Can an atheist ever go to Heaven?

[Peter_Plato]

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.

To claim “I don’t know” regarding objective transcendent standards for qualities such as beauty, or truth or moral goodness can be humble and honest, but that also depends on how that statement is qualified. Any of these are possible:

1. I don’t know and I don’t care to know.
2. I don’t know and no one does, so I can think and do as I like; and others as they please.
3. I don’t know but this is a critical question and requires careful consideration.
4. I don’t know but the question is nonsensical.

Going beyond “I don’t know” and claiming such standards do not or cannot exist and the claimant has therefore an implicit right to define them or ignore them is indeed arrogant. The imperative nature of morality makes it necessary that the best possible standards, whether pragmatic, absolute or both, be uncovered or developed should itself be regarded as a responsibility, but never as a “right.” Claiming the right or privilege to redefine standards according to one’s own preferences merely because one does not accept, agree with or accede to existing objective standards is clearly hubris.

 

[meltzerboy]

Such thought-provoking comments on all sides of the issue, better than many of those that have appeared in previous threads on the same topic. Kudos!

 

[poche]

That is for God to decide - not us- God is infinitly merciful but He is also infinitly just.

 

[belorg]

That is for God to decide - not us- God is infinitly merciful but He is also infinitly just.

That seems like a contradiction.
“Just” means that God gives everybody exactly what they deserve and “merciful” means that God gives somebody something that this preson actually does not deserve.
So we get: infinitely just: everybody gets what they deserve and nobody gets anything they don’t deserve, and infinutely merciful: all people who do not deserve it, nevertheless get it.
The two seem contradictory to me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That seems like a contradiction.
“Just” means that God gives everybody exactly what they deserve and “merciful” means that God gives somebody something that this preson actually does not deserve.
So we get: infinitely just: everybody gets what they deserve and nobody gets anything they don’t deserve, and infinutely merciful: all people who do not deserve it, nevertheless get it.
The two seem contradictory to me.

Mercy is granted freely to those who request it so that they can begin the journey to be sanctified (remade in the image of God) by grace. Taking advantage of the reprieve to remake themselves, these individuals will then merit (if successful by cooperating with the action of grace) the inheritance of eternal life.

Mercy is not a “free ticket” to heaven, it is more like a reprieve or opportunity to start again.

To those who choose not to accept mercy and “take their chances” then justice will provide just what is deserved.

I guess if you see yourself as a"good" person, the second option may not seem problematic. That is, if your scale of “good” aligns with God’s. A cautionary note here is that an entrenched view may not “see” things that a bird’s eye view can. Our own perspective is susceptible to myopic flattery.

The first option is for those who know deeply their own broken state and know they must rely on “external” help because their own resources are insufficient. Relying on their own resources is likely what led to their brokenness to begin with because we are essentially contingent; we do not make ourselves, we are made by a power other than ourselves. To become self-reliant is comparable to a branch cutting itself off a tree to go it alone.

It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners. (Mark 2:17)
I suspect Pascal’s Wager has applicability here. The choice is between 1) relying on God’s mercy and grace or 2) relying on our own perceived goodness.

 

[Portofino]

To claim “I don’t know” regarding objective transcendent standards for qualities such as beauty, or truth or moral goodness can be humble and honest, but that also depends on how that statement is qualified. Any of these are possible:

1. I don’t know and I don’t care to know.
2. I don’t know and no one does, so I can think and do as I like; and others as they please.
3. I don’t know but this is a critical question and requires careful consideration.
4. I don’t know but the question is nonsensical.

Going beyond “I don’t know” and claiming such standards do not or cannot exist and the claimant has therefore an implicit right to define them or ignore them is indeed arrogant. The imperative nature of morality makes it necessary that the best possible standards, whether pragmatic, absolute or both, be uncovered or developed should itself be regarded as a responsibility, but never as a “right.” Claiming the right or privilege to redefine standards according to one’s own preferences merely because one does not accept, agree with or accede to existing objective standards is clearly hubris.

Claiming that one has an implicit right to define “what is good” for oneself – or to ignore what others say is good – is something that occurs in a few different contexts.

For example, a religiously zealous Jew may tell a Catholic (though generally doesn’t), “circumcision is a moral obligation that is not just for Jews, but for everybody. For a male child not to be circumcised is a transgression of an objective moral law.” And the Catholic may respond, “I respect your beliefs on this matter. There are many things that I, as a Catholic, consider essential to not transgressing the objective moral law. However, I honestly do not believe that circumcision is a question of morality. It is a valid question of choice, and I believe that each of us should be free to make that choice for our children, or not.”

