For perhaps the hundredth time over the past year or so, I’ve been asked by a new atheist how to get over the fear of hell. As anyone who’s ever been indoctrinated into Christianity understands, the fear of hell is a powerful emotion, and even all the logic in the world is sometimes insufficient to rid the mind of those nagging “what if” questions. Since I’ve been writing a lot about morality recently, I think I’ll take a few minutes to explain just why the concept of hell itself is morally bankrupt and completely incompatible with a loving God.
Before getting into the argument itself, I will remind the reader that morality is simply the box into which we put interactions between beings. When an action of ours has an impact on another being, we can judge that action based on its effect. This is morality in a nutshell. God, if he exists, is a being with agency. That is, it intentionally causes things to happen. Those caused events have an effect on other beings — namely humans — and so can be placed into the box with every other moral concept.
Ok, so on to hell. Hell is described as a place of punishment for those who do not accept Jesus as their lord and savior. For the time being, it isn’t really important what type of punishment it is, only that it is unpleasant to some degree or another. What is terribly important is that hell is eternal, and there is no hope of escape or pardon. With this in mind, let’s examine the concept in detail.
Think for a moment about why we punish children. All punishments fall into four categories: Instruction, rehabilitation, protection, and retaliation. We should note that the threat of punishment is not the same as punishment. The threat of punishment can be used as a deterrent. We hope that just by promising to do something bad to someone if they do a certain thing, we will prevent them from doing it. We could make the argument that the threat of hell is a deterrent against not accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, but this argument breaks down rapidly. If the threat of hell is meant to deter us from disbelief, then we are essentially being presented with the threat of hell as evidence for Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior! This must be so, because belief is not a decision. It is a state. I cannot choose to believe that I have no hands, for instance. I have overwhelming evidence that at this very moment, my hands are feverishly typing away at a keyboard, and that I have just recently scratched an itch on my left ear with the fifth finger of my left hand. For a threat to have meaning, it must be believed. If I say that you, gentle reader, will be struck by lightning that I have sent through your computer monitor if you do not wire ten thousand dollars to me in the next ten minutes, you are very unlikely to send me any money because there is no credible reason for you to believe my threat.
Similarly, the threat of hell has no particular weight upon those who do not believe that it exists. Since it is supposedly designed specifically as punishment for the crime of not believing that it exists, we must admit we’re faced with a circular argument. The threat of hell is not sufficient evidence to pursuade someone to believe in it if they don’t believe in it. The threat of hell only has relevance to those who believe that Jesus exists, but since they believe that Jesus exists, they are presumably in no danger of hell! In effect, if hell exists, it is only a danger to those who do not find the threat of hell to be a deterrent to nonbelief!
Let me make sure that this point is completely clear. The threat of hell only bears any weight for those who believe the threat to be credible. It is not designed to convert the unbelievers. After all, unbelievers don’t believe, so the threat is empty to them. It is designed to scare believers into obedience. If nothing else, we ought to be able to discard the notion of hell based only on this observation, but let’s not be hasty. Let’s examine the actual punishment, not just the threat of it.
When we scold a child for getting too close to a hot stove, we are attempting to protect him from being injured, and we are trying to give him the knowledge that stoves are dangerous. If a child has been scolded and returns to the stove, loving parents will often make him go to timeout, or perhaps forgo a trip to the toy store. The unpleasant consequences of his actions are designed to make him a better, safer person.
When we put a criminal in jail for five years, and then release him back into society, it is in the hopes that the negative experience of going to jail will deter him from committing the same or similar crimes again. We hope that the punishment has rehabilitated him such that he will be a better member of society for the rest of his life. When we put a criminal in jail for life with no hope of parole, it is because in our judgment he is incapable of living peacefully in society, and is a real and present danger to other citizens. In fact, he is such a danger that the only way to ensure the safety of other innocent citizens is to prevent him from ever coming in contact with them.
Sometimes, punishment is not constructive. It is revenge, pure and simple. In reality, we should probably not even call this punishment, but it is often presented as such by those exacting it upon others, so we must address it in this context. There are times when we humans hurt other people to make ourselves feel better. If someone has wronged us, we don’t wish to make them a better person. We just want to make them hurt because they hurt us. It’s important to note that a loving parent would punish their child for exacting revenge or retaliation on someone. Revenge for revenge’s sake is nearly universally recognized as a bad thing, as it is just perpetuating pain without contributing any good to the world.
So, which one of these things is hell? It cannot possibly be for instruction or protection. Since there is no way for the inmates to ever get back into society, there is no way that the knowledge of hell’s reality can serve any purpose for the person in hell. Likewise, it’s absurd to suggest that the person in hell is being protected from some danger.
But what about protecting others? Hell certainly separates the evil from the good, if we are to believe the Bible. Might it be that separating the evil from the good is done for the protection of believers, in the same way that we lock up some criminals for life? Unfortunately, no. Even this explanation does not wash, for the people in hell are already dead. They are no danger to any believer, and never will be again. If they are simply winked out of existence, the effect for believers is the same. Their eternal existence, separate from believers is not in any way different than if they simply did not exist any more, for in either case, they can have no effect on believers, either those on earth or in heaven.
