The series I'm watching on the history of philosophy happens to be dealing with the issue of virtue, extensively discussed by Aristotle. The speaker this morning made the point that if someone under hypnotic suggestion rescued a drowning person, this would not be virtuous. Virtuous conduct requires both an act that is virtuous according to some standard and intention and knowledge on the part of the actor that he is acting virtuously rather than non-virtuously.
Which still begs the question, what is "virtue" - little different from the question of what is "godly." This is an extremely deep philosophical question that is not going to be convincingly answered here. Philosophers point out that we can't
define a term simply by listing characteristics that fall within it - "loving." "kind," "generous," etc., is not a
definition of virtue or godliness. This headache-inducing paper ("What is virtue?") is just an example of how complex the philosophical discussions can become:
https://philarchive.org/archive/JEFWIV.
As I asked early-on, can an atheist act in a godly manner? Can a Hindu, a Scientologist? Is the concept of godliness applicable only in the Christian context? Can only Christians be "godly"?
This is the nonsense peddled by Frank ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist") Turek - only Christians can have legitimate notions of morality because only they have the real God as their objective standard. Atheists must "steal from God" in order to assert moral claims at all, because without God all they really have is human opinion. I addressed this nonsense in one my blog entries or long posts at CB.
The fact that torturing babies is wrong is not a matter of opinion, as if two atheists who disagree on the matter stand on equal footing. It is the consensus of the vast majority of humans and is codified in numerous laws. Someone who thinks otherwise is a nutcase. (Except in Ancient Rome and lots of other cultures where allowing female babies to die of exposure was not uncommon! I doubt they would have characterized it a virtuous or godly, but it also wasn't condemned.)
"Godly," IMO, is simply "virtuous" with a religious spin. An atheist would balk at the term, a Christian or Hindu wouldn't. If a Christian says a Hindu acted in a godly manner, the Christian is typically going to be saying this with reference to the Christian God even though the Hindu wouldn't define godliness in this way.
Basically, then, I think virtuousness is a near-universal concept that, as Justice Stewart said about obscenity, most people viscerally know when they see it. "Godly" may be just a synonym for virtuous ... or it may mean virtuous in the context of some theistic religion ... or, to some Christians, it may mean something that only Christians are capable of because only they can please God.
The godly qualities you list are certainly godly to a Christian or most theistic persons, because their notions of morality are defined by reference to their God and his standards. To an atheist, they are simply virtuous. For most Christians, I think the Golden Rule pretty well summarizes godliness; if some ascetic sect wants to adopt extreme piety as its definition, that has nothing to do with me.
