0

I have seen people resort to arguments such as "if there is no afterlife, why be good (or religious)?". Counterarguments to living in sin during this life include final judgment and the infinite duration of eternity (which also form the basis of Pascal's Wager), which I find compelling, but are there more reasons to be good than these?

What Christian denominations advance an argument that is persuasive in favor of doing good in this life even if one thinks there is no afterlife, and what are those arguments?

pygosceles
  • 2,009
  • 6
  • 15
  • This is a deep question! If there is no afterlife, then you should be yourself (whoever yourself might be). But as it turns out, being yourself is a foolproof way of becoming perfect. – Fomalhaut Jan 29 '24 at 20:14
  • Is there a Christian denomination that does not believe in any kind of afterlife, even for the faithful? This question seems aimed at Christian Atheism. – Mike Borden Jan 30 '24 at 12:32
  • 2
    @MikeBorden "Christian Atheism" being a contradiction in terms! – Anne Jan 30 '24 at 13:21
  • @MikeBorden The question is not aimed at Christian Atheism (if such a thing even nominally exists), but rather at evangelism with the intent of repentance and conversion, especially for those who do not already understand and accept basic teachings about God and eternity. I have updated the question to include the evangelism tag. – pygosceles Jan 30 '24 at 15:37
  • 1
    The question, if I'm reading it right, is seeking after Christian arguments for doing good in the absence of belief in an afterlife. Who are these Christians with no belief in the afterlife? – Mike Borden Jan 30 '24 at 19:52
  • @Anne I don't disagree but they are out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism – Mike Borden Jan 30 '24 at 20:02
  • 1
    @MikeBorden Indeed, that's what some call themselves, to their own satisfaction. But when I see a purple plum, I don't call it a yellow plum. Smiles. – Anne Jan 31 '24 at 10:17
  • @MikeBorden Claiming that Christian arguments are only valid for already-believing Christians is presupposing the role and efficacy of evangelism to be null, which I cannot believe is substantiated either by reason or by the Scriptures. It assents to the atheistic idea that we only believe what we are bred and reared to believe rather than embracing belief because of intelligent inquiry and independent enlightenment. – pygosceles Jan 31 '24 at 16:40
  • Are you looking for Christian arguments to convince atheists (for example) to adhere to Christian notions of goodness all the while maintaining their atheism? Are you looking for a Christian argument that says, "It's fine if you have no belief in an afterlife or in a final judgement, just be as good as you can be."? This apologetic leaves the frog in the pot. – Mike Borden Feb 01 '24 at 13:37
  • @MikeBorden No, not while maintaining their atheism forever, although if a person is still determined to be atheistic or agnostic, it will be better for him in final judgment and even more tolerable for him in this life if he repents of his greater sins and chooses to live a better life even if he misprioritizes and places love of fellow man above love of God. There are many commandments that depend on love of fellow man that many people do not currently have the blessing and advantage of keeping. The blessings of God to His children are not all-or-nothing. God delights to bless. – pygosceles Feb 01 '24 at 16:06
  • @MikeBorden A person who keeps at least some of the commandments of God is better off than someone who keeps none, and is better prepared to see with spiritual eyes, and is more likely to pursue a further upgrade to his discipleship in the future, than one who has doubled down on complete darkness. – pygosceles Feb 01 '24 at 16:07
  • There is a man recounted in Scripture who, to his recollection, had kept the whole law and Jesus told him that he was not far from the kingdom. If you keep the whole law and yet stumble at one point you are guilty of all. The law shows where we may not go but also the bullseye. Straining for the bullseye by law keeping indicates that one has not yet seen the impossibility of hitting the bullseye. Keeping some of the commandments is not salvatory. An apologetic which instructs someone who disbelieves in afterlife and judgment to keep trying to fulfill the law is a dead end. – Mike Borden Feb 02 '24 at 00:31
  • @MikeBorden "If you keep the whole law and yet stumble at one point you are guilty of all" That does not mean what you think it means. If he was not far, that means he could have been far if he had acted differently. All-or-nothing salvation is clearly unscriptural. If what you are saying were true, there should be no missionary efforts at all, and no one should even try to keep any commandments. But that's clearly not the case. – pygosceles Feb 02 '24 at 01:09
  • Perhaps it does not mean what you think it means. Being not far does not mean being in. Nicodemus was under the Law and the teacher of the Law and could not even see, let alone enter without a new birth. The Law is the ministry of condemnation and the ministry of death: No justification lies therein. "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.". – Mike Borden Feb 05 '24 at 13:46
  • All-or-nothing salvation is clearly unscriptural? Jesus disagrees. John 5:24. In hearing (present tense) and believing (present tense) one has (present tense) eternal life, will not (present tense) come into judgement, and has passed (perfect tense) from death to life. Passing from death to life is an action that has been completed in the past and has continuing effects in the present. The mood is indicative which indicates a situation that actually is as opposed to a situation that might be, is wished for, or is commanded to be. One is either in Christ or not...already condemned or not. – Mike Borden Feb 05 '24 at 13:53

