Is Our Life a Test?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Brethren,

A commonly raised objection to Christian dogma asks why an omniscient and supra-benevolent God would create, for example, the murderer of a child. For verily, an omniscient God could clearly foretell every gruesome detail of the child’s ensuing murder before He/She/It had even created the murderer. So why would a benevolent God go ahead to create and unleash a murderer upon the unsuspecting child?

The usual answer offered by Christian theologians is that God is far more interested in vesting His/Her/Its human creations with “free-will” than in preventing (in this example) the murder of children. The Christian response typically goes on to tell how it is only by breathing “free-will” into us that God determines whether each of us is individually deserving of either eternal salvation or eternal damnation. Earthly life, they insist, amounts to a test administered to each one of us by our Creator.

But if life amounts to a fair-test administered to all mankind, then why doesn’t each of us receive the same test? Consider the case of a sixty year-old man that murders a one year-old boy. Obviously, the man has failed his test, but what about the child? Inexplicably, the little boy was not allowed to take God’s test. He wasn’t given the opportunity to develop and utilize his own free-will. And to those who would argue that the murdered child goes directly to Heaven, I ask, “Why?” If the boy had been allowed to grow up he might have become a murderer himself, in which case he would have gone to Hell. Or, he might have eventually turned into another, Albert Schweitzer, thus pocketing his one-way ticket to everlasting Paradise. But in allowing the sixty year-old murderer to carry out his grisly crime, God is deprived of the opportunity to judge which path the one year-old boy would have chosen had the lad been granted a full, earthly life.

Oh! God does know which path the boy would have taken, because God is omniscient.

Not so fast. A God so benevolent as to bestow his Heavenly reward to a murdered child on the basis that God knew how that child would have acted, had it been granted a full life, is a God that would condemn the sixty year-old murderer to Hades before the child was actually murdered. A God that waives murdered children through the Pearly Gates before they’ve completed their earthly, “free-will,” based admission exam, is a God that has just forfeited His/Her/Its argument that He/She/It has no choice but to allow murderers to kill before He/She/It may pass judgment on them.

A way around this dilemma would be for God not to admit murdered children into Heaven. Well then, what’s to be done with the souls of murdered children? God could simply make them vanish, or perhaps God could pop their souls back into another womb for a “redo.” And yet if he actually took either of those two options then it would turn out that our benevolent God creates children and then allows them to be murdered just so He/She/It may be justified in sending their murderers to Hell. These children, it seems, were not given life in order to show themselves worthy of their own salvation, rather, their short lives amounted to mere “props” in their murderer’s test for salvation. Here, we would rightly conclude that only some of God’s children are allowed to take God’s earthly test, while other of God’s children are created in order that those who were allowed to take the test - and subsequently failed in the worst way - had a warm neck to strangle or a beating heart to stab.

“Father Paneloux: ‘Perhaps we should love what we cannot understand.’ Riex answers: ‘No Father. I have a very different idea of love. And until my dying day I shall refuse to love a scheme of things in which children are put to torture.’” Camus, The Plague

Regards,
Michael

2

A possible solution is that some people are people and some are droids-of-the-lord, who are basically place-holders for moral agents to act around. The droids might be direct extensions of god, so they are not being tested.

But this is really just an unforgivable ad hoc.

3

Thanks a lot for the thread, Polemarchus.

I can't answer your question directly, because I depart from the 'usual Christian answer' that you're interacting with quite a bit. I do subscribe to the notion of God's creation of free will as being a reason for permitted evil in the world, but I don't think that free will is there to create a test for humans in this life.  In addition to the difficulties you cite, it seems to me that if the purpose of free will and strife was to weed out certain kind of people in preparation for the Afterlife, God could have easily just created nothing but the right kind of people, skipped this world altogether, and populated the Afterlife (course, then we'd just call it 'life') with his creation directly. 
 Rather, I think that God created beings with free will because He values free-will as a good in itself. Now, let me be quick to say that it is [i]a[/i] good, and not [i]the[/i] good. God would also like to have the people He's created freely choose acts of worship, compassion, mercy, etc. But apparently, the value of free will is such that a being freely choosing to be wicked is more valuable in God's eyes to a being pre-programmed to be benevolent.  Not only does this have a lot of intuitive appeal to me, but further, if God has free will, that pretty much guarentees that it is a good, and makes it easy to see why He'd want the very best of His creation to have it as well.

