Can an atheist ever go to Heaven?

[PRmerger]

Saying that atheists are good only out of convenience, or because they fear the police – or fear retaliation from their neighbor – is like saying that Christians are good only because they fear hell. Ultimately, it’s an unjust assessment, in most cases.

Yes. I have always maintained that atheists can be very, very good people. In fact, there are a few atheists that I’d rather have my back than some Christians.

However, that is irrelevant to the fact that their denial of the existence of God is wrong.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes. I have always maintained that atheists can be very, very good people. In fact, there are a few atheists that I’d rather have my back than some Christians.

However, that is irrelevant to the fact that their denial of the existence of God is wrong.

To play “devil’s advocate” for a moment, do you mean factually wrong, logically wrong, morally wrong, or a combination of these?

 

[meltzerboy]

If I treat you with kindness and there is no ulterior motive I’d suggest that you may well assume that the act was genuinely good, done for it’s own sake. That I thought it was the right thing to do. That, with no guide to morality, I had worked out myself that it was the right think to do.

If you do me a kindness, how do I know if you’re doing it because you know it’s the right thing to do as opposed to doing it because you have been told it’s the right thing to do?

If an atheist does an anonymous altruistic act, it must be for it’s own sake. No-one will know. But it could be said that there’s no such thing as altruistic behaviour by a Christian because God is watching and giving you a couple of brownie points each time.

Yes, the ulterior motive–conscious or unconsious–is, I think, something believers must try to guard against. The goal is, for Judaism and (I believe) also Christianity, to align one’s will with that of G-d as best one can without allowing selfish motivations to intrude. This necessitates an internalization of the moral teaching of one’s religion and faith, which is so much easier stated than practiced on a daily basis through one’s interactions with others.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not trying to demean your faith. And I’m sure that you could defend your position as well as any other person from any other religion could defend theirs. But if you can’t find truth in the natural world (and it’s there if you apply yourself diligently and with a fair mind), then there are plenty of options that would take you a lifetime to even scratch the surface of but a few.

It must have crossed your mind at some point that an awful lot of people never investigate what the options are. Why would you say that is?

Perhaps for the same reason that some people dismiss religion and become atheists. They have personal motives that make it, in some sense, a convenient option. It meets some needs but they don’t think through all the repercussions.

However, if you are trying to say something like, “Therefore, Christianity must be false because of the untenable reasons some people come to believe in it!” that would be a misstep on your part. That would be a rather pathetic application of the genetic fallacy.

The point I am making is partly in response to questions as to how an atheist could possible act morally if he or she doesn’t believe in that particular person’s deity. A person who doesn’t believe that they are being watched constantly and acts in a moral way is obviously doing so because he feels it is the correct thing to do.

We have Christians on this forum who have plainly stated that they wouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong if it wasn’t for their belief in God. That is, if God didn’t exist, they might have taken that five bucks.

They are, in fact, saying that they act morally because they are Christian. Wouldn’t it be better for them to say that they act morally and they are Christian?

This misconstrues the “Christian” position of those people. They are not saying they wouldn’t “know” the difference between right and wrong, but that there would be no actual (objective from a human standpoint) difference if God does not exist. Qualitative concepts are only available from ‘subjective’ perspectives. If materialism is correct then any words, like beautiful, good, right, etc., that frame qualitative meanings are reduced to a merely human defined level. Morally good becomes reduced to what humans define it to be, so if humans decide to alter the meaning, there is nothing to argue against the shifting of meaning, no “final court of appeal” so to speak. Furthermore, since, from the materialists’ perspective human subjectivity is merely an illusion, an epiphenomenon, then morality is, as well.

I don’t think a Christian need argue against the ‘subjective’ basis of quality terms, but merely to state that the Subject that ultimately defines their meaning is the same one who keeps everything in existence and therefore the qualitative realities are embedded in the very framework of what exists and not something we, as humans can alter. We can strive to understand and accept what real beauty is, what real goodness is, etc. However, to attempt to usurp or annex these essences by claiming humans have full authority to apply and change these at will, because they mean nothing but what we define them to be, is the height of arrogance. That is the very definition of hubris. (Overreaching or excessive ambition, pride, etc., that will ultimately cause the transgressor’s ruin.)

