But this life is a test...for atheists

[_Finn the human]

Janice Kapp Perry has a lovely song that I hope you’ve all heard called “The Test.” In it she takes a swing at the problem of evil by saying that sure Jesus could heal blind people easy peasy but He doesn’t because we’re all actually being graded by God on how well we live by faith and endure our trials. This life is a test. That’s a pretty nice idea until you dig an inch deep and think about Jesus not stopping the abuse, murder, and torture of children...but I digress.

One thing I do wonder is if Sister Perry considered the disadvantage that religious people are at by having their morality biased by threats of eternal damnation and eternal reward. In the comic Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin asks Hobbes if Santa expects him to just act good or to actually be good. Hobbes suggests that the correct answer is that Santa would prefer that we actually are good. That we do the right things for the right reasons.

The God that I don’t believe in is actually is administering a test to all of us. A test to select and cull for atheists. Only atheists aren’t encumbered by the carrot and stick problem that biases all people of religion. I can only assume that God has already failed all religious people in this test known as life.

Consider that a mama turtle will go to all the trouble of laying eggs and only one in a thousand will survive the gauntlet of obstacles and predators such as raccoons. Similarly, God allows the vast majority of his children to fall prey to figurative raccoons (religion), all to get that one atheist who can actually properly take the test.

My point is that the most important thing in life is to evangelize for atheism. That way more of our brothers and sisters can actually take The Test. Also, we should do the right things for the right reasons as Hobbes advised.

[_I have a question]

Also, we should do the right things for the right reasons as Hobbes advised.

This. If I was the type to court controversy I’d suggest a good deed by an atheist, who expects no reward in heaven, is a more selfless act than one done by a Mormon who expects a return on that deed for themselves.

[_Meadowchik]

Also, we should do the right things for the right reasons as Hobbes advised.

This. If I was the type to court controversy I’d suggest a good deed by an atheist, who expects no reward in heaven, is a more selfless act than one done by a Mormon who expects a return on that deed for themselves.

Well, yes, very likely so. A Mormon who "knows beyond a shadow of a doubt" they'll live again, who gives their life for another, believes they are just giving a finite time out of an infinite life. An atheist who lives with uncertainty about death who gives their life is giving all that they believe they have.

Of course, not all Mormons make belief statements like that. Many that I know of consider the gospel more in terms of Pascal's wager, as something that is high benefit and less risk. And many also conduct apologetics in terms of what might be possible, holding onto the "so you're saying there's still a chance" even when the chances for what they believe are infinitesimally small. And it's possible that such a level of reckless abandon is inspiring for some. There are those who feel ennobled and edified by this "faith" in something so preposterous and audacious.

I think I hovered within this paradigm before the trauma that led to my faith transition. I was willing to take risks to be Christlike and that determination felt good. But then I learned that such recklessness can hurt the ones I'm obligated to protect and benefit others who seek to carelessly exploit me. Then, the idea of giving my life for scoundrels, abandoning those who depend upon me in the process, no longer felt Christlike and was not edifying. And then I started to be more aware of those individuals and systems who expected that of me.

As an agnostic atheist, I choose to find comfort in the belief that, if there is a God, then God is not arbitrary and unjust and uncaring. I still want to be close to the values of truth and caring. So if a God worthy of worship exists, I still believe I will find them.

[_Physics Guy]

Anyone who does not believe in effective reward or punishment has the same noble freedom from carrot-and-stick motivation as an atheist. So for example universalist theists, who believe that everyone will be saved in the end, are being good for goodness's sake just like atheists. So are Calvinists, who believe that God has already chosen who will be saved and that we are completely powerless to affect our own eternal destiny by our actions in life.

So atheism is unnecessary for disinterested goodness. It is also insufficient. Atheists can be moral, indeed, but not all atheists must be. Some atheists really do conclude that because there is no God then they may as well act selfishly.

If your goal is to foster disinterested goodness then preaching atheism is an inefficient way to do that because the two goals only overlap partially.

[_I have a question]

As an agnostic atheist, I choose to find comfort in the belief that, if there is a God, then God is not arbitrary and unjust and uncaring.

I don’t think this is what you’re saying...but...I don’t think it follows logically that if there is a God then that God mustn’t be arbitrary and unjust and uncaring. There could be a God who is arbitrary and unjust and uncaring. In fact, the allowed continuance of child abuse by one with the power to stop it, is strong evidence in my eyes that if there is a God then He is indeed arbitrary, unjust and uncaring.

[_Meadowchik]

As an agnostic atheist, I choose to find comfort in the belief that, if there is a God, then God is not arbitrary and unjust and uncaring.

