Why I don’t believe in hell (and you don't either)

Comments

I long ago accepted the fact that I don't truly believe in Hell, so this comes as no surprise to me.
[this is good]
I could point out the Calvinists, who do believe in Hell, but think that God has already chosen who is going to go there, and there's not really anything they can do about it. They do seem to be a rare breed though. Very interesting post.

I do think that there's a good deal of rich meaning hidden in the doctrine of hell. But I just haven't met anyone who really accepts the standard evangelical formulation that you're tortured without reprieve if you don't consciously accept Christ in this life. I know plenty of people who say that they believe it. But unless they're wearing a sandwich board and running wild-eyed down a high street begging people to convert, I'm inclined to dispute their claim.

Thanks for reading such a slog of a post, Shush, and taking the time to comment.

Do I believe in some kind of separation from God? In an afterlife? In eternity? Absolutely, but I except the fact that my limited mortal understanding simply isn't sufficient to fully support a heaven/hell doctrine like the one I was raised with.

Hey, it was a GOOD slog of a post! :)
Interesting thoughts. I definitely believe in Hell, since Jesus himself spoke of it, but I don't know that any of our concepts of it can be called accurate. C.S. Lewis has some poignant insights in The Problem of Pain.

I've hung out in the Calvinist camp as well as with those who think we're responsible for saving everyone around us. Whether God really is setting our fates in stone all Himself or leaving it up to His mostly inept followers, I'm not sure...but I think it's not in my power to 'convert' anybody. I can share my testimony and disciple those who would be discipled by me. That's pretty much the best I can do. Crazy-in-the-street man couldn't do better.


Calvinism seems to be back in vogue, and has some really eloquent advocates in the likes of John Piper - and modern Calvinists are very keen to answer the Arminian charge that the doctrine of election renders evangelism pointless. Their answer usually draws on 'compatibilist' account of human agency. I can't say I understand it much; seems like sleight of hand to me.

Personally, I think that the Calvinist (neo-Calvinist?) idea that a doctrine of human free will detracts from the sovereignty of God is dodgy reasoning. A God who can't choose to create free beings without compromising his sovereignty isn't sovereign in the first place.

As for the idea that God has chosen a 'remnant' who'll be saved from hell - it's just not possible to square this view with ethical reasoning. It's also pretty durned hard to square it with the idea that God doesn't show favouritism.

Oh look! I'm ranting.

That's really well put, Shush.

Something you said really stood out to me: "Rob had indeed vocalised what evangelicals were supposed to accept as dogma:"

This, along with the comments on Calvanist or Armenian thought reminds me that so many people are trying to find someone to tell them what they are supposed to believe, when it is really pretty simple to sit down with your Bible and really read it from cover to cover - many times - and base my belief on that.

You are wrong to say that I do not care because I am spending time reading your blog. (Even tho I am sure that was said tongue in cheek) The truth is that I am blogging because of my passionate belief that the Bible has everything we need to live a life of influence in our generation and the next.

Since I started blogging just two months ago, and placed my devotions on a number of sites including Vox, I have had the opportunity to interact with so many individuals who are hurting and seeking for an answer, both Christians and Non Christians. The opportunity for ministry online is still holding me in awe. I have been in tears more than once over e-mails sent to me.

Yes, I do believe in Hell and I think many people are experiencing a taste of it here on earth. Jesus came to offer eternal, abundant life to those who all their lives have lived in fear of death.

Hi Charlotte - many thanks very much for taking the time to comment. I hope to address some of your concerns in the next couple of posts (which will provide something of a counterbalance).

Please don't think I'm saying that you do not care; I'm saying the exact opposite. Your blog/devotionals are proof enough that you care. What I'm saying is that if the 'standard' doctrine of hell is true, most of the people around us are in unimaginable - or, rather, infinite - peril, and this would demand a response overwhelmingly more urgent than anything I see the church engaged in. Such a response would not leave much room for other activities; and I stick by my conviction that reading my blog is of lesser importance than engaging in the evangelistic activities necessary to respond to the challenge implicit in the standard evangelical doctrine of hell.

My conclusion is that although we might accept the doctrine of hell on an intellectual level, we haven't internalised it. Of all the evangelical doctrines, this one is a 'head' belief rather than a 'heart' belief. Either we need to get it further into our hearts, so as to maximise our sense of urgency, or we should re-evaluate the doctrine so that we can better digest it.

I'm afraid I must disagree that it is an easy matter to derive doctrinal distinctives from repeatedly reading the bible. There are thousands of protestant denominations arguing over very important doctrines, and we can't simply accuse them of not reading their bibles. The Jehovah's Witnesses started as a bible study group, and defending (say) the doctrine of the Trinity against a well-versed JW's Arianism is no straightforward matter. They know their bible well, and they'll happily box you into a corner if you think your evangelical orthodoxy has been lifted straight from scripture.