Also, if this conversation is happening in the context of Christian teachings, let us not forget the Fall. It is not true that the world is just as God wants it to be, or just as He initially set it up to be.

4

Hi Carleas,

I’ll bite. :wink:

Your suggestion reminds me of the practice of the local “Fish and Game” department, whereby a fake Deer is placed in a meadow along some back road. The agents then hide behind trees until some goober blunders along, pokes his rifle out the window of his pickup truck and puts a bullet through the stuffed Deer. The agents then rush out to arrest said-goober.

But if murdered children were only the Lord’s 'droids, or, as you say, place-holders, then whoever murders them has only killed a place-holder and not an actual human being. In such case the killing of a child does not amount to murder, nor is the killer deserving of God’s punishment for murder. In fact, if children existed only as fake human beings then they couldn’t logically even be counted as place-holders for humans, inasmuch as children would not be human. To use my above analogy, it would be as if the “Fish and Game” agents placed a stuffed Unicorn in the field in order to ensnare Deer poachers. Having been arrested for shooting at a stuffed Unicorn, a suspected poacher could rightfully object to the judge that he wouldn’t think of poaching a Deer - which everyone knows is against the law – moreover, he could point-out there is no law against shooting mythical beasts. Similarly, a supposed child-murderer could point out to his God that he would never think of killing a real (i.e., an adult) human being. And once again, if God protested that being omniscient, He/She/It knew otherwise, the supposed child-murderer could argue that if He/She/It could simply banish us to Hell for what He/She/It knew we would have done, then how could God expect us to buy His/Her/Its argument that He/She/It has no choice but to allow atrocities to go ahead on Earth (war, slaughter, rape-camps, etc.) before He/She/It may judge whether men and women are deserving of everlasting salvation? In other words, if God has the option of sentencing you on account of how He/She/It knew you would have acted, then why must God supposedly allow a murder to actually occur before He/She/It is at liberty to sentence the murderer?

I wish also to raise the larger question concerning God’s supposed test. Imagine that you sat for an examination along with a large number of other persons of your age. Imagine further that this examination alone would determine whether you would be admitted into the University or whether you would spend the rest of your life shovelling shit in Siberia. Now suppose that the examination paper you were handed had to do with the intricacies of quantum physics and yet you noticed that your neighbor’s test consisted entirely of 4rth-Grade arithmetic problems. Would you question whether or not this amounts to a fair test?

Now consider - not imagine, consider - that some of us are born with the proverbial “silver-spoon” in our mouths while others are born and raised in squalor. Some of us live long and charmed lives; never knowing war or debilitating disease, while others are born with physical or mental birth-defects. Some must battle alcohol or drug addictions while others can only wonder what it would be like to be saddled with such an affliction.

If this life truly amounted to an unbiased test given by God in order to assess the “goodness” of each of our individual “free wills,” then each and every human being ought to be born into identical conditions and with identical mental hard-wiring. We often hear it said that, “Life isn’t fair.” I agree that life isn’t fair. And this fact alone delivers a knock-down argument to debunk the myth that our life is but a test administered to us by a benevolent, loving and unbiased God.

Kind Regards,
Michael

5

Polemarchus,

Interesting that you’d plant a Pascal quote as your signature. Pascal, the devout theist.

6

It’s nice to hear from you, Mucius Scevola,

Issac Newton believed in “black magic.” I characterize such things as superstition. If I were to praise the genius of Newton’s co-invention of The Calculus, or, perhaps, his numerical method for approximating solutions to differential equations, would you likewise find that “interesting”?

Heidegger was a Nazi. I despise Fascism. Would you find it interesting if I quoted Heidegger’s metaphysics?

Blaise Pascal was a polymath: mathematician, inventor, physicist, theologian, man of letters and political satirist. He spent his healthy years living the life of a wealthy playboy. Along with rapidly failing health he converted to Jansenism, a religious sect denounced by the Catholic Church as heresy. Pascal wrote movingly about love, compassion and the human condition. Voltaire thought as much and I do as well.

If I should ever take it upon myself to quote only those persons whose totality of thoughts and beliefs are in absolute accord with my own, that day would mark the end of my quoting.

Kind Regards,
Michael

7

Hi Michael.