Certainly it will be easier for an atheist to “be moral” by his/her definition because s/he has full control over what “moral” means. It means merely “what I agree that it means” so essentially it is doing “what I want.” Of course, that is very self-consistent because by definition they are the same thing.

When you claim that a Christian “wouldn’t know the difference between right and wrong if it wasn’t for their belief in God” what that actually means is a Christian would have to accede that the more “authoritative” and objective sense of right and wrong coming from God would no longer exist for them and they would be reduced to the same position as the atheist that right and wrong would merely be whatever they want it to mean rather than what God defines it to be by the same absolute subjectivity (absolute intelligence, will and purpose) that keeps all that is, in existence.

Essentially, a Christian, has to admit someone beyond them controls the nature of goodness, truth and beauty that the atheist denies, so of course, by definition the Christian has to live up to a standard that is outside of their control and so “hypocrisy” becomes a potentially applicable term. For an atheist, what sense would it make to say they are not living up to a definition of good that they can change at whim. Hypocrisy becomes definitionally incoherent.

That is certainly one way of raising atheistic morality above Christian morality: reduce, by definition, the word morality to mean “what I believe is right” then follow up with your claim that you are better at the challenge of being a good moral agent. Taper the rules to one’s own advantage then claim victory. The Christian doesn’t have the right of fiat to change or lower their standards because they have no authority to do so.

 

[Cable]

I’m pretty certain that you have absolutely zero belief in Shiva. Or Krishna. Or Jah. What you’re actually expressing is amazement that someone doesn’t believe in your god.

I didn’t notice that you’re any more amazing than anyone else here, maybe you can point out to me how that’s so. My point was that it’s wildly unlikely that you are truly a person who lacks any morsel of faith in a Supreme Being.

 

[PRmerger]

To play “devil’s advocate” for a moment, do you mean factually wrong, logically wrong, morally wrong, or a combination of these?

The first 2.

Not sure how a denial of the existence of God could be “morally wrong”.

 

[Bradski]

My point was that it’s wildly unlikely that you are truly a person who lacks any morsel of faith in a Supreme Being.

If I said that I have zero belief in Zeus, you’d presumably believe me. I can start listing all the deities that man has ever worshipped and say that I don’t believe in each one in turn. Presumably you’d accept what I said for all of them.

Except for one. And then, for whatever reason, when I say I don’t believe in that one either, you say that’s wildly unlikely. Why is that?

 

[Cable]

If I said that I have zero belief in Zeus, you’d presumably believe me. I can start listing all the deities that man has ever worshipped and say that I don’t believe in each one in turn. Presumably you’d accept what I said for all of them.

Except for one. And then, for whatever reason, when I say I don’t believe in that one either, you say that’s wildly unlikely. Why is that?

I see. But I’m not saying it’s unlikely that you don’t believe in Christianity or in another person’s/group’s name for & belief in God. Rather, I’m saying it’s unlikely to not possess even a small amount of faith in a, named or unnamed by you, defined/not defined by you, Supreme Being. If you’re saying that describes you, then I don’t mean to belabor it.

 

[Bradski]

If materialism is correct then any words, like beautiful, good, right, etc., that frame qualitative meanings are reduced to a merely human defined level. Morally good becomes reduced to what humans define it to be, so if humans decide to alter the meaning, there is nothing to argue against the shifting of meaning, no “final court of appeal” so to speak.

Let’s look at human bondage for example. Or equality of the sexes. Or the ethical treatment of animals. There is no doubt whatsoever that we got most aspects of each of those very wrong for a very long time. In fact, we still haven’t got them right yet.

If we were having this discussion two hundred years ago and I brought up any one of those topics, then you’d probably be wondering why. Because very few people at the time thought that there was a problem with any one of them.

If I suggested back then that maybe animals should be treated more humanely or that perhaps women should have the vote, most Christians and most non-believers would believe that the status quo was just fine. And I’m pretty certain that most Christians would still be referring moral considerations to the ‘court of final appeal’.

We all would now consider them to be morally wrong.