Sacramentalism, the role of baptism in salvation, the deity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the relative importance of faith and works - if establishing the truth regarding these issues is simply a matter of reading the bible, how much reading do the different Christian factions have to do to reach a consensus? In over 2000 years they still don't seem to have read the bible enough to agree. Or is it a matter of being illuminated by the Holy Spirit? In which case, how do we establish which faction is being illuminated and which faction isn't? Or does it come down to biblical scholarship?

Yes, I do believe in Hell and I think many people are experiencing a taste of it here on earth. Jesus came to offer eternal, abundant life to those who all their lives have lived in fear of death.

I absolutely agree, and I hope that subsequent posts will demonstrate this. What I wanted to do in this post was indicate that the strength of the church's response to the doctrine of hell is massively, perhaps infinitely, disproportionate to the gravity of the implied threat. That's enough, I feel, to prompt us to ask ourselves whether we really believe it, heart and soul.

Again, many thanks for commenting - I very much appreciate your input, and I'm happy to be proved wrong in anything I write, so please continue challenging me.

[this is good]
An interesting and thought provoking post, Nick. However, there is one minor nit I'd like to pick; your assertion that simply believing that others would be tortured eternally should be enough to convince us to proselytize. Sadly, I can think of several individuals and sects that not only believe that others are going to Hell - they pray for it.

The most obvious are those chialists who are actively working to bring about the conditions that they believe are necessary for Armageddon. They hope and pray for people to be condemned to eternal torment, as if that somehow makes their eternal bliss all the better.

And then there are folks like my grandfather, who used to pray that Heaven would be free of "niggers, kikes, jews, papists, and all the other damn vermin that infest this once great country" [1]. Again, for them, an inclusive heaven seems anathema.

Taking into consideration that minor nit, you've raised some important questions. How can we resolve the problem of a deity with infinite mercy who condemns the vast majority of his children to eternal damnation? Theologians have wrestled with this problem for centuries, and have reached no good answers.

In Job, this question is phrased rhetorically:
Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
However, it seems to me that this is the central question of any theology. Christians have a special problem because they begin with the axiom [2, 3] of an all-powerful, all-knowing deity. Those religions which do not accept either of those assumptions (e.g., Hindus, Jainists, Buddhists, Wiccans) have a much easier time.

Some Christian sects [4] have embraced a form of Universalism to resolve the question. Given enough time, they argue, anyone may be redeemed from Hell, given the intercession of those in Heaven. Others use a lesser Hell [5] for the "virtuous pagans" who were never given the opportunity to embrace salvation. Support (and arguments against) both of these positions can be found in the Scriptures.

I don't have any answers to this problem, just questions. But it is something that is worth thinking about.

Thank you for raising the topic!

John

[1] Sorry for the language, but that is a direct quote. My childhood was sometimes interesting...
[2] This is an axiom, as it is unprovable from within the system (teleological arguments notwithstanding). Change the axioms, and a very different system emerges.
[3] Not all Christian sects hold with these axioms, most notably the Manicheans who held that there was a God of the Old testament who was capricious, and a God of the New testament who came to save us from the God of the Old Testament.
[4] That's why Mormons are so interested in genealogy; you can be baptised in this life to save an ancestor and so rescue them from Hell. They then move into a lesser heaven, where they must work to earn their way into the highest heaven.
[5] Most notably, the Roman Catholic Church's evolving views on unbaptised infants, and Dante's famous passage.

Brilliant stuff, John - all excellent points.

Thinking others will be tortured eternally 'should' convince us to proselytize, if the 'should' is understood in the moral sense. If certain people believe in hell and want to see fellow-humans sent there, their position is certainly unimpeachably self-consistent; but it is immoral. I'd say that the people you're talking about are the only people who really believe in hell; but they don't believe in the gospel.

Sadly, the idea that seeing people in hell will enhance the bliss of the saved has a strong pedigree. I think Aquinas held this view. (Alan Watts, in his Behold The Spirit, argues that the damned, convinced of the rectitude of their punishment, are compelled to praise God for their state, and experience it as bliss, too. It strikes me as a perfectly orthodox, if completely barmy, theory.)

My argument isn't just that hell is a problematic doctrine, but that it is impossible to believe in, since real belief would place us under an obligation too huge to bear - unless you accept that God has predestined most people to damnation, which is, prima facie, a straightforwardly biblical position, but is directly contrary to moral reason. (The argument that God's morality is inscrutible is massively problematic, and I'll happily fight on the beaches anyone who says otherwise.) At the same time, I think that the doctrine of hell can be derived from basic Christian axioms shared by most confessions - and is therefore impossible to discard (that's my next thrilling post). Our formulations of the doctrine have to take into account its 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' (so to speak) character - indeed, we should take the inherent impossibility of either accepting or rejecting the doctrine as our starting point (that's the thrilling post after the next thrilling post). After all, Christianity is essentially a creed that proposes solutions to impossible problems.