In short, there is simply no benefit to either believers or the nonbeliever if hell exists. If it serves no function for humans, the only possibility left is that it serves a function for God. Is it possible that we’ve overlooked some “greater good” in the universe — something about the eternal punishment of unbelievers that contributes to goodness by giving benefit to god himself? If we answer this question honestly, we must conclude that if God does in fact gain anything from hell, it can only be pleasure. The God of the Bible needs nothing for he lacks nothing. He has the power to do anything that suits his whim, and to create anything at all that he should ever desire. There is nothing that any entity could do for God that he cannot do for himself. However, if God desires pleasure, and derives it from putting people into eternal punishment with no hope of reprieve, we could say that there is a purpose in the existence of hell.
Is that a good purpose? Again, if we are honest, we must say that it is not. It is inflicting pain upon another without contributing to the greater good. It is revenge without rehabilitation, instruction, or protection. It is designed by the designer with the sole purpose of giving himself pleasure.
Perhaps this god and this hell do exist, but if they do, is God loving? Is he worthy of love, admiration, or respect? Clearly not. He is worthy of derision, scorn, and hatred. He is the ultimate evil force in the universe. Luckily, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a being exists, so we need not lose much sleep on the idea. Even so, let’s suppose for a minute that we are convinced that God exists, and he is the ultimate evil in the universe. We might be persuaded that becoming a Christian is still the correct logical decision, for it must be better to spend eternity in paradise with an evil tyrant than to spend eternity in hell as a matter of principle.
Alas, this logic also fails, for if we have acknowledged that God is the ultimate evil in the universe, what possible reason could we have for believing that he has been honest with us about the standard by which hell or heaven is awarded to humans? In fact, why would we not immediately suspect that the ultimately evil God who created hell would also attempt to trick as many people as possible into sending themselves to hell? If he gains pleasure by perceiving the existence of people in hell, would not more people in hell provide more pleasure? It would be in his best interest to send as many people to hell as possible, and the best way to do that would be to trick us into d0ing exactly the thing that would send us to hell! But then, if I can figure this out, can I not also guess God’s logic and suppose that he means me to discover his motive? If that is the case, doesn’t it mean that the logical thing for him to do would be to tell the truth about how to get to heaven? For if I discover his motive, I should suspect that he is also wise enough to anticipate my discovery and reverse the playing field yet again so that I will be tricked into going to hell in spite of my discovery.
As you can see, this is an endless circle wherein one can never reach a conclusion about what is the correct way to get to heaven. Any guess we make is equally likely to send us to hell. Once we’ve realized this, it should dawn on us that the ultimate evil being would be best served by not creating heaven at all, but creating only hell and sending everyone there, regardless of their actions during life. Why, if he derives pleasure from sending people to hell, would he deny himself pleasure by allowing some people entry into heaven? Perhaps he derives pleasure from allowing people into heaven. If this is so, then the pleasure he derives is either equal or unequal to the pleasure he derives from sending people to hell. If the pleasure is equal, then there is no functional difference for God between sending people to hell and sending them to heaven. We are left with the conclusion that only malevolence would lead God to send anyone to hell under these circumstances. If there is a difference, we should expect that God would not bother sending anyone to the place which provides him less pleasure. If he does anyway, we can only conclude that his decisions are arbitrary and inscrutable.
In short, the existence of hell logically dictates a God that does not conform to any possible definition of “good.” This in turn dictates that humans can literally have no confidence in any decision they make during this life. Either they will go to hell or they will go to heaven, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to alter this fact, nor is there any way they can hope to ensure themselves a spot in one or the other. In other words, if hell exists, then our knowledge of it is completely and utterly irrelevant to our lives. Even if we believe in hell, we can rest easy at night knowing that we are utterly helpless to determine our own fate. What will happen will happen, and there’s nothing we can do to change it.
Of course, if we are going to believe that, we might as well believe that hell does not exist, for the outcome will be the same, and we shall be happier not believing. I suggest to you, gentle reader, that the absurdity of the paradox is enough evidence that we can reasonably conclude that neither hell nor a God who would create hell exist. This certainly doesn’t prove that some other afterlife does or does not exist, but it does allow us to eliminate the Christian God and the Christian hell from our list of possibilities and move on to a more pleasant topic.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Good post Hamby. You know, I haven’t checked out your blog until now. I knew you had one, but it wasn’t until I was perusing wordpress that I read it.
In any case, I actually have a blog up here too. Check it out if you like.
ShaunPhilly.wordpress.com
Posted by shaunphilly | February 19, 2009, 10:20 pmThanks very much, Shaun! Thanks for the add on your blogroll. I’ve added you to mine, also.
Geez, it’s getting difficult to keep up with everything… I need more hours, man! More hours!
Posted by hambydammit | February 19, 2009, 10:30 pmAh, yes. Hell.
The first half of any successful sales pitch.
First, convince your potential buyer that there is something, by default, wrong with their present life. Identify a common source of misery within their demographic (in this particular instance, a fear of the unknown and/or personal guilt over past transgressions), convince them of a particular agency for this misery that they brought upon themselves (in this particular instance, sin) and then – when the customer has hit their low and feeling pretty bad about the situation, mentally seeking an answer (even if just to rebut you with) – deliver them ‘the solution’. Whatever it is you’re selling (in this particular instance, ‘salvation’ via Jesus Christ).
