Problem of Hell
|
|
The problem of Hell is a variant of the problem of evil, aimed specifically at religions which hold both that:
- An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God exists.
- Some people will be consigned to Hell forever, and will be eternally tortured.
| Contents |
The debate
While Hell has traditionally been regarded as a punishment for wrong-doing or sin in life, the problem arises primarily from the severity of the punishment, if Hell is indeed seen as eternal torture. However, the view of hell as "punishment" is not universal. For example, the Eastern Orthodox see it as a condition brought about by and the natural consequence of free rejection of God's love.
The debate mostly focuses on whether God would want to allow a situation where some people are consigned to Hell forever.
Issues of justice
Opponents of the doctrine of Hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed. Humans can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet Hell is essentially infinite punishment, and common sense seems to suggest that few (if any) people deserve such punishment.
Against the alleged injustice of Hell, some theists have maintained that God is so infinitely great that any transgression against him warrants an infinite punishment. On this view, the correct punishment for a crime is proportional to the status of the wronged individual. Opponents of this view reply that the correct punishment is also proportional to the intentions and understanding of the wrongdoer.
Arguing from the concept that "The wages of sin is death," some assert that any amount of sin in and of itself is worthy of damnation to Hell and all the associated punishments. Because sin is by definition an ultimate denial of God's authority, any sin is infinite in quality.
Another argument is that, although no crime warrants eternal punishment, sinful behaviour can continue in Hell, thus warranting an "extension of the sentence" that an individual must serve - and such extensions can continue on forever with each new sin.
Hell as a choice
Mirroring similar discussions in the problem of evil, another argument goes that human beings have free will, and although a benevolent God would prefer to see everyone saved, he would also allow humans to control their own destinies. This view opens the possibility of seeing Hell not as retributive punishment, but rather as an option that God allows, so that people who do not wish to be with God are not forced to be.
Opponents of this view (such as Marilyn McCord Adams) claim that, whether Hell is seen as punishment or a choice, it would be unreasonable for God to give such flawed and ignorant creatures as ourselves the awesome responsibility of our eternal destinies. In the view of Adams, God giving humans this choice is like an adult giving a child a loaded shotgun.
Another question some have asked is whether humans truly "choose" Hell - if an atheist believed there was no God, would this count as a choice, or merely an honest mistake? Both positions have been argued for. While some claim that the existence of God is by no means obvious, others maintain the contrary. The Bible itself says:
- The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)
The verse seems to imply a degree of culpability in such a belief. However, since Hell is so bad, it seems implausible that any person would deliberately choose it. It remains debated whether humans are "informed enough" for Hell to count as a "choice" in any normal sense.
Naturally, the idea of Hell as a choice depends on a strong account of free will. If a person's actions and choices are the products of her genes and her environment, neither of which she can control, Hell seems profoundly unfair. This problem is magnified for religions which claim to be the only path to salvation, since it is clear that which religion a person subscribes to is largely a result of the culture they are born in. Suppose, for example, that one has to be Christian to avoid Hell. Given that very few people born in Iran to Muslim parents become Christians, Hell would seem to punish such people unfairly.
Separate from the suggestion that one chooses one's eternal fate in life, many fathers of the church believed that upon death a soul will fully understand the good and evil of all its acts during life, and (if sinful) will in fact go to Hell voluntarily because it will deem itself unworthy for Heaven.
The argument from ignorance
As in the debate over the problem of evil, an option open to theists is to state that man is not perceptive enough to actually understand the mind of God, and cannot therefore conclude that the existence of Hell is unjust. The crux of this is that it is very possible that we do not understand the mind of God, and thus may not understand the reasons for the existence of Hell.
The plausibility of such arguments are however lower than in the problem of evil. With regard to the question "why is there evil in the world?" there are at least candidate reasons why evil might serve some sort of useful purpose - for example, it might be character forming, or give humans something to struggle against.
With Hell however, most such purposes fall away. Hell clearly does not serve any interests of its residents. While one can claim that God has some good reason for Hell that we cannot fathom, this is, of course, a very unsatisfying response, even if correct.
Of course, many believe that humans can reach a fairly good understanding of the nature of God. For example, through reading scripture, a Christian may come to believe that God is "just and right" (Deuteronomy 32:4). At the very least, reconciling this belief with the apparent injustice of Hell requires a fair degree of faith.
Denying the assumptions
For those who believe the traditional doctrine of Hell is unconvincing, and believe that claims 1 and 2 are incompatible, the only course of action is to deny one or both of them.
The first claim can be denied by rejecting the existence of God (atheism), or of a God sufficiently powerful or loving to prevent people from being consigned to Hell.
The second claim can also be denied. Three possible ways to do this (while maintaining a belief in God) are the doctrines of Annihilationism, where Hell is seen only as oblivion without consciousness, Universalism, where everyone is saved, without exception, and the Second chance doctrine (or Escapism), where even after one has been sent to Hell, one can still accept God and be saved. Some also assert in denial of claim 2 that the only "torture" in Hell is that of separation from God -- that separation from God is the embodiment of pain itself and hence that it constitutes infinite torture in a symbolic sense.
See also
- Afterlife
- Damnation
- The Divine Comedy
- The problem of evil
- Eschatology
- Heaven
- Hell
- Limbo
- Predestination
- Purgatory
- Salvation
Bibliography
- Marilyn McCord Adams: The Problem of Hell: A Problem of Evil for Christians, in William Rowe (ed.): God and the Problem of Evil, ISBN 0631222200
- Jonathan L. Kvanvig: The Problem of Hell, ISBN 019508487X
External links
- Heaven and Hell from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/)
- An overview of several major positions (http://www.angelfire.com/ab3/freewill/POR12.htm)