There's a direct parallel here with the doctrine of Christ's deity. The docetists denied his humanity; the Arians denied his divinity: both tamed the paradox of Christ’s nature - and both missed the point of the incarnation. Both approaches represent an Alexandrian solution to a Gordian problem. Universalism denies eternal hell (or empties it of occupants) in the name of morality; the standard fundamentalist doctrine puts God beyond the reach of moral reasoning. The staggering effort and ingenuity that (say) the Cappadocian fathers brought to reconciling Christ's deity with his humanity just hasn't been brought to reconciling hell with reason. What's more, it never will be, as long as Christians aren't aware that a paradox exists.

By the way, John, your background sounds like it was very interesting indeed. At any rate, it has produced a very interesting person!

Many thanks for your continued injections of erudition and insight.

Hi Mike,

I wrote a reply to you last night and it didn't post for some reason... Arg.

I agree that we need to take the doctrine of hell seriously because Jesus did. Jesus' own teachings on the subject, though, simply don't gel with the standard evangelical model. We certainly couldn't derive the popular formulation of the doctrine from the teachings of Jesus alone. The parable of the sheep and goats makes no mention of faith, never mind sola fide. Hell, for Jesus, seems to be a place you can end up in just for being rich... Nevertheless, you're absolutely right: we can't jettison the doctrine. If anything, Jesus' teachings on hell are the most terrifying of all. But they are also much less straightforward that those you'll find in most churches' statements of belief.

I also agree that we don't 'convert' anyone, although Romans 10:14 - How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? - makes it clear that human proclamation of the gospel is a necessary link in the chain. But for a person who was really struck by the infinite gravity of the threat of hell, making this proclamation would be an all-consuming priority, and I don't see that in the church (or in myself). What I'm saying is that none of us can really accommodate a belief in this doctrine; it is simply too enormous to internalise. Which doesn't mean that it isn't true - just that we need to find a special way to relate to it. In the future I'll be posting a suggestion that the bible actually offers us a way to relate to this, and other, 'impossible' doctrines.

If we deny all human responsibility in the process of converting people, we're no longer wavering between Arminian and Calvinist positions: we're placing ourselves firmly in the Calvinist camp, with all its concomitant problems regarding this issue. That's not necessarily a bad thing, if you're willing to grapple with these problems. Personally I can't see a way to resolve them, though I do think that there is deep truth in all five points of TULIP.

Many thanks for commenting, Mike - and congratulations on the Charisma article. It's incredibly important work you're doing.

but I do believe in Hell...
hahhahahahah

is that harmful?
[this is good]

Very Interesting!

It's something I've had in the back of my mind for a while too.

I think I believe in hell (somewhat the way Shushnow does) but my understanding of God is different.

Ok 3. points.

1. I had a long discussion with a friend once who had read a book by an anthropologist who effectively argued that the fire and brimstone ideology of the end times and hell was a word picture meant to evoke events that had actually happend in the time that they were written (think explosion of Etna). He argues that it was meant to evoke the pain and spontinaeity of the most recent tragedy to give them an idea of the magnatude. It was intruguing and quite convincing. The idea that hell isn't a lake of fire, but rather that is imagery meant to show the continuous torment of separation from God, is something I can buy into pretty easily.

2. The idea that the goal of us christians is to keep people from going to hell is just an adventure in missing the point. This is where I believe that your friend Wayne has really gotten the wrong picture from the people around you. I believe that My Job as a believer isn't to convert people so they go to heaven (thus putting all my focus on the 'afterlife' but instead to live in such a way that God's kingdom is here an now. In my life, in my family's life, in my church community and in my world. Jesus talked so much about this kingdom of heaven, and very little about 'salvation'. I think that if I work to bring this kingdom, that it will touch peoples hearts and minds towards God, which brings me to point 3.

3. I think our sense of time is off. I mean, God is outside of time, we are in it. Who's to say that there isn't a place between living and dying where God reveals himself to whomever, and they're heart will either line up or turn away. I completely believe that it is the state of our heart not the 'sinners prayer' we've prayed (see the separation of the sheep and the goats passage) The ones Jesus brought into his fold were the ones doing things for 'the least of these' not the ones who prayed the right prayers and tithed the right amounts. I believe that the choices we make here determine whether or not our hearts are turned towards God, and therefore whether or not we would embrace him as he's revealed to us. As we build his kingdom, and draw others along side us, we have the opportunity to help turn thier hearts.

Quite honestly I like how your friend Wayne described hell, as a test for 'christians'. He might be on to something :) not that God is out to test us, but rather that God will weigh how we respond to people who don't know him, with life building actions, or condemnation.