This immediately pumps your customer up on a high and makes them extremely receptive of your product. It’s even better if it’s an offer that they tell themselves there’s no point in declining, because you’re offering something ‘for free’ (in this particular instance, a small copy of the NT and belief in the deity is, itself, free. Heading to Church, of course, is another matter entirely – but by the time they have to do that, they’re already emotionally invested and will shrug-off the extra associated costs).
The Hell –> Heaven routine has netted me quite a few extended warranty sales over the years.
Posted by Kevin R Brown | February 19, 2009, 10:59 pmHa! You’re right, Kevin. It’s an incredibly effective routine. Sell someone something they don’t need to fix a problem they don’t have. That way, they’ll have to keep coming back to you for the rest of their lives since the problem is obviously not fixed yet.
Posted by hambydammit | February 19, 2009, 11:08 pmCharles Darwin said it very well:
I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.
Posted by Loren Petrich | February 20, 2009, 5:40 amNICE POST. Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Posted by AnnieT | February 20, 2009, 3:51 pmThe subject of an eternal burning hell has led more people to becoming athiests then any other Christian doctrine. It is unfortunate that this belief is not founded upon the Bible, but upon mingling Greek mythology into it.
Unfortunately and unknowningly, you have made your arguments based upon a false concept of hell as being a form of eternal punishment. Hell is simply eternal seperation from God in a state of non-existence. It is not eternal torture!
Hell is like euthanasia. A person chooses to live their own life without God, the source of all life, ultimately reaps the consequences of that choice: eternal death. It’s very logical, natural procession.
I quote from a book, Steps to Christ, “The natural man is not in harmony with God. He finds no joy in communion with a holy God. He can not be happy in God’s presence. If he were allowed into heaven, it would have no joy for him. The spirit of unselfish love that reigns there would touch no answering chord in his soul. His thoughts, his interests, his motives, would be alien to those the sinless dwellers there. He would be a discordant note in the melody of heaven. Heaven would be to him a place of torture. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them!”
Please visit http://www.helltruth.com to get a clearer biblical understanding of the subject.
Posted by EricK | March 4, 2009, 2:13 pmCareful who you call unknowing there, bub. I’m well acquainted with the concept of hell as “separation from god.” I’m curious about something, though. If hell is (to use your own words) “non-existence,” why call it hell? Why not say that people who say the magic words will get to live forever, and people who don’t will only live until they die?
Betcha didn’t think of that, did you…
Posted by hambydammit | March 12, 2009, 1:25 pmhambydammit:
Your post on hell was a very thoughtful one, and I have the deepest respect for your sincerity. For an in-depth discussion of hell from a traditional Christian perspective, which I believe addresses the difficulties you have raised, you might like to look at this:
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/whybelieve8.html
The above link also addresses Darwin’s difficulty with the “damnable doctrine” of hell.
Darwin’s argument also relies on what he calls “the plain language of the text.” This is a powerful argument if one believes in the private interpretation of Holy Scripture; but most Christians do not. The Bible was written between two and three thousand years ago in languages (ancient Hebrew and Greek) whose vocabulary, metaphors and literary forms were very different from those of modern-day languages, by people whose mindset was in many ways utterly alien to our own. For these reasons alone, it would be utterly foolhardy for any 21st-century individual to believe that he/she was qualified decide for him/herself what some passage from the Bible means, simply by picking it up and reading it. The Bible doesn’t belong to every Tom, Dick and Harry; it belongs to the Jewish and Christian community, and can only be properly understood within that community.
Posted by Vincent | March 24, 2009, 11:04 amUrm…both Hamby and I were both raised in a Christian community.
Posted by Watcher | March 24, 2009, 11:20 amYou’re not really going to pull the old “we don’t have the secret decoder ring” ploy are you? Because I know where this leads. When everyone starts to tell you how we used to be Christian you throw out the “you were never REAL Christians” bit. Lame.
And the funny thing is that when I was 25 or so years old I would probably have said the same thing. And 10 years from now you could be on our end hearing the same old tired shit from a believer telling you that you were never a real Christian.
Posted by Watcher | March 24, 2009, 11:28 amI couldn’t have said it better myself, Watcher. There’s nothing new about one Christian calling another a false Christian. There aren’t 15,000 denominations in the world for nothing.
Posted by hambydammit | March 24, 2009, 12:58 pmWatcher
Nowhere in the above thread did I claim that you or Hamby were not real Christians, before you rejected Christianity. On the contrary, I’m sure you were. What I did say was that Darwin’s key argument against Christianity – that it would consign millions of sincere non-believers to Hell – was based on a simplistic reading of Scripture (probably Mark 16:16). You just can’t wade into a 2000-year-old book, pluck out a verse like that, and immediately assume you know what it means from “the plain language of the text” – especially when other verses (Matthew 18:17) suggest that the unbelief condemned here by Christ is a “refusal to listen,” or proud and obstinate hard-heartedness.
I’m sure you’ve both read C. S. Lewis, but it seems to me that nothing in the above post addresses his comments on hell in “The Problem of Pain,” written in 1940. Two key points made by Lewis:
(1) The doors of hell are locked on the inside.