Been up on the hill to check the transmitter lately? :smiley:

Like all metaphysical questions, at some point one simply has to accept not knowing. For all the “way it is” of religion, all fall back on “god’s will” as their final defense for pretending to know what they cannot know. The issue of free will will never be successfully settled. From my perspective, it is rather irrelevent. We do make choices; some good, and others not so good. In a universe of sponteneity and novelty there is nothing but choices, but there is nothing pre-determined. It is our interaction with the world, both good and bad, that makes it and us what we are. All things come into being and return to the flow within their own time. Fifteen seconds, fifteen years, one hundred fifty years… it is that part of not knowing and knowing we cannot know. Our explanations all fall short of the reality of an indifferent universe.

8

Yes, life is a test. The winner is whoever can bounce the most times. I recomend 30 or so stories over concrete.
Good Luck :slight_smile:

9

No, not a test. We would all pass. Just an experience.

10

It’s nice to again hear from Uccisore, Tentative and Dr. S. Also, hello to you, Avocet. Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

Uccisore wrote

Indeed, that is a restatment of what amounts to the default Christian theological defense to the question of why a benevolent God would allow innocents to suffer. In addition to my above argument against this very belief, it has been pointed out by others that long-standing Christian dogma purports there is no suffering in Heaven, and yet “free will” supposedly exists there. This indicates that it is entirely possible for “free will” to coexist in a realm of God without suffering. If he can do it there, then why not here? And it’s precisely at this point in the argument that we’re usually treated to the theologian’s tale of how our present world only amounts to a test for the hereafter.

A two-word objection: Euthyphro Dilemma. Would you kindly parse the argument before you respond, Uccisore? Thanks!

Tentative, I appreciate your more general comments concerning “free will.” But if you’ll pardon me this time, I’d rather reserve that discussion for the “Philosophy” forum. It’s not very often (twice, I think) that I come to the “Religion” forum. My reason for intruding on this occasion rests in my hope that someone might provide me with a proper refutation of my above objection. (And yes, as a matter of fact I’m on the mountain today.)

I wish all of you a healthy and happy New Year.

Pax Vobiscum,
Michael

11

Polemarchus

Ooh, nice one!  According to Christian doctrine, man's current nature isn't all it could have been, we're fallen because of the introduction of trickery by the serpent, and an evil choice on our parts.  If I follow Revelation correctly, one of the things that happens before the judgement that sends us to Heaven (or else not) is the utter defeat of Satan. So he won't be a factor in Heaven.  Another thing that won't be a factor is our bodies- so much of sin comes from corruptions of needs of the flesh, without these temptations, going without sin will be much easier to conceive of.  Third, from what I understand, in Heaven we'll be in the 'presense of God' all the time, in a way in which we aren't now.  I don't pretend to know what that means, other than it would be odd to want to sin, having direct and constant knowledge of God's existence and concern. Also, we have the example of Jesus, who was free and yet didn't sin.  
All in all, in Heaven, we will have the physical natures (or lack of a physical nature, is it?) the information, and the environment such that choosing to sin would be very much like choosing to spit oneself on a pitchfork, or slap one's own grandmother in the face for kicks. Because of the nature of free-will as I see it, I can't say sin is impossible in Heaven, but I can see why nobody would choose to do it in that environment. A couple things worth noting:
 First, not everybody is going to make it into Heaven. I don't mean to say that this life is a test, because I think this life is 'for' quite a bit more than that, and human circumstances can't be justified in terms of a test. Nevertheless, it is a fact that God isn't letting everybody into Heaven. This may be related to some people being likely to sin in the above circumstances, and others not. 
  Second, as to why doesn't do all of this now. In a sense, He did- life was Heaven before the Fall. As to why he doesn't re-work Creation to the Heavenly plan right now, all I can say is, if He made this universe for his pleasure, He must still be loathe to throw it all on the scrapheap just yet.  I think God takes an interest not only in the natural world, but in human events and societies.

Yeah, I have a few minutes before lunch, I suppose I could solve that dilemma too as long as I’m here. :slight_smile: I think morals are subjective in the universal sense- they do not exist in a physical sense, but are rather contextual. It is an objective fact that Orthodox Jews are not allowed to eat pork, for instance, but the immorality of eating pork is not to be found by a geologist. Similarly, I think that because there is a God that created us with a goal in mind (which puts us all, like it or not, into a certain ‘club’), there can be objective statements about what is right or wrong for humans, without them being obejective in the sense of being empirical.
So then, I do believe that things are right or wrong because God chooses them to be so, but I believe that because of the nature of the relationship between man and God, this results in very near objectivity of morality for humans. When we say “God is good”, we are not saying ‘God follows all the rules’, we are saying either ‘God exhibits the virtues that He requires of man’ OR, ‘It is lucky and work celebrating that the things God wants out of us, and out of the Universe, lead the the happiness and flourishing of the human race’.
So anyways, when I say that God possessing free will is a sign that free will is a good, I mean to say that God posessing free will is a sign that free will is something He praises very highly, and would appreciate in His Creation. I also mean to say that I find free will to be good, but that is less relevant.
[/b]

12

Hello, polemarchus

Well yes, if you used a Heidegger quote that contained fascist traces within it, I would be appropriately intrigued. Likewise for Newton’s esoteric beliefs. One uses signature quotes as somewhat of a label for one’s own thoughts, is it not ?, so I would suspect both have to be fine-tuned.