Ok...sorry I wrote so much, but you got me thinking,

PS Rob's comment really annoyed me, but the fact that only Wayne addressed it was interesting. Maybe you should bring that up to you biblestudy leaders, that this is something that they should have spoken to on the spot, not the hell issue, but Rob's callousness.

Hi Ginger Sister! I'm pretty sure that the the 'lake of fire' is just imagery, just as 'Gehenna' is just an image (unless Jesus meant that people actually get sent to a garbage dump near Jerusalem). 'Sheol' and 'hades' aren't even images; they just mean 'unseen' or 'hidden'. Anyway, you're right - the choice of images seems to be deliberately emotive.

I agree 100% with point 2 - but I couldn't agree with anyone who'd make that point while claiming to subscribe to the 'standard' evangelical doctrine of hell (that those who don't consciously commit to Christ in this life will suffer eternal torment without any intervening opportunity to change their course). If the standard doctrine is right, there is simply nothing more important than responding to Romans 10:14 and spending one's limited earthly time rescuing as many people as possible. That's why if someone who claims to subscribe to this doctrine isn't spending all their time frantically evangelising, I have to conclude that they don't fully grasp the doctrine's ramifications.

Regarding a pothumous opportunity to receive salvation, I think that there's a much stronger case to be made for such an opportunity (based on 1 Peter 3:18-19) than people generally accept.

I believe that the choices we make here determine whether or not our hearts are turned towards God, and therefore whether or not we would embrace him as he's revealed to us.

Interestingly, Roman Catholic (and orthodox, I think) theology supports this view - which is much more nuanced and sophisticated than the standard evangelical view. It's certainly in harmony with the biblical idea that God looks at our hearts.

By the way, the events described in the post happened 20 years ago, so I imagine that Mark and Rob et al have learned from their mistakes by now!

Many thanks for your thoughts - very interesting stuff. Am praying for the Engand situation, as requested!

Why did Rob automatically assume that the woman on the television program wasn't converted? I'm just curious.

-I believe in hell. Perhaps that makes me selfish, but the best proof I have is what the bible says. I really don't think that God would have people read the bible just so that we all could show up on judgement day to hear him say, "You all just got punk'd."

Although wow, could you imagine God watching MTV? :)

Thanks for the prayers.

I guess that having to watch MTV all the time is one of the (possible unwanted) side-effects of being an all-seeing deity:)

I remember wondering the same about Rob. At the time I thought: does he know her? In England, though, it's statistically unlikely that you're particularly religious... We're a pretty secular nation. Anyway, I'm sure he was just making a point, in his own way, about the relative usefulness of aqua aerobics. He was a teenager at the time, so I put it down to juvenile enthusiasm.

As for believing in hell - I don't think it's selfish, I think it's impossible. I also happen to think it's impossible to avoid a belief in hell, if you're a Christian (that'll be the subject of my next post!). That's why hell is such a tricky doctrine: it can't be avoided, accepted or rejected. It can, however, be grappled with and tamed, I think (again, I'll be looking at this possibility in the next posts).

Giving intellectual assent to a doctrine is one thing. Millions of Christians have a 'head' belief in hell (as opposed to a 'heart' belief). But the way I see it is this:

Imagine that you were reasonably sure that a piano was going to fall on your next door neighbour and her family if they walked down a certain road on a certain day. Would you tell your neighbour? Of course you would. Would you tell her even if you didn't really know her? Of course you would. Would you tell her even if you didn't like her? I'm guessing you'd do it without thinking twice. You'd tell her, thus enabling her to make her own mind up whether to believe you. At least you'd have given her a fighting chance to save herself and her family.

Now imagine that you had similar prescient convictions about everyone on your street. Would you make it a priority to visit houses and warn them all of their respective perils? Again, I think most of us would.

If we say we believe those who do not consciously respond to the gospel in this lifetime will suffer eternal torment, we have a duty literally infinitely more pressing than the duties entailed in the scenarios above. We'd simply do not have time to waste: we'd need to be going from house to house preaching the gospel and giving people a fighting chance to respond. If someone says that they believe the standard evangelical doctrine of hell, then, and yet they're not at least as urgent about spreading the gospel as they would be about saving their neighbours from theoretical falling pianos, we can assume one of two things:

1. They don't care about other people (incredibly unlikely); or,

2. Their belief in hell is intellectual assent rather than a real, deep-rooted, action-guiding conviction.

I'm saying that most evangelicals fall into the second category.

Note that none of this applies to people who (like Shush and Ginger in their comments above) have found a way to rethink their understanding of hell while remaining orthodox. That's the third position. You too may be in that position; I don't know your exact beliefs. I count myself in this third category.