5 Answers5

2

Only an unrighteous person would think they are, or could aspire to be, righteous. Yet the question wants to know how a person who does not believe in any life after physical death could view this matter of why "choose" to be righteous. As my thinking is inclined to be back-to-front, I quickly spot back-to-front questions.

Only in light of eternity at God's enabling can God's view of righteousness be seen. This means that all persons disbelieving either God's sovereign existence, or that everlasting life is in store, can have no idea of what righteousness, goodness, or doing good is, in view of eternity.

This only leaves such persons with their own view of what righteousness, goodness, or doing good amounts to, so they will judge the matter entirely on their own (or other's) opinions. Given what God has had recorded here about those matters, it should be instantly obvious that there is an impassible gulf between what God says on the matter, and what the godless think about the matter:

"We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, [in Micah 7:9] There is none righteous, no, not one... there is none that doeth good, no, not one... There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ unto all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:9-24 K.J.

Belief in God and in his righteousness, shown in Jesus Christ, necessitates faith in Jesus Christ, who was resurrected from the dead, and who promises life eternal in glory to all who believe. This rules out any disbelievers in God, or in Jesus Christ risen from the dead (and hence, those who disbelieve in any afterlife). Such ones cannot have a clue as to what God's righteousness is. They can only spout on about what they judge to be good, let alone what constitutes righteousness. And they have no fear of God, no goodness, nor any righteousness of their own. They remain under sin and condemned by God as sinners, as the text quoted above states.

Until the immensity of God's point of view on the matter horrifies a person, they will think of themselves as jolly good fellows (compared with murderers and the likes), supposing that they can accumulate some merit, so that (if there is a God and an afterlife) this God will wink at their sin because they've done some things other sinners view a being good (or even righteous!) They will think in terms of Islamic or some Christian group's thinking, that they might tip the divine scales of justice in their favour if they do a bit more good than bad. What kind of a god do they think this is? One who they have brought down to their level of humanistic thinking (which is sinful?) Pascal did not promote even a hint of that kind of warped thinking.

When the Day of Resurrection and Judgment begins, then the truth will hit home (too late for disbelievers) "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Only those whose names are found written in the Lamb's book of Life, on that Day, will be secure for eternity, having already passed over from judgment to life by faith in the Son of God - Revelation 20:6-15; Romans 14:9-12.

Anne
  • 29,661
  • 1
  • 34
  • 116
1

The optimal policy to prepare for eternity is exactly the same as the optimal policy for living a good life here and now.

Russell M. Nelson, the prophet and president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently taught:

Here is the great news of God’s plan: the very things that will make your mortal life the best it can be are exactly the same things that will make your life throughout all eternity the best it can be!

(Think Celestial! October 2023 General Conference)

In the same talk, he says:

Far too many people live as though this life is all there is.

If we take the shortsighted view, we might assume this not to be true (because he appeals both to the idea that taking an eternal view is optimal and stating that one can live one's true best life now, and that these are equivalent and mutually satisfiable), but in reality there is no contradiction. The difference is made in one's perspective and the consequences that follow from taking "the long view" rather than thinking only of today.