This is, obviously, what is going on with the question of same-sex marriage. It’s not that those who are in support of same-sex marriage have “no morals.” In my experience, they tend to have strong and even passionate feelings about any of the following – rape and pedophilia; murder; violent theft; cruelty to animals; child abuse. But a religious camp is saying that this decision of whom to love – or whom to sleep with – is a moral decision. And the opposition is saying, “I grant that there are moral issues in our society (rape is immoral, as is violent theft); but you have not shown me how my decision to spend my life with someone of my own gender is immoral. That is my personal preference, and I have a right to it. In fact, it’s your depriving me of my right to it, that is immoral.”

This “I have a right to it” thinking is also one of the foundations of religious liberty, for example. This liberty can be based on the liberty to obey an objective moral law (as you understand it) or it can be the liberty to live according to your preference, if you are not convinced that the behavior in question has a bearing on the objective moral law, one way or another (e.g., “all meats are clean”, as in the apostle Peter’s dream; therefore, it is neither moral nor immoral to eat pork, though many would disagree and wonder whether you have* any* morals, since you are engaging in a behavior that is so obviously transgressive).

Beauty is even tougher, in a way. It is generally easier to convince a philosopher that there are objective moral standards, than it is to convince him that there is an objective aesthetics! You can try to define “beauty” in broad strokes – symmetry, harmony, order and regularity in the midst of richness and variation-- even if you acknowledge that there will always be any number of seemingly infinite minor divergences, in terms of subjective preference. For example, which is more beautiful – a Boticelli or a Michelangelo? How about the white iPhone, versus the black? Or, perhaps, neither of them is beautiful, or they are just about the same on the beauty scale.

There, it becomes a matter of personal preference – yet that preference is neither objectively moral nor immoral; nor, one could argue, is it a matter of objective beauty or objective ugliness.

Human beings do have free will (experientially, at least); we make choices. It’s a tough question to answer, as to when invoking free will and personal autonomy is a matter of hubris, and when it is not (for the Greek, belief in free will was itself a form of hubris, as when Oedipus had the hubris to believe he could escape fate).

 

[PRmerger]

This is, obviously, what is going on with the question of same-sex marriage. It’s not that those who are in support of same-sex marriage have “no morals.” In my experience, they tend to have strong and even passionate feelings about any of the following – rape and pedophilia; murder; violent theft; cruelty to animals; child abuse. But a religious camp is saying that this decision of whom to love – or whom to sleep with – is a moral decision. And the opposition is saying, “I grant that there are moral issues in our society (rape is immoral, as is violent theft); but you have not shown me how my decision to spend my life with someone of my own gender is immoral. That is my personal preference, and I have a right to it. In fact, it’s your depriving me of my right to it, that is immoral.”

Simply apply that paradigm to pedophilia, Portofino.

As in: “I grant that there are moral issues in our society (rape is immoral, as is violent theft); but you have not shown me how my decision to spend my life with -]someone of my own gender/-]**a child **is immoral. That is my personal preference, and I have a right to it. In fact, it’s your depriving me of my right to it, that is immoral.”

How do you respond to that? Is it simply a person’s right to sleep with whomever he wishes?

 

[CrimsonThorn]

This is, obviously, what is going on with the question of same-sex marriage. It’s not that those who are in support of same-sex marriage have “no morals.” In my experience, they tend to have strong and even passionate feelings about any of the following – rape and pedophilia; murder; violent theft; cruelty to animals; child abuse. But a religious camp is saying that this decision of whom to love – or whom to sleep with – is a moral decision. And the opposition is saying, “I grant that there are moral issues in our society (rape is immoral, as is violent theft); but you have not shown me how my decision to spend my life with someone of my own gender is immoral. That is my personal preference, and I have a right to it. In fact, it’s your depriving me of my right to it, that is immoral.”

That’s what I mean when I speak of no such thing as atheistic morality. The morality is not defined and not objective, it is formed around what is convenient for the individual and what their feelings towards a certain topic are, whether they are correct or not. Being a moral chameleon is not being moral.

 

[Portofino]

Simply apply that paradigm to pedophilia, Portofino.