Regarding Punk'd... excellent point. Some universalists argue that Bible translators have deliberately mistranslated scripture (by dishonest rendering of words like the Koine Greek term aion ('eternal' or 'age-abiding') or the Hebrew olam, etc) so as to promote a doctrine of eternal hell that isn't in the original bible. I don't buy that, personally. If the bible message can be so radically transformed just by tweaking a few already ambiguous terms like aion, there's a case for saying that God should have made the bible clearer in the first place. I'm with you on that.

No - hell is something we have to take seriously. But we must realise that this thing that we're asked to take seriously is also impossible for us to bear. To really believe that the people around you are racing towards indescribable, unending torment is something that none of us can begin to process - we'd wake up every morning screaming with terror. And yet that's what it means to take the doctrine seriously.

I'll be trying to look at how on earth we're supposed to shoulder the infinite burden of the doctrine of hell (without going mad) in the next couple of posts. I don't have any cast-iron solutions, so please do pop back with suggestions or criticisms.

Holy cats, I just wrote you an essay. Sorry! I promise next time I'll answer you in five words...

No worries, I enjoy reading your opinion and thoughts on the subject. I have never really taken the time to piece together my beliefs on hell and your post is quite thought-provoking.

You see, I am not sure what my 'heart' belief and 'head belief" is. I have been taught to believe that God is fair and will judge us accordingly. Yet, if that were true indeed then I'd imagine many people would be running around the streets on fire, so to speak of course. I've heard pastors say that He is a loving God. Others claim that he is a fair God.

-I believe that God is not meant to be understood. Otherwise if we understood His ways then perhaps we'd think ourselves equal to him. It is much harder to believe in something that isn't visible.

I think I do fall into the third category. I believe that we should do our best to make our lives a representation of how God intended us to be. Unlike what I've heard, I don't think that not getting baptised or listening to secular music will be reason to send people to hell. Churches preach this garbage all the time. Just because Mother Teresa wasn't converted I doubt God sent her to hell...

While on the subject of hell, I think people use it to manipulate and hold power over others. People who may not know better begin serving God just because they're scared out of their minds. If you ask me, if I were God, I wouldn't want people to serve me with that mindset. I would want people to serve me out of love and loyalty. So how does this type of preaching help anyone?

Yet, call me a horrible person, but I would be angry with God if he admitted people like Jack the Ripper and John Wayne Gacy inside the gates of heaven. I think a lot of people choose to believe in hell because it's a distorted comfort. It's kind of like seeking revenge through a loophole.

Imagine that you were reasonably sure that a piano was going to fall on your next door neighbour and her family if they walked down a certain road on a certain day. Would you tell your neighbour? Of course you would. Would you tell her even if you didn't really know her? Of course you would. Would you tell her even if you didn't like her? I'm guessing you'd do it without thinking twice.

One more hypothetical to add to the list: Would you tell her if, by her dying, some other folks would be kept alive? What if they would just be given a better life? [1]

The most obvious example of this is <Pick an evil leader [2]>. If <Evil leader [3]> had died, then his country/group/whatever, would have had more difficulty in doing the evil that they did. So is it moraly acceptable to allow the death of one if it will save others?

This is not the complete digression that it appears. If we assume that God has omniscience, then He should be able to determine which evils are unavoidable [4] and which can be turned away via a little selective muteness. The folks who matter (even if they aren't the important folks [5]), get a suggestion if it will keep things going well and diddly-squat if their death is needed for the greater good. This is a common argument from apologetics.

John

[1] In the words of a singular wit "We've already established what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."

[2] Done to avoid invoking Godwin.

[3] Accepting in passing that one person's evil leader is another person's Young Turk.

[4] That pesky free will thing, doncha know?

[5] In the sense of being the folks in the public eye. Think truckers. Low paid, low education, low social status - but our society could not run without them.
[this is good]

Some excellent reflections there, SimplyEmy.

OK, I've fulfiled my obligation to reply in five words...

Personally, I think that if the distance between us and God is infinite, then none of us are any closer to God than anyone else, including Jack the Ripper; infinity plus or minus something is still infinity, and only grace can bridge the gap. At the same time, I can say with confidence that Jack the Ripper will not be in heaven (and I don't just mean in the trivial sense that if he was in heaven he wouldn't be 'the Ripper' any more, though that's true). I'll tell you why in the next post! (Not trying to be intriguing; I just don't want to wallop you with another 3000 word reply).

Unfortunately, I think you're dead right about some people using hell to manipulate. Sad but true.

I like the visual about people running around on fire :)

Well, Bonhoeffer seemed to think it was morally acceptable to kill... drat! Bloody Godwin.

Never been sure how the whole 'best possible world' argument is supposed to work. I do know that Voltaire found it amusing.

