An interesting post on 3 Quarks Daily, entitled “Only Philosophers Go To Hell.” It is written by Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse, authors of Reasonable Atheism (Prometheus, 2011).
It is basically a riff on the Problem of Evil, focusing on how the idea of hell is logically problematic in the Christian universe:
The Problem of Hell is familiar enough to many traditional theists. Roughly, it is this: How could a loving and just god create a place of endless misery? …Hell, on its face, seems like it is actually part of God’s plan, and moreover, the misery there far exceeds misery here. At least the misery here is finite; it ends when one dies. But in Hell, death is just the beginning. Those in Hell suffer for eternity. Hell, so described, seems less the product of a just and loving entity than a vicious and spiteful one. That’s a problem.
From this, the authors establish that the only legitimate defense of an eternity of pain and suffering (and no, I am not talking about taking the kids to Disney World) comes from a retributivist or libertarian position.
A retributivist defense of hell is the familiar position that “those in Hell are sinners, and sin demands punishment. Therefore, Hell is necessary; it is the place where that punishment is delivered.” So what’s the problem? Consider:
Every sin is only a finite harm, but punishment in Hell is eternal. No matter how bad the sins of sinners are, they will always be punished disproportionately in Hell. That’s unjust.
When it comes down to it:
Notice that in order to deserve the full measure of that punishment in Hell, a sinner who rejects God must know exactly what she’s doing. If, say, the person who rejects God does so because she did not understand Him properly or because she did not know what she was rejecting Him, then she cannot deserve full punishment of Hell…
It seems clear that only someone with appropriate philosophical acumen could have that kind of understanding.
You can see where this is headed. As for the libertarian defense of hell, i.e. “the view that one freely chooses Hell as embracing an eternity away from God,” the philosopher is again at the front of the line:
Again, choosing is not simply a matter of what gets chosen, but it is also a matter of what the chooser thinks she’s choosing…only those who know who and what God is can properly choose to be without Him. And only those with accurate philosophical understanding of God can be in this position. Again, only philosophers can go to Hell.
They conclude that this is good news for everyone (except philosophers, of course). “Socrates may have been right,” they write, “that the unexamined life is not worth living, but at least it keeps you out of Hell.” However, its not all sunshine and daisies for the philosophically uninterested:
But there’s some bad news, too. By way of the same kind of arguments presented above, we should hold that Heaven is reserved only for philosophers…God could not want us to enter into an eternity of loving communion with Him without our knowing what we are doing. And, again, only philosophers could understand what that choice amounts to. Only philosophers can go to Hell. And only philosophers can go to Heaven. Maybe that’s not such good news for non-philosophers. But perhaps there’s some comfort in the thought that non-philosophers might be able to avoid going anywhere for eternity.
The sole purpose of this argument is to make the logical cost of the idea of hell (and heaven) so high that no one wants to pay it. The only people liable to judgment or reward in the next life are those who understand perfectly what they up to now, in this life. Not only is this an impossible standard, but it runs counter to the Christian idea that faith is what determines your just reward, not knowledge (or self-possession, as the case may be).
(The argument falls apart once a little more theology is brought to the table. As Paul pointed out, if it was solely about who deserved punishment for their deeds, we are all screwed. There are also several assumptions about the nature of God, the nature of hell, and the nature of reality itself within the essay itself that might be brought into question. But let’s not quibble over details.)
While I find this kind of argument rather trivial (and quite untheological), I personally have no commitment to the idea of hell and no intention of defending it. In fact, it makes no sense in a monistic universe, which is the reason why there are so many attempts to reinterpret the idea of hell in modern theology.
Ironically, according to my evangelical friends, not believing in hell puts one on the fast track to eternity there. I guess for those of us who want to be logical, its damned if you do, damned if you don’t…literally.
So I guess not only did curiosity kill the cat, but it also doomed the philosopher to eternal damnation. God does not like to be challenged as the universal dictator. So, I guess philosophy would be the universal communist and dictators hate communists.
Hell is essentially the Christian method to doom all without blind faith. I guess as an affront to evolution, it encourages ignorance and stupidity. Is this why evolution is so despised?
There is another way of looking at hell (though not necessarily less objectionable). In the divine punishment model, hell would be “God’s last word” about injustice in the world, though the problem then becomes the scale (finite vs. infinite). Without God, we can do whatever we want without fear of retribution, right?
Also, Paul (the author of a good part of the New Testament) allows that even those who do not have faith explicitly still have it “implicitly” – in their hearts. They are able to “fulfill the law” even though they do not have the law. So I think your definition of hell, while it certainly fits with the way many Christians think about it, doesn’t necessarily fit with the Bible.
Of course, I think hell is a pretty bad idea too, but I don’t like seeing fictitious ideas misrepresented either.
Paul’s ‘implicit faith’ is really just a regard for your fellow human beings. And humanity does not need a fear of eternal retribution to act as a society. I guess it comes down to the question of whether you believe man is essentially good or evil and whether man needs guidance or not. Many atheists live perfectly well within society without the fear of hell… however it is portrayed.
Most people consider Christianity to be necessarily exclusive, in that it excludes non-Christians from salvation. This is not, nor has it ever been, the case. Yes, there are those who think the heathens are damned, but they are certainly not in the majority (though they are often the loudest). They are the 99% 🙂
And I do not think that anyone needs the idea of God to be good. My point was that the idea of hell provides a place for God to be just, because clearly in this life the wicked prosper and the good suffer. So hell is a place where God has the last world, which makes some feel better about the fact that people who do evil things and live wonderful lives because of it get their comeuppance. I am not one of those, but I understand it.
So hell doesn’t have to be about keeping people in line through the use of fear, it could be a way of providing God the opportunity to show that God is just (because this world doesn’t seem to be just). Hell may in fact be a solution to the problem of evil, not a subset to it.
Your life may be awful, but those living in luxury by evil will get it in the end… So hell is a bit of a cop out. Evil wins the day, but being good may help you when you are dead. You’d think God, with all his wisdom, would be able to come up with something better than that.
Anyway, using the most common way to end an argument, and the most apt way here, I’ll tell you to Go To Hell! Or, at least, I’ll see you in Hell! 🙂
What do you get when you cross an elephant and a rhino?