One's policy choices can either discount the reality of tomorrow, or they can take tomorrow into account. More generally, we can regard the future--including the next few moments or hours--or we can choose not to think of it. The differences of perspective here lead to very different choices and outcomes. The realization that taking an eternal view in fact results in the best and most personally rewarding policy choices today is emergent from experience, and has even been recognized from purely mathematical and secular perspectives.

This is well illustrated in the classic mathematical problem known as the Prisoners' Dilemma. A video explanation of the problem can be found here. In the usual initial statement of the problem, it is apparently rationally ideal for the two prisoners to betray each other, because neither one is certain of the other's choice. However, the actual ideal for everyone is to choose virtuous cooperation. This becomes more evident as the experiment is repeated through a series of successive trials or engagements. Note that it is not necessary for eternity to be accepted as reality or even to be a reality for this finding to hold; rather, it is a sufficient condition for the emergence of perfectly rational cooperation as the provably optimal policy when the test is of a finite duration only involving multiple encounters. This becomes even more strongly the case when the duration is not known in advance.

None of the participants in this dilemma even needs to know that there is a tomorrow, but when all participants act as though there is a tomorrow, and treat future outcomes as at least somewhat relevant to today, it results in optimal choices today.

This dilemma is also explored in a video by Veritasium, in which it is revealed by professors who studied the phenomenon further that an emergent, perfectly rational and optimal policy for such encounters includes five foundational virtues:

  1. Kindness (not giving the first offense, see Alma 48:14)
  2. [Measured] Retaliation or Restitution ("an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth", Exodus 21:22-24, see also Alma 43:47)
  3. Forgiveness (Matthew 6:14-15, etc.)
  4. Clarity (Scripture clearly spells out concrete examples of one's own policy in the form of commandments and the Beatitudes)
  5. Generosity (this accounts for noise or incorrect perceptions, including notably the precept of "innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt"; see Deuteronomy 19:15, John 8:7, etc.)

All of these principles are founded in and taught by Christianity, but they are not exclusive to a belief system that includes eternity and final judgment.

(Note that in the video, the professor erroneously states that the optimal policy "isn't Christianity", because it isn't "turn the other cheek", making it a "pushover" that is easily taken advantage of. However, this conveys a misunderstanding of what Christianity is; the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same, and His religion includes elements both of retaliatory justice through boundaries and of kindness, forgiveness and generosity. Christianity is also the oldest religion, being taught to Adam and Eve. "Turn the other cheek" can also be thought of as a generous policy, which they outline as another latent rationally optimal choice that is necessary to temper the role of misperception in an otherwise suboptimal scenario of escalatory retaliation).

While the exact tuning and appropriate application of these parameters will depend in some degree upon the kind of company one is surrounded by, the principles must remain in order for the policy to be robust against manipulation. Doctrine and Covenants section 98 spells out a policy that includes all of these elements of kindness, forgiveness, retaliation, and generosity, in a very clear and enumerated fashion.

Scripture teaches that even in the moment,

Wickedness never was happiness. (Alma 41:10)

In summary, the mathematically proven optimal policy for living your best life and obtaining the best outcomes today is already included in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and even mathematicians agree that taking only the conditions of mortal life into account, these virtuous principles form the basis of all the best policies and result in superior outcomes to more limited, shortsighted and unkind policies.

all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets (Matthew 7:12)

pygosceles
  • 2,009
  • 6
  • 15
  • "The optimal policy to prepare for eternity is exactly the same as the optimal policy for living a good life here and now." Strong disagree. You must be born again to even see, let alone enter, the kingdom of God. – Mike Borden Feb 01 '24 at 13:42
  • @MikeBorden Being born again leads to the companionship of the Holy Spirit, Which fills us with the fruits of the Spirit, including love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, all of which make for a much better life now than could be had otherwise. Being born again does not make us into miserable creatures. It makes us a new creature in Christ, happy, able to do right, innocent, and having the potential for perfection. – pygosceles Feb 01 '24 at 16:03