Or would that be pointless?
Of course it is better to follow principles that God has given us that are meant to make our lives better for us than to not follow them. This is true irregardless of whether one believes in them, accepts them, accepts the one who gave them, does so voluntarily, or does them under compulsion.
Think about the principles of eating a balanced diet. As a parent you want to promote a good and healthy diet for your kids. You believe you know what that is and try to teach it to them. You hope they believe you and adopt it for themselves. But even if they don't accpet your teaching, as long as they are in your house and your provide the food, they may not have any option accept to eat a balanced diet, even if they would prefer and eventually intend to do otherwise. Their beliefs do not make the balanced diet any more or less beneficial to them. It is still a balanced diet no matter the reason for it being consumed.
Likewise, when people keep good principles for living that God gives to bless our lives, they no doubt bless the lives of even unbelievers. And this is a good thing as far as it goes. But we have to remember that it is good only as far as it goes. It might help them in this life. I don't see how it helps them in the next. (With one cavet that I will speak to later.) So, when you ask, "or would that be pointless?", I need to know what you consider the point to be. If it is only for this life, then it most certainly is not pointless. If you think the whole point is not in this life at all, but the afterlife, then it most certianly is. And if you think that there is meaning in both, then it isn't completely pointless, but there is still lot of the point that is being missed.
Now for the cavet:
I think the above is true no matter what religion or belief system one is operating under. If you listen to the authority, and live as the authority prescribes, then you will receive the benefit intended by the authority. If you don't listen to the authority, but still happen to live as the authority prescribes, you will accure the same benefits. But if you reject the authority itself, then you are rejecting anything beyond the benefits of those specific acts and have divorced yourself from the authority so that you are on your own for any else that might accure to you from having had a relationship with that authority.
Now, certain religions may not hold that it is important to the authority that one actually has a relationship with the authority or the God/god of that religion. In such a case, in those religions there may be no difference between one who does and does not believe, as long as everyone jumps through the same hoops. (I.e., there are those who believe that God is loving and gracious, so that all "good" people -- I'll let you define good for yourself -- go to heaven.) But where a relationship is important, then to do what the authority says, but to reject the authority itself, would seem to mean that one has rejected all that the authority might do for you beyond the immediate benefits that result from eating a balanced diet, not running red lights, or telling the truth, assuming that these are prescribed acts in the religion. Jesus himself tells the story of those who come up to him in the end times seeking his protection for they have done all that he ordered, but he says to them "Away from me, I never knew you." Surely there is probably some point in that sort of life, but not as much of one as I would hope people would find in actually developing a personal relationship with him as well.