Apart from certain very particular codified actions, such as homosexuality or contraception, what has been deemed by Christians to be acceptable moral behaviour over the ages has changed. And those changes have reflected changes within society. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Bradski]

I see. But I’m not saying it’s unlikely that you don’t believe in Christianity or in another person’s/group’s name for & belief in God. Rather, I’m saying it’s unlikely to not possess even a small amount of faith in a, named or unnamed by you, defined/not defined by you, Supreme Being. If you’re saying that describes you, then I don’t mean to belabor it.

One either believes in the supernatural or not. This one does not.

 

[Portofino]

Perhaps for the same reason that some people dismiss religion and become atheists. They have personal motives that make it, in some sense, a convenient option. It meets some needs but they don’t think through all the repercussions.

However, if you are trying to say something like, “Therefore, Christianity must be false because of the untenable reasons some people come to believe in it!” that would be a misstep on your part. That would be a rather pathetic application of the genetic fallacy.

Those accusation regarding the motives for belief or unbelief – which are akin to an ad hominem argument – can indeed go on, *ad infinitem. *

So, a Christian might say, “you are just an atheist because it is more convenient to you, if God doesn’t exist” (i.e., you can do anything you want).

Then the atheist can rebut, “you are just a Christian because it is more comforting to you that God exists, and that you will live forever. It is also more comforting to be given the answers, instead of being left with unanswerable questions.”

Then the Christian can rebut, “you resist having faith because you are stubborn; or because you are too proud to acknowledge an authority higher than yourself; or because, though you know that God exists, you are willfully in denial of Him.”

And then the Muslim comes along and says to the Christian, “you resist converting to Islam because you are stubborn; or because you are too proud to accept Allah’s authority over you; or because, though you know that Islam is the true religion, you are resisting it.”

Or, the Muslim says to the Christian, “you resist converting to Islam because your Christianity places little demands on you, by way of dietary restrictions; this makes your Christianity more comfortable for you. You still get to drink alcohol and eat pork. You don’t have to give much up.” Or he says to the woman who is Christian, “you resist Islam because what Allah wants of you, as a woman – to wear a veil – would be too inconvenient to you. Christianity is much more comfortable, because it places few restrictions on you.”

I don’t make any of these assumptions regarding the motives of Christians; or, at least, I try not to do so.

And I can honestly say that the same goes for non-believers. I don’t chalk up their denial of the virgin birth, or of resurrection from the dead, to stubbornness, pride, or willful rejection of what they know to be truth. Instead, I observe that they most often have honest intellectual reasons for not being convinced (disagreement over the reality of a miraculous occurrence is no extraordinary thing) unless they are militant or overzealous about it. One potential sign of being overzealous is that one moralizes those who disagree with you; it seems that their disagreement must be a sign of a poor moral character or that they are “bad people”.

Ultimately, what they are saying, is, “there is no such thing as an honest atheist/Christian/Mormon.”

But it’s nothing personal on the part of a Catholic, if they reject Joseph Smith and Mormonism. A Mormon should not get upset and start picking apart a Catholic’s character; though some, no doubt, would be tempted to do so.

 

[Mar044]

This is like saying, “Can I marry you if I don’t love you?”

Heaven is nothing more than the Wedding Feast between you and God.

If you don’t accept His Divine Wedding Proposal, you can’t dine at the Wedding Feast.

if im lucky ill get commuted sentence to purgatory, but i pretty much live day by day thinking im headed to hell, i tend not to value myself as being worth saving, my life has been hard and im not a saint and i pretty much live a life with daily talks to the lord to have mercy on me to at least have the chance at heaven no matter how hypocritical i am, you are in the hands of god, and unless your a mass killer with no remorse or sin against the holy spirit you always can. god is very forgiving, its no rigid, and its not my place to say who can or cant go to heaven. if your asking and your here then god sees that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As it stands, the idea is that “There is no salvation outside of the Church.” However that last bit is qualified as the Church refers to the Mystical Body of Christ, not necessarily the earthly institution.

Otherwise that would imply that anyone who was a member of the Catholic Church would go to Heaven. Which by their own admission is not the case - you can be a Catholic and wind up in Hell.