That is not to say that my post was intended as a reproach, far from it. I just wanted to draw attention upon a certain framework that characterises theo-centered speculation. Admittedly, I’m not sure what the quote actually means, but I do have an idea of what Pascal was thinking of. You are probably well-aware that his Pensees were written in a period of intense spiritual turmoil, marked by skepticism regarding human achievements correlated with a strong religious conversion.

Being a fideist, Pascal holds that human knowledge cannot attain significant certainty, or at least is incapable of scrutinizing the intricacies of divine action. Jansenism looks upon the effects of the fall upon human beings through dark Augustinian lenses, but this is only to say that man is even more dependent of the grace of God in his pursuit of happiness. This man-God connection, on a vertical axis, is intimate in a mystical way that eludes rational demarches. This is probably why for Pascal “n’admettre que le raison” seems an excess. It leads to an unmerited pretense of knowing “unknowable” facets of things. In a religious context, people usually get bashed when asking too much of God (see Job), so the moral is to better stay put. It is also common sense from a philosophical perspective that ‘God knows best’

Anyway, this is probably what the common Christian figure would have to say regarding your paradox, Polemarchus. in a short catch-phrase, that would likely be similar to your signature.

I don’t really go for this myself, and indeed it is a cumbersome issue. I’ve been musing for some time now trying to figure out the problem of God intervening in a physical/social universe like ours. It would be interesting to hear what modern theologians have to say about this, like Karl Barth or Karl Rahner. I’ve checked out Calvin, but he’s a bore.

Always nice to hear from you too, Polemarchus.
Have a wonderful new year.

13

Mucious Scevola,

I’ll have to made this quick…

I’m led to understand that Pensées was published posthumously from material edited from Pascal’s notebooks and from the notes that he had the habit of scribbling on bits of paper. Some of the notes were intended to be incorporated into his planned, Apology for the Christian Religion, and yet there is also mention of his earlier work in hydrostatics (#2), for example. In any case, one can’t be certain of the chronology of the contents. Take, for example, passage #10

“People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.”

Do you read religious overtones into this - an observation that I suspect many of us have independently made? Other statements were concise and gnomic, such as #253, which I have chosen as my signature.

“There are two excesses: to exclude reason, to admit reason only.”

An aphorism, not unlike a work of art, is never explicit; rather, it suggests. Take from it what you will.

Right, so I’m off to the First Night celebration!

Buon anno (as my Italian wife would say),
Michael

14

Ucisor,

I usualy dont debate with you, But…I will corect you in this.

Jesus did sin, Many times actualy.

He struck out in anger at the traders who were useing the temple for a Bazzar is one example, Remember also that he clasified Thought of somthing as Sin not just the action.

Man is made imperfect Jesus was a man, and remmeber also that 20 some odd years of his life story is missing.

You have no Idea Jesus was perfect as you did not Know him…Personaly. you have a book which is comprised of about 2-10 parchements and scrolls of Actualy History on jesus(And those, fragments and incomplete), the rest was written and recorded by men who Either had never met the man, or wernt even alive when he was.

To the other Theist’s:
Again, Belief or want of and need of truth Blinds you Humans. If you could just step back and look at whatever you believe…Whatever that is… You might find it just as obsurd as you believe someone elses to be…And very similar at that…

15

Polemarchus:

For you my answer is this:

The pupose of the Universe, The Physical one anyway is a test, Of sort’s. BUT, It is not a test of you Goodliness or worthyness to be admited to this place called heaven.

It is a test of Knowledge and Purpose, The Purpose of existing is to learn weather Physical or metaphysical. The physical provides a Chaotic realm where anything and anychoice is possible. Variations in life teach diferent lessons.