(2) In the long run, objectors to the doctrine of hell must answer this question: What are you asking God to do?
Posted by Vincent | March 26, 2009, 12:46 pmVincent, I’m wondering where you got the impression that I referenced, or for that matter, even care about Darwin’s key argument against Christianity? Are you under the mistaken impression that I’m some kind of “Darwinist Atheist?” If so, please disabuse yourself of such notions. That’s silly.
I’ve read C.S. Lewis. He’s a hack philosopher, and his interpretation of scripture is no more valid than anyone else’s, since no interpretation can be submitted to outside falsification.
So now, are you not arguing that your version of Christianity is the correct one and other Christians’ version isn’t? What are you arguing? You believe hell isn’t as bad as I’ve made it out to be, and that’s fantastic for you, but so what? The version I am critiquing here is believed firmly by a lot of people. I’m not interested in arguing over scriptural interpretation to try to decide which version of hell exists because all versions of hell are false. There is no hell, so why would I want to grant your position any more favor than another person’s?
Posted by hambydammit | March 26, 2009, 2:00 pmI used to be a Christian when I was young, too. I was raised Baptist, unfortunately. So I actually was presented with the Lake of Fire hell concept. I can tell you that this concept was the direct catylist for me becoming an atheist.
It hardly matters, though, because as has been already demonstrated no forms of god or hell can reasonably exist. I just know that it’s a horrible, scary concept to teach to children who are not old enough to apply logical thinking and a lack of scientific evidence for such a thing as hell to come to the only rational conclution possible: it is complete and utter horseshit.
Posted by Valerie Kelley | April 9, 2009, 1:01 amHamby,
Interesting article. One point.
You will notice that we often punish evil people not only because of the specific action that caused them to be evil, but also just because they are evil. For example, when we execute a serial rapist, it is not unreasonable to say that we are punishing him not only because he is a serial rapist, but also because he just is exceedingly evil, apart from the specific reason for his being exceedingly evil. His death gives us a sense that “we have rid ourselves of this horrible thing.” If God punishes the people in Hell just because they are evil, and not because of the specific reason that caused them to be evil, then he is not punishing them out of revenge (revenge being directed at an action). This account actually seems a bit more plausible than the four you have presented, since God would likely be more concerned with the evilness by itself than with the specific actions that caused it.
Regards,
Presupp.
Posted by Presuppositionalist | May 22, 2009, 1:07 amIt’s not my fault some people think there is an intrinsic quality called “evil.” I’m doing my best to help them understand why that way of thinking is…um… dumb.
Posted by hambydammit | May 22, 2009, 11:33 amI agree, actually.
Look, suppose I am employed as a lawyer at a law firm. We can understand the fact that I am a lawyer even if we do not know the specific facts that caused me to be a lawyer, i.e., the specific law firm that employs me, the specific law school I attended, etc. We know that I work at *some* firm, attended *some* law school, and so on, and that makes the idea that I am a lawyer comprehensible even if we cannot fill in all of those blanks.
Similarly, we can understand the fact that someone is evil, apart from the specific facts that caused him to be evil, i.e., the specific crime that he committed. We just need to know that he committed some crime. So we don’t need an intrinsic concept of value here, just a normal capacity for thinking in abstractions.
Posted by Presuppositionalist | May 22, 2009, 12:28 pmUm… we don’t agree, because you’re doing exactly what I said I’m trying to teach people is incorrect.
What’s the punch line here? How does any of this have to do with hell?
Posted by hambydammit | May 22, 2009, 2:23 pm> Um… we don’t agree, because you’re doing exactly what I said I’m trying to teach people is incorrect.
I denied that evil was an intrinsic quality. Evil is an evaluation of an action wrt a specific moral code.
> What’s the punch line here? How does any of this have to do with hell?
God may be punishing the people in Hell just because they are evil, irrespective of the specific reason for their having become evil. This is distinct from, and more plausible than, the four reasons you considered for Hell’s existence.
Posted by Presuppositionalist | May 22, 2009, 6:26 pmSo why do you think Hell would exist?
I do not believe that people are “evil” in addition to what they do…I believe that the things they do are “evil”, as a measure of their consequences.
I see no significance in your concept of “evil”: what does it even mean? What if someone does a “good” act with “evil” intentions, or an “evil” act with “good” intentions? Are those punished in a hell?
Posted by Teleprompter | May 26, 2009, 12:35 am> I do not believe that people are “evil” in addition to what they do…I believe that the things they do are “evil”, as a measure of their consequences.
Right.
> So why do you think Hell would exist?
On the account I have presented, Hell exists to punish people, considered as people who have done some evil thing. Each person in Hell is treated as an exemplar of evil, and their punishment is symbolic of God’s ultimate triumph over evil.
Posted by Presuppositionalist | May 26, 2009, 12:51 amTo me, that god character is nothing more than the Robespierre god, a god who is willing to pay any price to advance his revolution…to cause any amount of torment for the sake of his own glory, rather than for “the Republic” or for “the people”. The terms are interchangable. If he existed, he would be an extremist of psychotic and bloody caliber. If the guillotine symbolizes the victory of the Republic over the monarchy, yet is reviled by civillized people today…how much more will the idea of hell by reviled by civillized people in the future?