For them the crux of the matter revolves around a Vatican II statement regarding whether or not you or I am “invincibly ignorant” of either their God’s love or their God’s presence. More often than not, the majority of Catholics i’ve spoken to stay away from making a judgment on the basis that it would limit either the power or the love their God.

Even Traditionalists such as Marcel Lefebvre, a rejectee of their Vatican II along with a few others and excommunicated no less, never made the claim that there were no non-Christian or non-Catholics in Heaven. That would of course trample on the concern above.

That’s the fine nuanced version of things.

Not all of their laity “buy” into it however - resulting in some rather interesting conversations on this board.

uch: you got us where it hurts. You are mostly right. All other things being equal any Atheist can wind up in Heaven. What a surprise that will be !!! Anyone actually can go to Heaven. And anyone can go to hell as well. So, the question, what is the best way I can find which will give me a reasonable chance???

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Yes. I have always maintained that atheists can be very, very good people. In fact, there are a few atheists that I’d rather have my back than some Christians.

However, that is irrelevant to the fact that their denial of the existence of God is wrong.

Atheists can be good, friendly people like anyone else… but being good and friendly isn’t necessarily being moral.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

if im lucky ill get commuted sentence to purgatory, but i pretty much live day by day thinking im headed to hell, i tend not to value myself as being worth saving, my life has been hard and im not a saint and i pretty much live a life with daily talks to the lord to have mercy on me to at least have the chance at heaven no matter how hypocritical i am, you are in the hands of god, and unless your a mass killer with no remorse or sin against the holy spirit you always can. god is very forgiving, its no rigid, and its not my place to say who can or cant go to heaven. if your asking and your here then god sees that.

No my friend, you have to do better than that. Get out you catechism and start there. Do you want the " tax collectors and prostetutes " walking in while you stand outside?

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM ( CCC )

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Saying that atheists are good only out of convenience, or because they fear the police – or fear retaliation from their neighbor – is like saying that Christians are good only because they fear hell.

Fearing hell isn’t the best reason for doing good, but if it gets a person to start their conversion process then that isn’t necessarily a bad start for the time being.

Compassionate non-believers care about their neighbor because they see their neighbor as part of their extended family (which is ultimately what Jesus preached, in employing the words “brothers and sisters”!) They see themselves in their neighbor, and their neighbor in themselves (“my neighbor has feelings, just as I have feelings; my neighbor feels pain, just as I feel pain; just as I want to live, so my neighbor wants to live; just as I have to die, so my neighbor has to die”). Because they feel empathy, a part of them inhabits everyone they meet, and a part of everyone they meet inhabits them (“abide in me, and
I in you”).

I don’t understand your logic here. You are quoting Jesus… that’s not very atheistic and I think by attributing your morality to Christ, that is nullifying your point of atheistic morality.

You could ask, “why have empathy?” and they might respond, “why not have empathy?” Those with empathy have an added dimension of awareness that those who do not, lack – namely, an awareness that other people exist and are as “real” as they are. The more self-aware you are, the more there is an awareness of the existence of others.

Where would a person develop this deep, sincere empathy for others? Interestingly enough, Father Barron discusses things like this in one of his videos… like the desire for justice, for example. The very fact that humans have these very deep feelings of empathy and a desire for justice is a proof of their soul. It shows that we are wired for God. He explains it better than me though, I think lol.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

A guy is working late at the office and sees five bucks on a desk. He could take it and no-one would know. He doesn’t take it.

Another guy in another office is working late and sees five bucks on a desk. The office is covered by closed circuit TV. He doesn’t take it either.

We know for a fact that the first guy acted morally. We don’t know that about the second.

We don’t know if the first guy acted morally either, because some people have different temptations than others.

Person in the first example may not have an urge to steal, but he may be an adulterer. This is not being moral.

God never said we have to like the laws that He gives us, He says you have to be obedient to them. Being obedient to God is being moral, whether you agree/like/are happy about it or not, just as long as you obey.

Being “moral” out of convenience is hardly being moral, since you don’t have to obey anything you don’t want to. If someone makes you happy and you treat them nicely back in return, that is not much of an accomplishment (“even sinners do that”) but loving your enemy is not convenient and not always easy, but if you do anyway, you have done so for a greater good and have a set of defined morals that do not change with your emotions.