One of the no doubt numerous problems with getting sent to hell is that it trumps all other outcomes in terms of undesirability. So when you factor it into moral computations and crank the handle on your hedonic calculus machine (got mine on ebay), you find that any other outcome is preferable, including ones that would have arisen from God's not giving hellbound people free will in the first place.

By the way, John: be careful if passing a barbershop frontage next tuesday. Falling anvil. Just a hunch! (Please ignore this warning if you're planning on becoming an evil leader, like that Adol... drat!)

I think that if the distance between us and God is infinite, then none of us are any closer to God than anyone else, including Jack the Ripper; infinity plus or minus something is still infinity, and only grace can bridge the gap.

That depends on the type of infinity - is it countable or not? Or perhaps it is transfinite? Or hyperfinite [1]?

My point (and I do have one) is that perhaps it isn't our data that is flawed but our model. Positing a "distance" between humanity and deity creates an artificial divide that requires illogical assumptions [2]. Perhaps a better analogy would be that God sees in color, and we suffer from color blindness. We can know that some aspects of divinity are there from their effects, just as a color-blind person can know that "red" exists. But, just as the color-blind person may run a red light because he did not know it was red [3], we may fail to obey some moral imperative because we are incapable of seeing it.

John


[1] I won't suggest transcendental, as that is just silly.

[2] Just because this is religion, it doesn't mean we can't be logical.

[3] That's why red is always on the top or to the left - so color-blind folks can see that the light has changed. (And, yes, I know that there are more forms of color blindness than red-green.)

Hi John. Like the footnotes thing - did you get that idea from Sheri's blog? I just saw her do a similar thing.

Having tried to follow up some of your links, I can safely say that I mean non-countable, ie not a number. But then I agree that it makes the analogy fall apart, because an infinite distance is not really a distance. So your colour blindness analogy is, like, infinitely better than mine.

Positing a "distance" between humanity and deity creates an artificial divide that requires illogical assumptions.

Bearing in mind that it's just an analogy, I'm not sure it requires any more illogical assumptions than the standard description of God as possessing infinite attributes (infinite wisdom, infinite power, infinite knowledge, etc). The idea of, say, infinite knowledge (if infinity is understood as non-countable) seems illogical, but isn't really, as far as I can see, which is not far. Knowledge of all possible worlds, for example, would necessarily be infinite (wouldn't it?); and since God's knowledge is equivalent to his potency (what he knows is what he wills), we've perhaps got the basis for a theory of his infinite power. (There's the possibility, of course, that our universe is one of infinite possible worlds existing in God's imagination, this imagination being so powerful that it realises its own contents...)

What I wanted to get at in my reply to SimplyEmy was that if I can get into heaven, so can Jack the Ripper. In terms of the amount of goodness needed to find favour with God, the moral differences between Jack and I are inegligible, since that amount of goodness is, if not infinite, really rather astronomical. So whatever it is that could get us into heaven, it's not our moral worth.

Still, if goodness is something that God and humans share (CS Lewis says that all positive qualities originate in God - we just share or 'borrow' them), the we and God must have respective positions somewhere on a scale of goodness. In that I have never murdered any prostitutes, I might be slightly closer to God on that scale than Jack the Ripper. Or maybe not; personally I think it's more likely that, underneath it all, Jack and I are morally on a pretty equal footing. Anyway, if making the scale of goodness infinite is illogical, you can exchange it for a finite but astronomically long scale.

I like the colour blindness analogy, but I'm not sure I can make it apply very well to morality. Other qualities, yes. Nobody would hold culpable a person who failed to obey a moral imperative that they couldn't see. Also, to make the point about the small / zero difference between Jack's goodness and my goodness, compared to the massive difference between Jack's/my goodnesses and God's goodness, you'd need to introduce degrees of colour blindness, which brings us back to the idea of a scale, and 'distance'; though I agree that 'infinite distance' is problematic.

inegligible: I meant negligible.

Though it's pretty apposite that it looks almost like 'illegible'.

Hi John. Like the footnotes thing - did you get that idea from Sheri's blog? I just saw her do a similar thing.

Causality is the other way around - I corrupted her.

Positing a "distance" between humanity and deity creates an artificial divide that requires illogical assumptions.

Bearing in mind that it's just an analogy, I'm not sure it requires any more illogical assumptions than the standard description of God as possessing infinite attributes (infinite wisdom, infinite power, infinite knowledge, etc). The idea of, say, infinite knowledge (if infinity is understood as non-countable) seems illogical, but isn't really, as far as I can see, which is not far.

Actually it is, if we assume that Godel's incompleteness theorem applies to the universe as a whole. If that applies, then there are limits to all knowledge [1].