Posted by Teleprompter | May 30, 2009, 3:23 pmDespite being a christian, i loved your article because it clearly presented the idea that hell cannot possibly exist…and won. I am fortunate enough to belong to a christian group that doesnt believe that a God Almighty would punish people forever, for some sins committed in our very short lifespans. I’m also fortunate to belong to a group that does believe in a God. The fact that some ill informed church leaders out there teach weird doctrines like hell (forgive the pan) wasnt enough to convince me that I owe my existence to a cosmic accident.
Posted by moses | June 15, 2009, 4:31 amMoses, thank you for the comment. Despite the fact that I’m pretty much atheist all the way, I’m not blind to the fact that there are many groups of religious people who do not subscribe to the more brutal parts of some of the religions that have come and gone in the world. I’m sure if the Middle East and America were full of people like you, there would be an awful lot less nastiness in the universe.
I don’t know how much of my blog you’ve read, but I encourage you to really dig into it. I admit that the argument from “cosmic accident” can be compelling, but you might be shocked at how much more parsimonious the argument is when you understand that “accident” is just not the right word for the argument. I don’t really delve into cosmology very much, but I do spend a lot of time dealing with the evolution of life on earth, and speaking as someone who used to buy the same logic you are espousing, I’m telling you that the scientific answer is not only more parsimonious, but in the end, substantially more compelling and comforting than any god argument I’ve yet heard.
Out of curiosity, what does your church think of “original sin”? Do you accept that life evolves according to the laws of natural selection? If there is no hell, what reason would I have for being part of your religion? Do you believe yourselves morally superior to those who are not in your religion? I’m not asking to start a fight. I’m genuinely curious.
Posted by hambydammit | June 15, 2009, 6:54 pmThis was a fantastic post, and I applaud the meticulous reasoning behind its subject. I have long denied the benevolence behind the act of sending people to hell for disbelief in God, however, how would you refute the notion of it existing as place of punishment for people who committed atrocities?
Posted by Matthew Martinez | June 29, 2009, 10:11 pmWell, we’d still have a bit of the same kind of dilemma. Without a specific code book detailing exactly what is and what is not an atrocity, and some way to know for sure that this code book was definitely the correct one, we’d still be faced with a somewhat arbitrary guess at what God wanted us to do.
We’d still have an issue with what hell was accomplishing. Since the person is dead, they are no longer a threat to humanity, so it’s not for protection. Since they’re dead, it’s not to rehabilitate them so they won’t commit atrocity in the future. It’s still nothing but retribution, and a god who would inflict endless retribution on a person is still inflicting a punishment that far exceeds the severity of the crime. As bad as Hitler was, even if he got sentenced to ten years of excruciating torture for each and every death he caused, eternal hell would be a quadrillion times a quadrillion times longer than that for each sentence. And when the whole sentence was done, he’d have another quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times the length of the entire sentence before he started on the beginning of a quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion times the length of the entire time he’d already spent being tortured.
There really is no possible way to justify such a sentence as anything other than malevolent, regardless of how incredibly evil the person might have been. Since such a god would necessarily be malevolent, we’re right back at not being able to trust anything he says…
So, even if the definitive book existed, we couldn’t trust it.
Posted by hambydammit | July 2, 2009, 7:15 pmthe way it is is that Jesus lives and no matter what the world says the or wants to proof the son of God and the His words is the truth so should you not live for Him you will go to the everlasting fire because every one wants to be with Him one day but does not want to obey Him.
Posted by andre | July 5, 2009, 11:27 amThanks, andre. I do appreciate it when theists like you prove my point for me.
I’ll be sure not to use my brain, and take your assurance that no matter what logic and the evidence say, I should be very, very afraid. Thanks for setting me straight.
Posted by hambydammit | July 5, 2009, 2:12 pmWow Andre, thanks for the offer, but no.
I’m an acthuluist.
Posted by Teleprompter | July 5, 2009, 5:24 pmThat’s a perfectly reasonable argument for the immorality of hell, yet even as an atheist I have always had trouble compromising the non-existence of hell with the absence of any kind of accountability for our actions. I see that the christian version of hell is indefinitely immoral, and the islamic one almost makes the cut, (you only serve time in hell equal to the severity of your crimes, as long as you believe in Allah) but as of yet I haven’t found any suitable “negative” afterlife. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not thirsty for fire and brimstone retribution, but the one issue that has always nagged me since I first became an atheist is the lack of any tangible accountability for universally immoral actions.
Posted by Matthew Martinez | July 8, 2009, 1:17 pmWhy would you think there’s no accountability for our actions? We are all accountable for our actions. We’re accountable to others, to the law, and to ourselves. We have moral instincts, and they’re nothing to sneeze at. There’s a reason the Trolley Problem is answered basically the same way by people across all cultures. Evolution has given us the innate desire to treat others in accordance with their actions towards us. Put another way, The Golden Rule is pretty much hardwired into humans.