I don’t think this is what you’re saying...but...I don’t think it follows logically that if there is a God then that God mustn’t be arbitrary and unjust and uncaring. There could be a God who is arbitrary and unjust and uncaring. In fact, the allowed continuance of child abuse by one with the power to stop it, is strong evidence in my eyes that if there is a God then He is indeed arbitrary, unjust and uncaring.

Right, the condition was at the end:

"So if a God worthy of worship exists,..."

[_Gadianton]

Anyone who does not believe in effective reward or punishment has the same noble freedom from carrot-and-stick motivation as an atheist. So for example universalist theists, who believe that everyone will be saved in the end, are being good for goodness's sake just like atheists. So are Calvinists, who believe that God has already chosen who will be saved and that we are completely powerless to affect our own eternal destiny by our actions in life.

So atheism is unnecessary for disinterested goodness. It is also insufficient. Atheists can be moral, indeed, but not all atheists must be. Some atheists really do conclude that because there is no God then they may as well act selfishly.

If your goal is to foster disinterested goodness then preaching atheism is an inefficient way to do that because the two goals only overlap partially.

A good answer and I somewhat agree as the point was stated. I think the more minimal objection would be along the lines of a post made over at SeN a while back, and my memory is horrible so I'm not getting this exactly right I'm sure, but there was an Islamic story where a woman wasn't interfered with by an angel because it was desired to see what she would do when not aware of being watched. Knowing you're being tested always influences the test, and so masking the test in certain ways are important for neutrality -- think of the book Ender's Game. I don't think there's a way around it: a good test needs to be downright conspiratorial, and so when Mormons talk about life as a test, it's silly, as either it's not really a test because you know too much about the test for it to be objective, or it's conspiratorial, you don't know what the objective really is and so the powers-that-be are f'ing with you.

But to my knowledge, Mormons are unique in believing life is a test. The question of what it means to be good is related but not the same thing. No Christian I spoke with on my mission had any framework of life as test-like; there was this fall from grace thing, and then we've got to get back. Calvinists might debate whether life is fatalistic, but that's secondary to the brute fact that the Bible says man sinned and God picked a certain few to save for reasons that may seem arbitrary, but tough if you feel that way. They usually do sneak goodness in through the back door, it isn't a test though; those who are saved will be good because God will change the persons character. And so if a person isn't good, s/he might not really be saved.

[_Physics Guy]

I think there's a wide range of Christian ideas about what exactly God wants from us, but the Mormon idea of a test that we could in principle pass is rejected by all the other Christian viewpoints I know, at least in theory. I think that often a test comes in through the back door, just with the test being whether or not one believes the right things rather than whether one does the right things. As I've said, that makes even less sense to me than the Mormon kind of test.

On the other hand God might be really keen on disinterested virtue but still use carrots and sticks, as training measures. I want my children to grow up to be honest even when nobody's looking but I was willing to use bribes and punishments when they were too young to appreciate any less selfish motivations. Maybe God's like that, too, and we all get twenty years in purgatory until we learn better.

[_Meadowchik]

I think there's a wide range of Christian ideas about what exactly God wants from us, but the Mormon idea of a test that we could in principle pass is rejected by all the other Christian viewpoints I know, at least in theory. I think that often a test comes in through the back door, just with the test being whether or not one believes the right things rather than whether one does the right things. As I've said, that makes even less sense to me than the Mormon kind of test.

On the other hand God might be really keen on disinterested virtue but still use carrots and sticks, as training measures. I want my children to grow up to be honest even when nobody's looking but I was willing to use bribes and punishments when they were too young to appreciate any less selfish motivations. Maybe God's like that, too, and we all get twenty years in purgatory until we learn better.

Combined with life being a test, is the purpose of getting a body. Thus the grand purpose of life is to get a body and then be tested. The test is, for all practical purposes, even secondary from the temporary point of view, since we have the Spirit World and Millenium to complete unfinished tests. This purpose of getting a body becomes the responsibility of married couples: we are to give spirits bodies. That, above all, is foremost in importance. In fact, the testing can be considered secondary after this, especially when there are unwanted outcomes (like early deaths or wayward children.) But with both, focus is taken from living a quality life and more toward creating life and passing the test, which also means putting high expectations on our children to pass, too.

[_Physics Guy]

I don't think I understand the Mormon concept of "spirit bodies" versus bodies of flesh and bone. I'm not convinced it even makes sense.

But I'm open to suggestions that matter is somehow important to God. There's a lot of empty space in the universe, but after that there are a lot of atoms. I figure there must be something good about them. Though maybe it's just that God appreciates them for their own sake more than I do.