A blogger defends Hell as "perfect justice." I disagree.
Here's my comment:
I don't believe in Hell, but I also know that people who do believe in Hell have their own reasons for doing so. All I can do is share why people like me find the idea of Hell to be unnecessary for an ethical and rewarding life.
I don't have much use for Hell, not just because I feel it's "mean, cruel, and vindictive" - and eternal suffering most definitely is each of those things - but because it conflates revenge or punishment with justice. Justice is fundamentally about creating conditions in which everyone can thrive, regardless of their initial predispositions or life circumstances. Justice is the compassion to see beyond mistakes, imperfections, and "evil" and to help people who are acting against the wellbeing of others to develop a more compassionate lifestyle themselves. In a word, it's about growth, not destruction. I should say that I may be biased in this regard: I'm a therapist, and most of us believe that no suffering is good suffering, and that punishment is always ineffective for promoting ethical behavior in the long-run (and, believe it or not, there's science to back me up on this).
But I'm sure you and most other people who read this site are more interested in the theological repercussions of Hell, so it's essential that we address your claim that fundamentalist Christians are different from fundamentalist Muslims. The belief that evil (and those who practice it) will be punished with unimaginable suffering and eventual destruction is not very much different from the "justice" practiced by Islamic jihadists. You could argue that God, as creator of the universe, has every right to inflict such a penalty, while mere humans have no such right. But violence and destruction are violence and destruction, even if Revelation makes them sound poetic when distributed by the hand of God. While I definitely prefer violence in an afterlife that I don't believe will happen to suicide bombings in this life, the state of mind that underlies both orientations is essentially the same.
So, for those of us who are unsatisfied with Hell, I propose the opposite: eternal forgiveness. Forgiveness can transform people and mend relationships in a way that threats of eternal punishment cannot.
I like your response. Though, I can understand the deep need for hell. If there isn't justice, then this whole world would be meaningless and chaotic. We NEED to NOT believe that crazy thought...
ReplyDeleteBut, here's yet another related reason why I can't believe in hell, or heaven for that matter. I am still developing this idea, so I'd like some feedback. I am drawing from the ample empirical support of the substantial impact of implicit memories, implicit relational memories, and how the unconscious motivates our choices and behaviors. Much of the major and minor decisions we make are motivated by things out of our awareness. Now, I don't want to negate free will, but, to put it simply, our free will constitutes a much smaller portion of our choices then we tend to think.
Basically, I believe in psychic determinism (which allows for free will- albeit not very much). Based on this premise, if the major choices we make are motivated by things out of our awareness, how responsible are we for those choices/behaviors? I would argue that the vast majority of people are not aware and insightful in terms of their personal motivations. Thus, these individual's free will is mitigated by their unconscious/implicit impulses. So, why punish someone for perpetuating a pattern out of their awareness? Similarly, why reward someone for perpetuating a pattern that is out of their awareness.
Yes, some people (probably very few) are "actuated" or aware of these unconscious motivations. They should probably be "judged" more strictly for their choices/behaviors. But then there is always the question whether there is not some more fundamental motivation out of their awareness that drives their behavior. Who is to say?
Thanks for your thoughts, Sean. I agree, Hell or punishment of any sort are ridiculous when we consider all of the forces that motivate behavior. Free will in the absolute simply does not exist, so punishment is arguably cruel and unusual regardless of circumstance. Research overwhelmingly supports that it's also ineffective, but this psychological reality contradicts our primitive sense that retaliation is the appropriate response to unethical behavior. I think we'd all be better off if we'd get away from the ideas of "atonement" and "penitence" not just in the religious sphere, but in the criminal justice system as well. People would be so much more responsive to intervention if we'd approach them with understanding for the conditions that have reinforced their patterns of behavior rather than with the conviction that all it takes to be good is willpower.
ReplyDelete