Think about yourself for a moment. When you do something bad to someone else, you feel bad about it, right? So do most other people. When people consistently act badly towards others, they tend to think very poorly of themselves. They believe themselves to be bad people, and within the context of their actions, they’re correct. Accountability to ourselves is a very big deal. Beyond that, our accountability to others carries real consequences. If you treat everyone around you badly, they’re going to treat you badly. You won’t get any help when you need it. You’ll have trouble finding and keeping a mate. If you do something bad enough, the police will come arrest you, and you’ll go to jail.
Sure, there are times when people die before they are punished for crimes, and there are people who get away with immoral acts, but that doesn’t mean there’s no accountability. It just means “justice” is not absolute or complete.
Posted by hambydammit | July 8, 2009, 1:25 pmLet me ask you this, if there is no God and no hell, then why should I care about what some human feels about me?
Why should morality be important to me? It all seem pointless if, after death….nothing. Why should I waste my time being morally decent?
To be honest, its depressing to think that I’m being a “decent” human being just to please other “decent” humans.
If there is no God and no hell, then screw morality.
Posted by celestially | July 15, 2009, 9:45 pmHave fun with that. I’ll visit you in jail.
Posted by hambydammit | July 16, 2009, 12:05 amMaybe god cheats us that there is a hell after life for he wishes everyone not to do the evil things. But the evil human beings are created by him. Hell…what’s the pleasure of creating badass while telling them to do the right thing?
Posted by Ted | December 24, 2009, 3:17 amI got down to, “All punishments fall into four categories: Instruction, rehabilitation, protection, and retaliation.”
Sez who?
Posted by Jstanley01 | February 16, 2010, 6:08 pmHere’s Wikipedia’s entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment
Scroll down to “Possible Reasons for Punishment.” They list:
Rehabilitation: Check.
Incapacitation/social protection. Check.
Deterrence/Prevention: Didn’t I cover that under “threat of punishment”? Check.
Restoration: Repaying those wronged for offenses caused. Ok. I hadn’t really thought of repayment as punishment, but sure enough, if it hurts your wallet, it’s punishment. So you caught me. Now, please explain to me how a nonbeliever spending eternity in hell transfers any material gain to anyone in heaven? Thanks.
Retribution: Check.
Education: Check.
Denunciation/Condemnation: Well, I think of denunciation as a form of punishment, not a reason for it. Semantic hairs, if you’d like to split them.
Was there anything else you can think of?
Posted by hambydammit | February 16, 2010, 6:48 pmGenerally speaking…one thing that really bothers me especially from “born agains” is that they publish these books like 23 minutes in Hell and a Divine Revelation of Hell saying that Jesus took them on a personal tour of Hell for the reasons of letting the world know that Hell is real. Jesus never needed to take these people into Hell because they already believe that it is and these books prove absolutely nothing. If i was going to believe anyone went to Hell and returned…it wouldn’t be from a fundamentalist Christian.
Another thing is that alot of people seem to think that Satan is in charge of Hell and is responsible for all the evil in the world. I got news for ya..humanity is unfortunately inherently evil and we need to take responsibility for that fact. The Devil made me do it does not work anymore. Hell was supposedly created by God for Satan and his Angels. This means Satan and his Angels should be in torment in hell not in charge of it. Also the fact that God created Hell and all it’s torments etc would paint God as being something other than the unconditional loving God I believe him to be and thus Hell cannot exist.
Posted by Chuckles | March 6, 2010, 12:31 pmFirst of all, Hamby, I’ve read most of your articles over the past few months and they have been hugely influential in my way of thinking. I’ve never been a literalist/fundamentalist in my relationship with Christianity but I was brought up going to church every Sunday and did believe in some concept of God. However, as Dawkins says in one of his books (God Delusion I think), there comes a point where there is nothing left to believe in, it ends up being believing in God for the sake of it. Someone rejects a lot of what Christianity professes – heaven, hell, original sin, God answers prayer, that the bible is factual, jesus being the son of God etc. Metaphorically speaking, all the organs and muscles and stripped away from the body and all that is left is the skeleton.
I think this is the problem that all liberal religious people have – the skeleton that is left standing is the notion that there must be some point. There must be some external meaning. Some reason we exist. A reason why things happen – more than just a series of chemical reactions. Some cosmic truth. Some lifeforce holding us all together.
Although existentialism is off the radar in an academic sense, its themes pervade everyday life – films, books, conversations, every action we do. Every time people talk of religion/spirituality/life it is instinctually linked to existence. (Hamby, I know you say that your business isn’t philosophy but I’m sure you would agree what at least some of what existentialism has to offer.) Liberals hold to the belief because they need an answer to the question – Why? When you accept that there is no answer, then any belief in God/gods disappears. The skeleton is dismantled and any religious/spiritual belief becomes untenable.
In England (unlike the US), religion has taken a back seat yet most people still believe in something (faith – a belief without evidence). They believe because they want to believe not because they think it’s true. They can’t deal with the alternative. Life is pointless. However, we, as humans, are able to give it a point, a meaning. They also need meaning for why people are moral, or why people cheat and do other ‘evil/sinful’ things etc – science can provide the answers and the understanding, there’s no need to turn to god. A notion of external meaning (religion, god etc) is false and unfactual and down-right unscientific which ever way you look at it.
