Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Hellishly difficult

Norm Geras picks a theological bone with the Pope.

His Holiness (that’s the Pope, not Norm) has warned us that Hell really exists, “and is eternal for those who shut their hearts to [Jesus’] love”.

The previous Pope had said that Hell was “the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God” – and while the two of them appear to disagree (in their infallibility) on whether it’s literally a place, they do seem to concur that rejecting god’s love is a freely chosen sin.

As such, it might seem to make sense to punish atheists for being such cold-hearted wanton rejectionists. Consider an analogy: suppose that my brother and I had fallen out many years ago over something that seemed very important at the time, but recently he’s been contacting me to tell me he still loves me and wants to make up. I spitefully turn him away in my defiant pride.

I’d say that doesn’t reflect too well on me. So maybe my failure to accept and return god’s love is equally reprehensible?

Maybe. But to the very best of my knowledge, I don’t have a brother. So if he wants us to have a good relationship, he’s going to have to make the effort to convince me that he exists first. Ditto god.

And another thing: if Hell really is an actual eternal inferno, then surely it must get through a lot of fuel to keep the fires going. How big a carbon footprint – sorry, hoofprint – would the whole operation have? And if we’re concerned about climate change, should we all convert to keep down the number of lost souls that they need to burn, or would it be more practical to bring Hell into an emissions trading scheme?

I know George Bush is in the pocket of the oil companies, but surely Satan wouldn’t be so evil as to ignore the Kyoto Protocol? Now, how many Ryanair flights does it take to offset the amount of brimstone used up in torturing a sinner…?
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

9 comments:

Paul Burgin said...

"Maybe. But to the very best of my knowledge, I don’t have a brother. So if he wants us to have a good relationship, he’s going to have to make the effort to convince me that he exists first. Ditto god."

In which case the argument goes that you don't want a relationship with him (assuming he is your brother and he needs to prove it) and therefore when it comes to the crunch, what is the point of him trying to point out he is your brother!

9:44 am, March 28, 2007
Tom Freeman said...

Well, a DNA test or my (our) parents' solemn promise and a birth certificate would do the job of convincing me. And given that, no doubt I'd be open to some sort of relationship.

(The analogy slightly breaks down given that there was no such falling-out, to the best of my knowledge - which, given my general lack of brain damage, is pretty definitive on this count.)

10:20 am, March 28, 2007
anticant said...

I shouldn't worry too much about this. After all, the Pope's job description is Licensed Purveyor of Godswallop.

1:37 pm, March 28, 2007
Alex said...

Tom,
This is a really good question. Often times I can look around and feel the very same way. I would like to give this a thourough response at some point, but for the time being I'd just like to say a couple things.

I would start with the point that any relationship we would have with Diety would differ drastically in the particulars of how that would play out. For us to relate to an imaterial being that created every fiber of our being – can know our thoughts as we think them – and know our character better than we know ourselvs would present some very unique nuances to how we could relate to eachother. So basically God is not 'us'. He's different.

The idea that God needs to convince you that He exists in an interesting point. Do you realize that what you are asking for is a matter of the heart not the head? I have been doing way to much reading lately from Dennett to Dawkins and on to the likes of Polkinghorne and Plantinga. All are wonderfully intelligent individuals. What I've noticed is this: It's not so much that their conclusions that are divergent, it's their starting point. Dawkins and Dennett do nothing to "disprove" God, but they do go a long way to try and build a reality that exists without Him. Likewise Polkinghorne and Plantinga cannot "prove" God, yet they build a world view that exists with Him. In my opinion they do much better job than the Dawkins/Dennett crowd, but then again you know where my starting point is.

So the question is what determines our point of departure? If there was a God would you want to know Him? He promises that any who seeks Him with all their heart will find Him. If He exists that's His promise to you.

There is no question that He is a hidden God. But I doubt He operates that way just to be annoying. For whatever reason He genuinely wants us to search for Him. In my own experience I've found that as I've earnestly sought after Him, He's turned out to be not so Hidden after all, but I must temper that statement by saying that He presents Himself in ways aren't exactly what I expected. He moves in my life in ways that I can't even name half the time.

So let me just end by restating the question:

Tom, if there was a God would you want to know Him? If there was a God who created all you see before you and so much more your mind cannot fathom, would you want to know Him? If you were created by God out of love for love, would you want to know that?

He's different than us Tom, but that does not make Him any less real.

2:57 pm, March 28, 2007
Tom Freeman said...

If there were a god, I'd want to know. Likewise I'd want to know if there were life of Mars, or if there were the ruins of an ancient civilisation under the Antarctic ice, or if the universe had been created by an inattentive incompentent minor deity who'd later lost interest and/or died.

From the other point of view, if I were some powerful being of any sort and I wanted people to know about me, I'd make sure to be very clear indeed.

I operate on the basis that justified beliefs need good reasons behind them. There are plenty of (contradictory) belief systems that people can come to feel convinced of if they shut down their critical faculties. Faith alone doesn't tell you which of the many evidentially unsupported views is the right one to have faith in.