Knowledge of all possible worlds, for example, would necessarily be infinite (wouldn't it?);

Yes, but it a countable infinity (as worlds are discrete entities).

and since God's knowledge is equivalent to his potency (what he knows is what he wills), we've perhaps got the basis for a theory of his infinite power.

That assumes that knowledge is power, which is an unproven theorem.

(There's the possibility, of course, that our universe is one of infinite possible worlds existing in God's imagination, this imagination being so powerful that it realises its own contents...)

You should stop hanging out with Berkeley!

Still, if goodness is something that God and humans share (CS Lewis says that all positive qualities originate in God - we just share or 'borrow' them), the we and God must have respective positions somewhere on a scale of goodness. In that I have never murdered any prostitutes, I might be slightly closer to God on that scale than Jack the Ripper. Or maybe not; personally I think it's more likely that, underneath it all, Jack and I are morally on a pretty equal footing. Anyway, if making the scale of goodness infinite is illogical, you can exchange it for a finite but astronomically long scale.
Or atomically small one - if the difference in goodness is quantal [2], then God's goodness could be on the order of lightning (hundreds of megavolts) whereas ours is on the order of ionization (a few tens of volts). Ours is still important, and the differences are measurable - but negligible compared to one whap of lightning! [3]

John


[1] As a lemma, this also implies limits to omnipotence, because otherwise God could just give himself omniscience, couldn't he?

[2] I.e., small and discrete.


[3] This is what happens when you let a phormer physics major discuss theology. Don't say you weren't warned!

Don't worry, John, everyone knows you is da footnote guy - I was just joshing, because of Sheri's recent bout of plagiarism. (Sincerest form of flattery, that is.)

Don't say you weren't warned!

When was I warned? I should have been warned.

Just you wait till I start commenting on your physics posts. You ain't seen nothing till you've seen an admin clerk who failed GCSE Science comment on physics. Me and physics have a special, um, chemistry.

Berkeley: I thought physicists loved Berkeley? I love him. But he approved of slavery, so maybe I don't.

I'm not saying that knowledge is power. Regarding knowledge, God is a special case. It's not that you have God over here and the universe stretched out before him, and he knows stuff about it. He determines the very things he knows about; so the relationship between his knowledge and his potency is different from the knowledge between our knowledge and out potency. Does that affect the applicability of Godel's incompleteness theory? Can I get away with not spending my lunch break reading about, and failing to understand, Godel?

Yes, but it a countable infinity (as worlds are discrete entities).

Confession: I don't really get this countable infinity business. Does the above destroy my argument? There's surely no upper limit on possible universes. You could try counting em, I guess, if you had access to God's mind, but you'd never be finished...

Or atomically small one - if the difference in goodness is quantal [2], then God's goodness could be on the order of lightning (hundreds of megavolts) whereas ours is on the order of ionization (a few tens of volts). Ours is still important, and the differences are measurable - but negligible compared to one whap of lightning! [3]

Like it. Like it a lot.

Don't worry, John, everyone knows you is da footnote guy - I was just joshing, because of Sheri's recent bout of plagiarism. (Sincerest form of flattery, that is.)
"Humor. A difficult concept." [1]

Just you wait till I start commenting on your physics posts. You ain't seen nothing till you've seen an admin clerk who failed GCSE Science comment on physics. Me and physics have a special, um, chemistry.
Hey, I used to grade geophysics papers. I've seen more amusing and spurious relationships than a couples counsellor at a swinger's convention.

Berkeley: I thought physicists loved Berkeley?
The university, yes. The philosopher, not so much. When your primary argument is easily demolished by a quick brick to the cranium, it doesn't inspire much confidence in the rest of your work...

I'm not saying that knowledge is power. Regarding knowledge, God is a special case. It's not that you have God over here and the universe stretched out before him, and he knows stuff about it. He determines the very things he knows about; so the relationship between his knowledge and his potency is different from the knowledge between our knowledge and out potency. Does that affect the applicability of Godel's incompleteness theory? Can I get away with not spending my lunch break reading about, and failing to understand, Godel?
It doesn't reduce Godel's applicability as long as we assume that God is logical. If we make Him alogical [2, 3], the Godel no longer applies. As for spending your lunch break trying to understand Godel, I can save you some time. Nobody understands Godel [4].

Yes, but it a countable infinity (as worlds are discrete entities).
Confession: I don't really get this countable infinity business. Does the above destroy my argument? There's surely no upper limit on possible universes. You could try counting em, I guess, if you had access to God's mind, but you'd never be finished...
The difference is simple, but profound [5]. With countable infinities, you may never end, but you know where to start (e.g., "Count all the natural numbers"). With uncountable infinities, you never end because you can't tell where to start (e.g., "Count all the rational numbers between 1 and 2" - do you start at 1.01? Or 1.001? Or 1.00001? etc.)

John

[1] Geek points for the reference!