Sorry, I don’t mean to sound like a fully paid up member of The Existentialist Society but some of the views have strongly influenced me and I think they are compatible with a scientific understanding of the world. Two posters here highlight the liberal (Chuckles) and fundamentalist (celestially) positions. The problem they share is they cannot accept that life is pointless. There has to be a reason they exist. They need an answer to the Why? question and its too much responsibility for them to create their own answer, their own meaning. Sorry for the not very well written post. Keep up the good work Hamby, I check back regularly for new posts.
{EDITED: Added paragraph breaks. -HD}
Posted by Jeremy | March 9, 2010, 10:23 amThanks, Jeremy. I hope you’ll forgive me taking the liberty of adding paragraph breaks to your comment. You have good things to say, and I just cannot follow run-on paragraphs.
The problem of meaning is often applied to the question of hell, but I was hoping to show with this article that even if we apply existentialist thought to hell, it falls short as a philosophically viable purpose. I agree with you that a certain brand of “existentialism lite” is pervasive, especially among more liberal thinkers, and one of the biggest hurdles to abandoning the supernatural is the fear that all that will be left is a cold, calculated, purposeless existence.
I do agree that most people do search for meaning in their life, and I think that’s part of the human condition. We need to feel like there’s a point to getting up in the morning, and more than that, we want to feel like we’ve accomplished something big. Religion certainly offers that, but it does so by placing the emphasis on what happens after we die, which is exactly contrary to what we ought to be thinking about if we want to accomplish something.
Here’s an article I wrote a year or so ago about finding meaning in a godless existence:
Posted by hambydammit | March 9, 2010, 12:56 pmJeremy,
While I appreciate your post, I think it is sad that you feel life is pointless and that there is no meaning to anything other than what we give to it. I personally don’t need anything and just because I choose to believe in God doesn’t make me a “Liberal”. The problem these days is that this world is becoming “Godless” therefore morality and the basic care about your neighbor mentality are out the window. I am scared to think what this world would be like if everyone thought as you do.
Me personally, if you really sat down and thought about the universe and everything in it (mostly unknown to us at this point) and how incredible it is, let alone our wonderful planet and everything in it as well and how mathematically ridiculous the odds are that any and all this just appeared at random? That to me is folly, there is no way that we are here by chance. Science cannot explain everything sad to say.
I always thought that if there was a God why wouldn’t he make his presence known to everyone? Why not appear in the sky and say I am the Lord thy God and you will obey me or else! I always hated the “you gotta have faith” angle of religion. I mean how can someone “come to know Christ” by reading a book? You can read about people and know what they did and what they stood for but you really don’t “know” them. This is when I found out the difference between believing in God and Religion.
This is the great thing about our country, we can believe what we want freely without fear of persecution. Although I believe Jeremy has tunnel vision with regards to his beliefs, he is allowed to and I feel sorry for him. My life has plenty of meaning, without God playing a central role in it, but plays a role nonetheless. The belief in a God or Gods has been around for a very long time and believed in by many races around the globe and probably for good reason. Science cannot eradicate God I’m here to tell ya.
Posted by Chuckles | March 11, 2010, 4:16 pmHave you by chance noticed that the most secular countries in the world also have the best systems of government support for those in need? And have you noticed that people in those countries willingly pay enormous tax rates because they believe in those systems?
Have you noticed that Japan — a “godless country” — has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, while the U.S., a primarily Christian country, is up there with many middle eastern countries for violent crime?
The data belies your assertion. Science contradicts it. Human morality is a function of evolution, my friend. And there’s no need for God to dictate it.
Here’s an article explaining it in much more detail.
Posted by hambydammit | March 12, 2010, 1:05 amAs Hamby points out, a more Godless country doesn’t result in greater immorality. I’ll add some of the Scandinavian countries to the list – high living standards, technologically developed, greater equality yet relatively secular compared to many countries.
Just because the odds of something happening may be extremely slim doesn’t mean it is impossible that things are as they are by ‘chance’. If you tossed a coin trillions of times, you’d come out with some very improbable sequences. Our human mind can only comprehend the outcome that has happened (life on earth). In theory, an infinite number of things could have happened and may have changed the course of the universe. There has been an infinite number of chemical reactions etc that have got us to where we are today and our brain cannot grasp the complexity of it so we attribute it to something we can begin to understand ie god. From an existential viewpoint, we create god to negate the absurdity.
Admittedly, I am certainly not a good advert for someone who is leading a happy life and is godless. I do flirt with the nihilistic mindset. Without this turning into a therapy session, I’m going through a tough time and am very unhappy (to use a slightly glib word). I’m never going to be featured on the front cover of Atheist Today with a huge smile on my face! However, I definitely believe it is possible to be fulfilled, content, happy and godless.
I think one big issue is the fact that people believe things, not because they are true and factual but because they want to believe them, they wished they were true. Most people would rather be ignorant and happy than knowledgeable and miserable. I understand why this is. Being miserable sucks, big time! I am very envious of people who have found external meaning. But personally, I can’t fool myself into believing god exists when I know ‘he’ doesn’t.
Things don’t have intrinsic meaning. A sunset is a sunset. In itself, it doesn’t hold any meaning. (It heats up the planet allowing life to flourish but that doesn’t automatically provide meaning for a person.) However, humans can give meaning in a beautiful sunset. This world is a beautiful and wonderful and awe-inspiring place. The earth has plenty going for it for humans to find meaning in it. They don’t need to create god.