As in: “I grant that there are moral issues in our society (rape is immoral, as is violent theft); but you have not shown me how my decision to spend my life with -]someone of my own gender/-]**a child **is immoral. That is my personal preference, and I have a right to it. In fact, it’s your depriving me of my right to it, that is immoral.”

How do you respond to that? Is it simply a person’s right to sleep with whomever he wishes?

Well, that’s a serious issue, I don’t deny. The response there is obvious – sexual contact between an adult and a child must be assumed to be non-consensual, because it is not clear that a child has the wherewithal to make a conscious, informed decision. The child may not even understand what is taking place, let alone understand and feel coerced into it (there is a definite imbalance of power between an adult and a child). Therefore, pedophilia is tantamount to “child rape” (and generally is interpreted as such, by the victims themselves, when they look back on it as adults).

However, whereas pedophilia is tantamount to rape, same-sex contact between consensual adults is not a question of rape (which is not to say that same-sex rape cannot occur, any less than opposite sex rape can occur).

 

[meltzerboy]

Simply apply that paradigm to pedophilia, Portofino.

As in: “I grant that there are moral issues in our society (rape is immoral, as is violent theft); but you have not shown me how my decision to spend my life with -]someone of my own gender/-]**a child **is immoral. That is my personal preference, and I have a right to it. In fact, it’s your depriving me of my right to it, that is immoral.”

How do you respond to that? Is it simply a person’s right to sleep with whomever he wishes?

PRmerger, surely you can give a better example than that. In the case of gay relationships, whether marriage is involved or not, there is mutual consent, which is not there in the case of an adult-child relationship. Now, if you had said two adult brothers, two adult sisters, a parent and their adult child, or a polygamous adult relationship, then we can have a discussion. But we’ve had (not us in particular) such discussions numerous times before on other CAF threads, and frankly, it’s become tedious by now.

 

[Portofino]

That’s what I mean when I speak of no such thing as atheistic morality. The morality is not defined and not objective, it is formed around what is convenient for the individual and what their feelings towards a certain topic are, whether they are correct or not. Being a moral chameleon is not being moral.

For believers and non-believers alike, the one standard where there is hope of consensus is the simple dictum, “do no harm.” Murder, theft, rape, pedophilia, all fail that test. Emotional cruelty technically fails that test as well, but it is too difficult to prove (both in terms of establishing actual malicious intent, and of establishing actual damage done) for it to be made illegal.

Consensual sexual behavior does not unequivocally fail that test, either (though one could debate it), which is why there are no legal restrictions on it.

So even non-believers tend to agree that there ought to be standards, based on this dictum of “do no harm.” Most, in fact, even take that standard beyond the realm of what is legal and illegal (which is the bare minimum), and apply it to what they believe is moral and immoral (bullying and terrorizing someone, for example, is generally believed to be immoral, even if it is hard to prosecute legally).

I think that, whenever someone has *different *moral standards than ourselves, there is the tendency to view the other as a “moral relativist.” But this is not necessarily true, anymore than the Christian who says that the consumption of pork is a “matter of taste” is a moral relativist.

On the other hand, if you say that the decision whether to rape or not to rape is a “matter of taste,” you will have virtually no one on your side (no one that is not behind bars or is not still wet behind the ears, and still developing, socially). Almost everyone can agree that this is anti-social behavior that fails the “do not harm” standard in an egregious manner; they might even call that opinion “sick” or “twisted.”

But many things in life are a question of preference, as opposed to a question of morality; and the trick is in being able to get people to agree as to what those things are.

It would be much less ambiguous if everything were a question of morality, but – of course – that is not the case (for example, “do you prefer jazz or blues?” is not a moral question). Just so, for some people, the question of “do you prefer men or women?” is not a moral question, either (but how you treat men or women-- whether you lie to them and exploit them, insult or humiliate them, try to kill them – is a moral question).

 

[CrimsonThorn]

For believers and non-believers alike, the one standard where there is hope of consensus is the simple dictum, “do no harm.” Murder, theft, rape, pedophilia, all fail that test. Emotional cruelty technically fails that test as well, but it is too difficult to prove (both in terms of establishing actual malicious intent, and of establishing actual damage done) for it to be made illegal.

I think this is where we are not communicating efficiently. This is not true. Just because something appears to “do no harm” is not what one should base their morality on.

One could very well say that stealing supplies from an abandoned building “does no harm”, but it is still stealing and taking what is not yours, therefore still immoral.

