Could it be only nontheists will make it into heaven? (See below)?

Question

If you're willing, please have a look at the following essay, and offer your opinion on the argument the author makes...

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

Serious posters only, please -- I'd like a serious dialogue about the SUBSTANCE of the argument, not a flame war or "ad hominem" attacks of one side or the other....

For those who wanted a quick summary:

Assume god wants to populate heaven with people who are genuinely good, instead of people just behaving well in order to earn a reward (heaven) or avoid punishment (hell). Assume further that he's looking for people who will value compassion and morality higher than faith or loyalty, since the blindly loyal won't ever stop to question potentially evil behavior. Since God can't automatically know what you're going to do (due to free will), he has to come up with a reliable test. So he sets up the conditions of the universe (his apparent absence, contradictions in the bible, the existence of evil) so that all signs point to either no god or an evil god, to see what people will do. Genuinely good and moral people will tend to become nontheists, recognizing that morality and compassion are more important than doing whatever the biggest bully on the block says; and thus prove their genuine goodness and worthiness.

Answer 1

Atheism does require the development of an inner majesty...so, it's plausible.

It would be a quite ironic case of poetic justice.

Answer 2

No. While I like the argument, and indeed agree with several points, especially in argument 4, the problem occurs with the writer's base presumption:
"Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth..."

k. but you are assuming a God-related heaven, and that means He sets the rules for what is morality. If one does not base their morality in God's law, that is a strike against them.
Basically, the argument is built well, but on the wrong foundation for the opening argument.

There were other refutable remarks, but this one really makes them mute.

Thanks though, enjoyed the read.

Answer 3

"It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven...."
There are none that are morally good by God's standard, which is absolute perfection. We cannot obtain this on our own, it is something that God has to restore in us.

"Both groups have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about god (for example) are probably correct...."
There is no way to test or confirm whether God exists. He is supernatural (with the "super" here meaning "above". He can penetrate into the physical realm, because it is lower than His existence, but we, being physical (in part) creatures, cannot penetrate into the spiritual realm unless His allows it.

"It is a common belief that certain mysteries, like unexplained evils in the world and god's silence...."
I don't think there is any evil that is unexplained. The world was created good, and it was man's sin that brought evil into it.

"For example, in the bible Abraham discards humanity and morality upon God's command to kill his son Isaac, and God rewards him for placing loyalty above morality."
I think the author is reading the story from a 21st century perspective that was unavailable to Abraham. Most likely, Abraham was surrounded by cultures in which child sacrifice was the norm and then he hears a voice (from what would seem to be the same source that miraculously gave him the child in the first place) apparently telling him that that's what is expected of him as well. Furthermore, he did not have access to a great deal of moral philosophy, thus such a voice would seem to be his only guidance.

"God deliberately inflicts unconscionable wrongs upon Job and his family merely to win a debate with Satan."
I disagree with calling them "unconscionable", or "wrongs", for that matter. Because of the presence of sin in the world, we are all destined to die ("the wages of sin is death"). If God chooses to take some sooner than what we believe they should be taken, how can we assume that He had no reason to do so (I will return to a similar thought below)? Additionally, did not Job owe all that he had to what God had given him? And what God gives, does He not have the right to take back?

"And then God justifies these wrongs to Job by claiming to be able to do whatever he wants, in effect saying that he is beyond morality."
Rather, I think His argument is that He is beyond OUR KNOWLEDGE of morality; that is, He may have good reasons for doing what He does that we cannot understand. Our vision is limited, whereas His is not. Unless one can positively know that there is no possible moral justification for what He does, then the logical reaction is suspension of judgment instead of a guilty verdict.

"Then there are all the natural evils in the world (like diseases and earthquakes) and all the unchecked human evils (i.e. god makes no attempt to catch criminals or stop heinous crimes, etc.)."
All of which are the effects (indirectly in the case of "natural evils") of our misuse of free will.

"In other words, to accept such evils without being given a justification (as is entailed by god's silence)...."
Question begging, as theists don't believe He has been silent.