[2] "Being outside the bounds of logic" as opposed to illogical ("devoid of logic").

[3] Given that God is, by definition, a supernatural event, this is not unreasonable.

[4] Except for the obligatory seven mathematicians who meet twice a year in exotic locales where they spend the whole time in small, windowless conference rooms instead of going surfing with the natives.

[5] Me, I'm just simple.
[this is good]

John, your comments here consistently provide a much better reason for anyone to read my blog than my posts do. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Do I get half a geek point for Star Trek?

Although it's barbaric, I do relish the image of Johnson saying to Berkeley 'I refute it thus,' and braining him with a bit of masonry.

I suspect that, logical or not, God's knowledge is of a type that lets him wriggle out of Godel's grip. If he's the one who determines all facts - indeed, determines that there are facts outside his own being, and if his will is therefore the basis of his scheme of knowledge, then... oh, I don't know. It's quite possible that God can't know if there's anything he doesn't know, or can't have absolute self-knowledge. I'll bet that folks like the Cappadocian fathers and Athanasius have addressed these kinds of problems, but I'd need to borrow somebody else's brain to read and understand them.

The difference is simple, but profound...

Why on earth did my google searches not bring up anything as helpful and clear as your explanation?

John, your comments here consistently provide a much better reason for anyone to read my blog than my posts do. I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I am a mirror by profession. Any good you see is but a reflection of your own words.


I suspect that, logical or not, God's knowledge is of a type that lets him wriggle out of Godel's grip. If he's the one who determines all facts - indeed, determines that there are facts outside his own being, and if his will is therefore the basis of his scheme of knowledge, then... oh, I don't know. It's quite possible that God can't know if there's anything he doesn't know, or can't have absolute self-knowledge. I'll bet that folks like the Cappadocian fathers and Athanasius have addressed these kinds of problems, but I'd need to borrow somebody else's brain to read and understand them.

Reminds me of the old stoner paradox "Would God microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it?" Any solution you give ends up in a contradiction, so the only possible answer is "mu!"

Why on earth did my google searches not bring up anything as helpful and clear as your explanation?
Because my job is to make complex things understandable. Theirs is to make them available.

John

Please don't congratulate Ensley on his "work" Nick. He's nothing but an "ex-gay for pay" hack for the dog and pony show ex-gay movement. He's offensive on several levels.

Wasn't referring to the ex-gay movement. I had a look at Mike's blog after he left a comment, and from what I saw he was encouraging Christian parents not to demonise their children if those children tell them they're gay, and that he was fighting against the mentality that would exclude gay people from church fellowship, etc. Given the kind of rhetoric that comes from evangelical pulpits, I'm happy to hear of anyone trying to foster greater acceptance. As for the ex-gay movement, I must admit that I haven't evaluated its claims with much rigor - I'll do so, though.

I think that on my own blog I should be the only one who comes under fire, as I'm here to defend myself and Mike isn't. My blog widow is waiting for me to get off the PC, so I'm heading off now, but I'll pop over to your place tomorrow and leave a comment on your answer to Gagnons' book.

Hey Nick,

You posted this on a public forum Nick, not just your blog. Everything is up for disent if you put it out there.

Mike is a big boy who can defend himself. You only see one side of the man with the majority of voxers not being aware of his "work" with youth and his personal oppinions most people woud find offensive.

I wanted to post this before my BQQ. It speaks for itself.

Re public forums: you're right. That occurred to me during last night's lying-in-bed-trying-to-sleep-after-too-much-Indian-food-orama.

I'm not the brightest bulb.

Thanks for the link, Mex. I don't have sound on my work PC, so I'll check it out when I get home.
[this is good]

You have a really interesting point. I don't know whether I fully agree with it, but it's making me think.

I personally don't think it's fair that Christians have a free-ride to Heaven and non-believers must suffer eternally in Hell. I mean, I don't think it's fair that the kindest atheist (who's done nothing wrong in life aside from not believing in God) will go to Hell for lacking faith in God. I think that God would want to give people like atheists second chances. Not everyone can realize their faith in the 80 or so years on earth.

I'm not very religious. Religion's never been important in my life. But, I've always imagined Hell as a place where "bad" people go. People like murderers, child molesters, robbers, etc. It's a place for people who do more bad or evil than good in their lives. And I don't see non-believers as evil at all. They don't necessarily do any evil, some do only good and it's not fair to punish them for lack of faith. At least that's my opinion.

Even if I was religious, that's why I wouldn't go around the streets begging people to convert. I think that only the truly "bad" people will go to Hell and they deserve it. The good people, even if they lack faith in God, will be okay because as I understand it, God loves everyone and is forgiving.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Nick

About Me

Nick
United Kingdom
a little, maybe more

My Groups

Neighborhood

Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.

Archives

  • Powered by Vox