It would be much less ambiguous if everything were a question of morality, but – of course – that is not the case (for example, “do you prefer jazz or blues?” is not a moral question).

Definitely agreed. The decision or preference on whether you like jazz or blues does not constitute grave matter and is totally subjective and therefore not a moral issue whatsoever.

Fornication and sodomy (both homosexual and heterosexual) are moral issues. They constitute grave matter and there are in fact, repercussions to both lifestyles, even if they do not appear on the surface to “do harm” they in fact do in quite a few ways.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

PRmerger, surely you can give a better example than that. In the case of gay relationships, whether marriage is involved or not, there is mutual consent, which is not there in the case of an adult-child relationship. Now, if you had said two adult brothers, two adult sisters, a parent and their adult child, or a polygamous adult relationship, then we can have a discussion. But we’ve had (not us in particular) such discussions numerous times before on other CAF threads, and frankly, it’s become tedious by now.

PR is not mistaken in using that analogy. I understand many people fail to see the correlation and is a rather hard pill to swallow since it jumps to a blatant extreme.

The point is if that people through moral relativism can re-define what it means to be moral, they can also re-define what it means to be a minor. Then there would be no such thing as a child, and therefore the concept of “child-adult” relationship (pedophilia) will no longer be an issue. That is why not having an objective morality is a dangerous mentality to possess, there are no limits.

 

[Cable]

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

Would you like to - or are you pretty much good with that.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s a serious issue, I don’t deny. The response there is obvious – sexual contact between an adult and a child must be assumed to be non-consensual, because it is not clear that a child has the wherewithal to make a conscious, informed decision. The child may not even understand what is taking place, let alone understand and feel coerced into it (there is a definite imbalance of power between an adult and a child). Therefore, pedophilia is tantamount to “child rape” (and generally is interpreted as such, by the victims themselves, when they look back on it as adults).

However, whereas pedophilia is tantamount to rape, same-sex contact between consensual adults is not a question of rape (which is not to say that same-sex rape cannot occur, any less than opposite sex rape can occur).

Ah, so the shibboleth, then, is consent? What makes a sexual liaison moral is consent? Anyone who’s getting naked must give consent to the activity?

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, surely you can give a better example than that.

I don’t see any problem at all in the logic of using that example, meltzerboy.

In the case of gay relationships, whether marriage is involved or not, there is mutual consent, which is not there in the case of an adult-child relationship.

So you, too, view consent as the litmus test for whether a sexual liaison is moral?

 

[Portofino]

I don’t see any problem at all in the logic of using that example, meltzerboy.

So you, too, view consent as the litmus test for whether a sexual liaison is moral?

Ah, so the shibboleth, then, is consent? What makes a sexual liaison moral is consent? Anyone who’s getting naked must give consent to the activity?

Consent is essential, because it establishes what is rape, and what isn’t. Non-consensual intercourse is, by definition, rape.

That’s not to say that consent is the only standard by which such behavior can be judged as “moral” or “immoral”, however (though it is the virtually the only standard by which sexual behavior is deemed legal or illegal). Most would consider sexual conduct that involves lying, cheating, or manipulating others, to be immoral.

Obviously, most Christians also believe that non-procreative sex is immoral (though it does make allowances for the post-menonpausal or the sterile/infertile).

Many do not subscribe to the non-procreative sex = immoral standard, however, as they believe it is neither here nor there as regards the general dictum “do no harm” (which, again, is the only rule-of-thumb I’m aware of where there’s a reasonable possibility for consensus).

If you want a compelling reason for keeping something illegal – or making it illegal – it is necessary to demonstrate the harm that it causes to others (physical or emotional/psychological). Even then, the harm has to be considered grave enough to warrant legal action, and it has to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

My apologies for having taken this thread off topic, however, through the choice of a rather “hot-button” analogy.

 

[PRmerger]

Consent is essential, because it establishes what is rape, and what isn’t. Non-consensual intercourse is, by definition, rape.

That’s not to say that consent is the only standard by which such behavior can be judged as “moral” or “immoral”, however (though it is the virtually the only standard by which sexual behavior is deemed legal or illegal). Most would consider sexual conduct that involves lying, cheating, or manipulating others, to be immoral.

Obviously, most Christians also believe that non-procreative sex is immoral (though it does make allowances for the post-menonpausal or the sterile/infertile).