The rich man may never learn Humility as the Poor man does, The Poor man may never know security and safety as the rich man does. But these are not the real lessons to be taught, the real lesson’s are How one think’s, Changes, Developes Spiritualy because of the event’s and Tortures or suffering given to you dureing your life or Life’s. All Suffer weather rich, depraved, poor, menatly ill, sane (What is sane?) Sufereing can be mental, physical, spiritual, They all teach somthing and ONly HERE in the PHYSICAL can you experiance them all.

What better place to learn about the Universe and your own spirituality or metiphysical self then in a place where everything exist’s and all can be experianced?

That is the Purpose of what you Human’s call, life…

16

The Watcher:

The discussion was about potential contradictions in Christian teachings. To that end, I don’t have to justify the historical reliability of the New Testament to refer to the Christian doctrine that Christ was sinless. That the Church asserts He was is enough for my purposes.

17

Ah then I apologize, I admit I did not read every post, perhaps I should have.

But from what I read and the Original question, I believe it does apply since the teaching’s come from the very Book I was writeing about. And the fact that most of what I mentioned is in a great deal, Haveing to do with what’s taught, specificaly to younger children who arnt even old enough or developed enough to understand anything being said to them beyond:

Teacher: Jesus was the son of God, and being so was perfect and never sinned. He gave his life so you dont have to die and burn in hell, But you only get to go to heaven if you read the bible and follow God’s/Jesus’s teaching’s and Believe that he died for your sin’s.

(This by the way is the core teaching for childrens sundy school.)

Child (Thought’s):
Wow, I want to be perfect too. I’m glad Im going to heaven so I never have to experiance pain like that. God is wonderful for this gift. I need to do everything I can to be like him and be perfect to so he’ll like me and let me go to heaven.

How does this erred thinking from the teacher quoteing not only false verse’s and incorectly translated verses based on oppinions not have to do with Christion teaching’s?

It’s called Brainwashing. Children believe anything there told. If you told a 3-8 year old they could fly if they jumped off a building, I mean really taught that like they teach the bible in Sunday School, Children would kill themselves constantly trying to fly.

Oh, and on a side note Ucisor, YOU CANT, Justify the historical acuracy of said verse because history justifies just the opposite. That it in fact is NOT true.

So no you dont have to…Because you can’t.

However I am glad that the book is enough for you to believe and be happy with.

That after all is all that really matter’s, what’s truth but a lie from someone else anyway?

18

The Watcher.

If this is true, then all education of children is brainwashing, and thus I have no reason to be concerned when you apply the term to religious education in particular. The stuff you’re saying still doesn’t have anything to do with the subject of this thread, I’d be more than happy to discuss whatever your point is in some other thread if you wish.

19

There’s one thing I’ve never understood about monotheistic religions; they say (well, some of them do, so please, when I’m saying this, I’m referring to those who do) that they believe that their God is all-knowing. I ask them whether or not he can see the future and the past. They say he can. However, this seems like it doesn’t allow any room for free-will. He knows everything that people will do in their lives before their born. So, since he has created them knowing where they are going (heaven/hell), how is it that he can sentence them to heaven/hell, when they had no choice in whether or not they did it? It doesn’t make sense to me, and if I believed in God, then I would want him to be the nice one who didn’t sentence people to eternal hellfire for something that they can’t even be held responsible for doing.

20

No, It’s not.

“Most” of the thing’s taught to children are suported by what is considered to be fact at that given time, what can be proved IS true to the Modern Human’s Understanding.

Religious topic’s however can not be Proved…(For the most part). And are Usualy based on Historical inacuracies, and Bolsome claim’s and misinterpretation’s of Book’s written by man claiming to be the word of a supreme being.

Teaching a child to believe in “Faith” based Subject’s which are suported by little to no evidence is “Brainwashing”, Hence why I used my example of a child killing himself. Because only belief in somthing that had proof to the oposite (Same as most theistic belief’s) would cause a child to do that.

Physic’s…(For now) State’s you can’t jump off a building without a mechanicle device and live…(Usualy, there are some exception’s).

So teaching a child to have faith that he could, is the same as teaching a child the Falsity of Christianity or another such belief.

(Ie, You’ll go to heaven if you believe in Jesus because he died on the Cross for you sin’s so you wuldn’t have to burn for eternity in hell) Can you prove this? NO. Can I prove it’s not true? Yes. and I have on numorus Occasion’s.

But then in an Infinite Universe what you believe is what you get weather proveable true or historicaly acurate or not, it’s the mind that spin’s your reality as you see fit, So…On that note… Whatever.