How do we tell, in advance of seeking, which god it is that we're supposed to seek out with all our heart? It seems that your attitude to finding god presupposes in the searcher a belief that he's there to be found. My starting point is that I weigh different, on the basis of available evidence and the best logic I can manage.

Oh, and if you're interested in philosophers (unlike Dawkins the scientist) who specialise in arguing for or against god's existence (unlike Dennett, whose strongest area is mind) - and if you have the time for all the technical reading! - you could do worse than some of Richard Swinburne's work (for) or JL Mackie's The Miracle of Theism (against). A bit old, but hey, it's a timeless debate and all that...

(And Plantinga has indeed weighed in on this very ground, on top of his more theological work.)

5:08 pm, March 28, 2007
Alex said...

If there were a god, I'd want to know.

Good. Does that mean you'd be willing to look for Him?

if I were some powerful being of any sort and I wanted people to know about me, I'd make sure to be very clear indeed.

Perhaps, but is that what God is looking for — for people to know about Him, that is? Can you have any conception of what it means to be God? When one considers what the implications of the "Well if I were God I'd..." sort of statements, it becomes clear that we really are not at liberty to even try and say such things.

I operate on the basis that justified beliefs need good reasons behind them.

As well you should. Then why the atheism?

There are plenty of (contradictory) belief systems that people can come to feel convinced of if they shut down their critical faculties.

Yep.

Faith alone doesn't tell you which of the many evidentially unsupported views is the right one to have faith in.

Nope.

How do we tell, in advance of seeking, which god it is that we're supposed to seek out with all our heart?

There's only one Tom. As you said they can't all be true. Find the one that's true to the best of your ability. If there is a God, He will be true.

It seems that your attitude to finding god presupposes in the searcher a belief that he's there to be found.

You know you have a point there. I'm trusting that He's there to be found and that He'll let me be a part of His program. This is not to say that I am turning the knob on the side of my head to "off".

My starting point is that I weigh different, on the basis of available evidence and the best logic I can manage.

Well sure, so am I. So I ask again, what's up with the atheism then?

if you have the time for all the technical reading!

I don't know why man but I LOVE this kind of reading and thinking, but at the end of the day this faith in God stuff takes place on a totally different level.

7:01 pm, March 28, 2007
Tom Freeman said...

“Does that mean you'd be willing to look for Him?”

That phrasing sort of presupposes a particular answer. I’d say I’m willing (and long have been) willing to think about the considerations for and against various sorts of supernatural hypotheses. I put the effort into a philosophy of religion course at uni and, as you know, I’m happy to think out loud on these sorts of things.

But I don’t see a particular reason to look extra closely at one such view to the detriment of others – especially when most of the positive hypotheses in this area have such poor empirical support. I only have so much time for chasing things that look very much like phantoms, when there’s a whole unarguably real world going on around me.

“Can you have any conception of what it means to be God? When one considers what the implications of the "Well if I were God I'd..." sort of statements, it becomes clear that we really are not at liberty to even try and say such things.”

No doubt I’d have as much trouble understanding the intricacies of such a being’s mind as a five-year-old trying to contrast the representation of insanity in Shakespeare and Dostoevsky. But then, the kid wouldn’t have any opinions on that – he wouldn’t have deeply held yet incoherent pseudo-opinions. If we’re going to take the view that god’s preferences and intentions are way beyond our ken, then we have no business saying things like “god is good” or “god loves us”. The less determinate a belief gets, the less of a proper belief and the more of a meaningless mantra it tends to become.

“why the atheism?”

The absurdly short answer: Occam’s razor in the face of poor evidence, plus all the suffering. ‘God’ just seems to me like a pretty odd idea that sits very uneasily with known facts.

“There's only one Tom.”

Thank you! I feel special. ;-)

“As you said they can't all be true. Find the one that's true to the best of your ability. If there is a God, He will be true.”

At very most one can be true, but very many of them are utterly convincing to millions. If I devoted myself to ‘exploring the truth’ of predestinarian Calvinism or Zoroastrianism or Sufi Islam or Vajrayana Buddhism… who knows?

My study of and debating with people of a wide range of views brings me – with the best of my ability – to judging that atheism is true.

2:39 pm, March 29, 2007
Matt M said...

Hey Tom,

Just a quick question: do you know if Mackie is any good?

I've read various bits and pieces about him, and he looks interesting. But I've yet to make the leap and buy any of his books. Both the 'Miracle of Theism' and 'Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong' look tempting.

6:34 pm, March 29, 2007
Tom Freeman said...

I read most of 'Miracle' about 9 years ago and thought it was very good. My recollection's a bit flaky but he's strong on miracles and the design argument (both following Hume) and also on the free will defence, if memory serves.

I've not read 'Inventing' but a couple of mates who were doing the ethics paper liked it.

11:16 am, March 30, 2007

Post a Comment