 

[PRmerger]

Atheists can be good, friendly people like anyone else… but being good and friendly isn’t necessarily being moral.

Atheists can be some of the most moral people in society.

Would that they were Christian and we would see what greater things they could do!

 

[Portofino]

This misconstrues the “Christian” position of those people. They are not saying they wouldn’t “know” the difference between right and wrong, but that there would be no actual (objective from a human standpoint) difference if God does not exist.

This is indeed a problem; I believe it would be preferable if objective moral standards did exist, in the metaphysical sense (and it certainly would be preferable for there to be an afterlife, versus no afterlife).

This gets back to the fact that the non-believer makes a distinction between what he believes ought to be the case, ideally; and what he honestly believes to be the case. Just because he says there is no objective morality (in a metaphysical sense) does not mean he denies it would be preferable for there to be an objective morality, in the metaphysical sense. He sees insufficient evidence for this assertion, however; indeed, even the near universality of certain moral prohibitions, may be nothing more than a consensus gentium and tell us more about ourselves as human beings, than about any transcendent order.

On the other hand, there are real weaknesses I see in the belief in objective moral standards that are transcendentally-grounded. First problem – what are those objective moral standards? There is a great deal of disagreement about this, as the same-sex marriage debate makes clear. Desmond Tutu, for example – a theist and a Christian – has compared the denial of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, with racism and apartheid.

Another problem with objective morality is, how do we know it? How is it discoverable? While there is much consensus regarding basic moral standards such as no killing, no stealing, or no rape – namely, those tenets of an absolute morality that are precisely the most pragmatically necessary to a peaceful society – there is wild disagreement regarding moral absolutes that intersect with religion.

So, for example, it is objectively immoral to eat beef (says the Hindu); objectively immoral to eat pork (says the Jew or Muslim); objectively immoral to eat meat on Good Friday (says the Catholic); objectively immoral not to attend church on Sunday (says the Catholic); objectively immoral not to attend church on Saturday (says the Seventh Day Adventist); objectively immoral to eat any meat, whatsoever (says the principled vegetarian); objectively immoral to eat any animal products whatsoever (says the principled vegan). Objectively immoral to harm any living thing, including an insect (says the Jainist). Objectively immoral to allow a woman to study (says the 1st century Jew and the 21st century Tabliban moralist). Objectively immoral not to allow a woman to study (says the 21st century westerner).

can strive to understand and accept what real beauty is, what real goodness is, etc. However, to attempt to usurp or annex these essences by claiming humans have full authority to apply and change these at will, because they mean nothing but what we define them to be, is the height of arrogance. That is the very definition of hubris. (Overreaching or excessive ambition, pride, etc., that will ultimately cause the transgressor’s ruin.)

If one has honest reasons for not believing that a. this objectively morality exists, or b. that it is discoverable, then it is not at all necessarily arrogance, for morals to change. To the contrary, one can be trying to do the best with what one has. And, as Bradski has pointed out, many of these changes have been in the name of rendering our societies more humane – more humane towards women; towards animals; towards children; towards the poor. At one time, this safeguarding of the rights of women – to name one example – would have been viewed as objectively immoral (and is still viewed as objectively immoral, by some).

it will be easier for an atheist to “be moral” by his/her definition because s/he has full control over what “moral” means. It means merely “what I agree that it means” so essentially it is doing “what I want.” Of course, that is very self-consistent because by definition they are the same thing.

A great many non-believers – most, perhaps – do live by an objective set of values. They try to, at least. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are two examples; they waxed indignant over the idea of genocide, for example, or of violence in the name of religion. Their defenses of their sense of morality may ultimately be problematic, since they would chalk it up to innate ideas; or pragmatic necessity; or psychological health versus psychological sickness. A transcendent metaphysical basis for saying “murder is wrong” would be preferable. But, again, they honestly do not believe – and I agree with them – that a transcendent basis for morality is demonstrable. It’s an article of faith – a very important one, perhaps. But the disagreements will remain as regards what that absolute morality consists in.