Many do not subscribe to the non-procreative sex = immoral standard, however, as they believe it is neither here nor there as regards the general dictum “do no harm” (which, again, is the only rule-of-thumb I’m aware of where there’s a reasonable possibility for consensus).

If you want a compelling reason for keeping something illegal – or making it illegal – it is necessary to demonstrate the harm that it causes to others (physical or emotional/psychological). Even then, the harm has to be considered grave enough to warrant legal action, and it has to be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt.

My apologies for having taken this thread off topic, however, through the choice of a rather “hot-button” analogy.

So consent + x = moral.

What is the x?

 

[Bradski]

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

We don’t deny that He exists. At least I don’t. It’s that there is no evidence that has been presented that convinces me that the supernatural exists. So gods are something in which I do not believe. And tat naturally includes the Christian God.

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

Could you tell me if there’s any moral stance you take as a Christian that you wouldn’t take if you didn’t believe in God?

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…

Do you think that Christianity would be so widespread if it didn’t promise an afterlife and other religions did?

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.

So if Jesus came out with a lot of sensible suggestions as to how we are to live our lives, then atheists aren’t allowed to use them? Can you only treat your neighbour well if you’re a Christian? What Jesus taught were universal ideals that most reasonable people would come to themselves. As in fact most people have who are not Christian.

Where would a person develop this deep, sincere empathy for others?

Again you are suggesting that anyone who is not a Christian cannot feel empathetic. Surely you realise that that is simply wrong.

It shows that we are wired for God.

The plural would be more accurate.

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.

Are there some aspects of Christian morality with which you disagree?

Being “moral” out of convenience is hardly being moral, since you don’t have to obey anything you don’t want to.

I’d think that if someone developed a set of morals themselves, those morals would be ones that that person would use as a guide to his or her life. There wouldn’t be much point in developing ones that you weren’t going to use. So you would obey them.
And, for example, my morals would pretty much match yours. The exceptions being specific pronouncements on matters that are specifically Christian and not what we would class as universal.

And the fact that you class yours as God-given and therefore carry greater weight is shown not to be true as most, if not all, Christians act immorally at some point. If you say they shouldn’t and they know they shouldn’t then I will give the same rsponse if an atheist acts immorally.

If your counter is that a Christian knows that there will be punishment awaiting for him if he is immoral, then we’re back to the closed circuit cameras. I think that God would look more kindly on an unbeliever who acted kindly because he felt it was the right thing to do rather than ‘being obedient to God…whether you agree/like/are happy about it or not, just as long as you obey’.

I think this is where we are not communicating efficiently. This is not true. Just because something appears to “do no harm” is not what one should base their morality on…

How would it not be morally correct?

One could very well say that stealing supplies from an abandoned building “does no harm”, but it is still stealing and taking what is not yours, therefore still immoral.

If the goods belong to someone else, then you are doing them harm by taking them.

Fornication and sodomy (both homosexual and heterosexual) are moral issues. They constitute grave matter and there are in fact, repercussions to both lifestyles, even if they do not appear on the surface to “do harm” they in fact do in quite a few ways.

If by fornication you mean sex with someone other than the person to whom you are committed, then yes, it would be immoral. Various sex acts? If they do no harm, then they are not immoral. If they have the potential to do harm, then if precautions are taken, then they are not immoral.

The point is if that people through moral relativism can re-define what it means to be moral, they can also re-define what it means to be a minor. Then there would be no such thing as a child, and therefore the concept of “child-adult” relationship (pedophilia) will no longer be an issue. That is why not having an objective morality is a dangerous mentality to possess, there are no limits.

Has the church ever sanctioned marriage (and hence sex) for girls younger than it does now? And do you agree that having a lower limit of 14 is acceptable? Or would it depend on the situation and therefore be subjective.

 

[PRmerger]

We don’t deny that He exists. At least I don’t. It’s that there is no evidence that has been presented that convinces me that the supernatural exists. So gods are something in which I do not believe. And tat naturally includes the Christian God.

Fair enough.

But what I find curious is the peculiarly large burden of evidence that is required by atheists in this particular area…

when in all other areas of life the bare minimum of evidence is required for you to believe.

For example, you have hardly any evidence (relatively speaking) at all that the pilot to whom you entrust your life is qualified to fly a plane. And yet you don’t doubt that he’s qualified.

Why must such a high level of evidence be evinced for God’s existence?