Chuckles, you raise an interesting point about how the belief in God persists. I’m not an expert by any stretch but one suggestion I have is that historically, people had very little knowledge. They thought the sun and moon must be gods. As knowledge has increased over time many potential beliefs become obsolete. We know why it rains – it has nothing to do with if we prayer to the rain god he will grant us rain. We understand weather systems, climates etc etc. As a result, our concept of god has to become more abstract. We all know that the sun isn’t a god. It is a massive hot star. God becomes intangible and not physical – it’s the only ways ‘he’ can survive.
As humans we search for meaning. Belief in god cannot help you to gain knowledge about the world (unless you are a Christian literalist and think the earth is 6000 years old). So supernatural belief ceases being a source of knowledge but it can be an extremely powerful source of meaning. Whether that’s a belief in some form of afterlife, reincarnation, karma, reason for being here etc. This is by no means an expansive theory and it contains a lot of generalization but I do think there is some truth in it. I’m sure there are elements of cultural and political (and evolutionary) components why religion/spirituality continue in the 21st century.
Chuckles, this isn’t a personal attack on you (not to say that you perceive it as that, but just to make sure that I am not misinterpreted). I just disagree with what you say. That said, I appreciate you reading what I say and responding. Most people I know have no interest in debate or discussion. In their mind, politics, religion, philosophy and science is irrelevant to them. They are just interested in decorating their house or the latest episode of Lost.
Hamby, sorry this comments page has turned completely off topic from the morality of hell!!
Posted by Jeremy | March 12, 2010, 10:06 amJeremy,
I didn’t interpret anything you said as an attack on me, everyone has their own opinion as I have stated before. And I appreciate everyone’s response as well. I agree with your viewpoint that the Universe and everything related therein is so complex that we are not capable of understanding it and therefore assign an intelligent designer as the one who created it all. I, like many others, was raised in the Catholic faith since I was a kid without ever being given a choice or a viable option. I grew up believing the pre-requisites of the Catholic faith, never questioned it, and before you know it, it becomes kind of hardwired in you and very difficult to get rid of.
This is the chord that Hamby struck with me in his article about the morality of Hell and all those “what-if” questions that are always lurking at the back of your mind. For example, if I believed that Jesus was not the son of God, then I would be tossed into the pit with no hope of ever getting out. This is a pretty strong “idea” if you will that if I do not believe what I have been told I would be screwed for all eternity. Pretty good “gotcha” religion has doesn’t it? My previous point was that I believe in God – no – the creator because I choose to, not because religion tells me I have to or because I feel like I’m lacking anything.
I guess when we all look death in the face there are certain things we would all like to believe. Religion to me has caused more problems in this world and more division in this world than anything else. If Japan or any of these other countries that you call Godless maybe a better term would be religion-less? I’ve always maintained that in a world with 6 billion plus souls in it wouldn’t the creator like to have a relationship with each one instead of a robot of religion? The fact is is that there is so much different information out there about every topic you can imagine that it is very difficult to know, if at all, anything is factual or hogwash.
The Bible is something that has endured for many thousands of years including the old testament. The Bible paints God as being anything from a murderer to an all loving God to someone who sends his only son to be murdered. I have never read the Bible from cover to cover as I have always found it to be too esoteric for me. But I do question the people’s sanity and morality who wrote the Bible and the Church’s role in picking and choosing what is and is not included in the bible and if we are truly getting what was originally intended. once mankind gets there mitts on something you can almost guarantee its going to be skewered one way or another for whatever agenda is appropriate for the time.
Anyway I’ve gone on way too long…It is nice though to be able to discuss something with people who are genuinely interested.
Posted by Chuckles | March 12, 2010, 4:32 pmWell… no. Japan has a long religious history. It just doesn’t have a “God” in the same way as the big monotheist religions. Oh, there are gods and goddesses in their mythologies, but very few Japanese believe in literal gods — it’s just mythology to them at this point — and except for the very small Christian population, pretty much none of them believe in a personal God that gives a tinker’s damn about what they do with their lives. There’s also a significant amount of ancestor worship, or “reverence,” if you prefer. So no, Japan is far from “religion-less” but the number of atheists in Japan is quite high. Remember, atheist doesn’t mean non-religious. It means that one doesn’t believe in god. Religion doesn’t have to have god.
A more careful reading of history will reveal that something called The Bible has been around for quite a while, but it has seldom maintained any consistency between centuries. Even after the canonization of the currently accepted 66 books, the number of translations, mistranslations, intentional mistranslations, and other accidents of history have rendered our current versions quite different from anything the authors would likely recognize. It’s more precise to say that Christianity has always had holy documents called “The Bible,” but the holy documents themselves have been quite fluid.
The god of the bible is probably the most horrible literary figure of all time. For me, there are only two choices: Either the bible is complete man-made horse shit, or god is either too stupid, too impotent, or too uncaring to step in and do some constructive editing. In either case, god hardly seems worthy of worship, much less respect or admiration.
Posted by hambydammit | March 12, 2010, 6:37 pm