Again, though, this sense of “the height of arrogance” can just open up mutual accusations, ad infinitem. For example, one could say, “it is the height of arrogance to believe that you have the truth and are incapable of being wrong, and that you have an infallible source of knowledge”; or “it is the height of arrogance to believe that what we, as humans, believe, is inscribed in the very nature of the cosmos.”

To say, “I don’t know” is not necessarily arrogant; to the contrary, it can be evidence of a honest humility, as it was in the case of Socrates himself. Doubt need not be stubborn, or arrogant – it can also be humble, and honest with oneself.

 

[PRmerger]

This is indeed a problem; I believe it would be preferable if objective moral standards did exist, in the metaphysical sense (and it certainly would be preferable for there to be an afterlife, versus no afterlife).

This gets back to the fact that the non-believer makes a distinction between what he believes ought to be the case, ideally; and what he honestly believes to be the case. Just because he says there is no objective morality (in a metaphysical sense) does not mean he denies it would be preferable for there to be an objective morality, in the metaphysical sense. He sees insufficient evidence for this assertion, however; indeed, even the near universality of certain moral prohibitions, may be nothing more than a consensus gentium and tell us more about ourselves as human beings, than about any transcendent order.

On the other hand, there are real weaknesses I see in the belief in objective moral standards that are transcendentally-grounded. First problem – what are those objective moral standards? There is a great deal of disagreement about this, as the same-sex marriage debate makes clear. Desmond Tutu, for example – a theist and a Christian – has compared the denial of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, with racism and apartheid.

Another problem with objective morality is, how do we know it? How is it discoverable? While there is much consensus regarding basic moral standards such as no killing, no stealing, or no rape – namely, those tenets of an absolute morality that are precisely the most pragmatically necessary to a peaceful society – there is wild disagreement regarding moral absolutes that intersect with religion.

So, for example, it is objectively immoral to eat beef (says the Hindu); objectively immoral to eat pork (says the Jew or Muslim); objectively immoral to eat meat on Good Friday (says the Catholic); objectively immoral not to attend church on Sunday (says the Catholic); objectively immoral not to attend church on Saturday (says the Seventh Day Adventist); objectively immoral to eat any meat, whatsoever (says the principled vegetarian); objectively immoral to eat any animal products whatsoever (says the principled vegan). Objectively immoral to harm any living thing, including an insect (says the Jainist). Objectively immoral to allow a woman to study (says the 1st century Jew and the 21st century Tabliban moralist). Objectively immoral not to allow a woman to study (says the 21st century westerner).

If one has honest reasons for not believing that a. this objectively morality exists, or b. that it is discoverable, then it is not at all necessarily arrogance, for morals to change. To the contrary, one can be trying to do the best with what one has. And, as Bradski has pointed out, many of these changes have been in the name of rendering our societies more humane – more humane towards women; towards animals; towards children; towards the poor. At one time, this safeguarding of the rights of women – to name one example – would have been viewed as objectively immoral (and is still viewed as objectively immoral, by some).

A great many non-believers – most, perhaps – do live by an objective set of values. They try to, at least. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are two examples; they waxed indignant over the idea of genocide, for example, or of violence in the name of religion. Their defenses of their sense of morality may ultimately be problematic, since they would chalk it up to innate ideas; or pragmatic necessity; or psychological health versus psychological sickness. A transcendent metaphysical basis for saying “murder is wrong” would be preferable. But, again, they honestly do not believe – and I agree with them – that a transcendent basis for morality is demonstrable. It’s an article of faith – a very important one, perhaps. But the disagreements will remain as regards what that absolute morality consists in.

Again, though, this sense of “the height of arrogance” can just open up mutual accusations, ad infinitem. For example, one could say, “it is the height of arrogance to believe that you have the truth and are incapable of being wrong, and that you have an infallible source of knowledge”; or “it is the height of arrogance to believe that what we, as humans, believe, is inscribed in the very nature of the cosmos.”

To say, “I don’t know” is not necessarily arrogant; to the contrary, it can be evidence of a honest humility, as it was in the case of Socrates himself. Doubt need not be stubborn, or arrogant – it can also be humble, and honest with oneself.

Eloquently articulated.

With that being said, the reason for being a Believer is not necessarily because it makes us good, or equips us to discern an objective morality.

The reason for being a Believer is because it’s True.