"But to have the courage to maintain unbelief in the face of threats of hell or destruction...."
I don't view hell as a threat, but as the logical consequence of unbelief. If the unbeliever really wants to be separate from God, then that's what God allows. It is a punishment, but a self-inflicted one at that.
Likewise, I don't think that heaven is a reward, but rather a gift. There is nothing we can do to "earn" it. Hence, the Christian doesn't do good works to get to heaven, but as a demonstration that he is grateful for what God has already done for him.

The biggest problem that I have with the argument is that God seems to set up this bizzarre test... and then doesn't give us any guidance on how to pass it (at least that's what would seem to be a logical conclusion).

Answer 4

Ok,
On Pascals wager.
That is a Childs arguement, not supported By Christianity, they are weak individuals who endeavor into that arguement.

On Arguement 1 It Started out with this quote: "It is a common belief that only the morally good should populate heaven, and this is a reasonable belief, " Unquote.

This is a farce. Jesus said He was the only way. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me," (John 14:6). Being morally good has nothing to do with God accepting them into heaven.

The Bible clearly states: "Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:


Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

In arguement # 2 It say's "Argument 2: Why This World?

It is a common belief that certain mysteries, like unexplained evils in the world and god's silence, are to be explained as a test

Incorrect. Evils are in the world ? are explained not as a test , but because of Adams rebellion and disobediance against God It is written " Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
And also, God is not silent, He has spoken
The rest of what was said by Richard Carrier has no merit or validity because of this.

Arguement 3 "No God or Evil God?!

Mr. Carrier with no real Knowledge of the Bible attempts to explain God's Reasons why He commanded Abraham to take his Son Issac to sacrifice Him.
God knew what Abraham would do as He can see into the Future, so this was not a test either as God already knew what Abraham would do, God did this to teach Abraham about self Sacrifice Since Abraham had the promise of God (Genesis 21:12) that his descendants would come through Isaac, and since Isaac had no children when God asked for the sacrifice, Abraham knew that, if necessary, God would raise Isaac from the dead.

Like Christ, Isaac was a willing sacrifice, for he was about thirty years old and could easily have overpowered his aged father.

And as for Job, Same Thing, God used these events to teach and temper and shape Job into a stronger person, He knew Job could withstand the test. and as for Satan? Satan was meerly a tool God used to teach Job, as God knew that Job was the right man for the task and that he would pass it. All was done to teach him, as For Satan? He is really Irrelevant.

And for and respond to this quote" for all the genocidal slaughter and barbaric laws commanded by God in the bible. Then there are all the natural evils in the world (like diseases and earthquakes) !!!???

Evil exist in the world as a result of sin in the world, God allows it because we allow it.
And for the barbaric laws? Geneocide?! God commanded the Destruction of the Cannanites by the Isrealites because these people had completely rejected God in everyway, God was patient with them for a long time, because long before God commanded this back when God promised the land that the Cannanites occupied, God informed Abraham that the iniquity of the cannanites was not yet complete, these people were a totatly debased society engaging in Human Child sacrifices amoung many of the evils they committed.

On Arguement 4 ? This has already been addressed, as he said about morally good people , being morally Good does nothing to get you into heaven

The rest of Arguement # 4 is not even worth reading (yes, I have read it) and it is plainly evident that he has no real knowledge of the Bible or God.

It is written: Col 2:8 Don't let anyone lead you astray with empty philosophy and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the evil powers of this world,[fn1] and not from Christ.

And that Mr. Carrier does not have the ability to understand.
As it is written:

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Answer 5

Do you mind posting a quick summary? Some of us might get into trouble if "infidels.org" shows up in our browser history. (I rather like the website, but I can't open it up here.)

If the argument is what I assume it is, it's a counter to Pascal's Wager wherein the gods punish the people who believe in them for being irrational and, well, mercenary. ("I'll believe in God because it'll profit me and get me into heaven!")

It's one of many reasons Pascal's Sucker Bet is a lousy argument.

Answer 6

There must be a reason why God said "I would rather that you were hot or cold, because you are luke warm, I will spew you out of My mouth." You may have just posted the reason.

Answer 7

It is going to happen the way planned it. God's offer is the same for everyone.