After 6 years of suspense (see my first comment on this post: http://breathmintsforpenguins.blogspot.com/2016/06/musings-on-meaning-of-meaning-and.html), my thoughtful Christian friend got back to me and we continued for a while brought it to a thrilling conclusion.
I thought it was a fun conversation, so I'm posting (a somewhat edited for brevity and clarity) my part of it here. I haven't asked for permission to post my friend's comments, so I'll summarize those. I guess if they come across this and want their part included verbatim, I'll replace with the full, unedited correspondence. Also skipping a big chunk towards the end because it gets complicated, and probably boring to read for people other than the participants.
2016
Friend:
[Have you seriously considered the possibility of the reality of the Gospel and the God of Christianity?]
Me:
I don't presume to be able to know whether He exists or not. The most I can say is that I desperately hope that He doesn't. To me, the part of Christian cosmology that most demands attention is not a loving God, but an eternal Hell. Without a Hell, what is the point of a savior-God?
So there are three possibilities:
God does not exist: Then I ought to appreciate what a spectacular experience it is to have life, and I ought to be good to other people and animals.
God exists, but Hell does not: Same as above.
God exists, and so does a place where some people experience eternal pain: This possibility is horrifying and repugnant, so for the sake of my own sanity, I choose not to think too deeply about it anymore. In the past when I did take this possibility seriously, it led to some pretty bizarre conclusions about morality.
So, whether or not heaven exists does not seem to me to be such an important question. If I cease to exist 5 minutes from now, then my life will still have been a fantastic miracle, even though it has been imperfect. Spending very much time thinking about the possibility of heaven would make it harder to appreciate the life I already have, and distract from the task of being good to people in this life. It would be like how it is unhealthy for a married person to fantasize about the perfect spouse. Much better to learn to appreciate the actual spouse and work towards harmony in the actual marriage.
2022
Friend:
[Sorry for taking 6 years to get back to you about, I wasn't offended, I just got busy and forgot about this conversation. I think God exists and so does Hell, and I think you may be willfully ignoring the reality of Hell and the solution (salvation through Christ), just because Hell scares you. If you treated the idea of COVID-19 the same way you treat the idea of Hell, that would be hypocritical/inconsistent (or something like that, but not exactly). Ignoring a solution just because the problem it solves is difficult to deal with should not be a valid approach in any arena.]
Me:
Great to hear from you. I think that it is fun and useful to reflect on and try to articulate what we believe and why, and what that means in terms of how we should live. So, I won’t turn down an invitation to do so.
First of all, I think creation is wonderful, and I’m happy to be a part of it. I totally understand how someone can look at the stars and the trees, and hear music, and feel love, and experience all of that as evidence for the existence of God. But it is a huge step, without any evidence, to go from that vague spiritual feeling to believing in a very specific doctrine such as the Apostle’s Creed.
As far as belief in COVID vs belief in Hell, or any other terrible threat. I hope that my belief in each is proportional to the evidence that I’m aware of. In the case of COVID I have some frame of reference, because I’ve experienced other respiratory diseases, and I’ve extensively studied microbiology. In the case of vaccines, I know that I’ve been vaccinated against a bunch of diseases, such as polio, which I’ve read about and seen pictures of, but never caught. So, when the medical community tells me that I could be at risk of COVID infection, and that vaccination is a way to mitigate some of that risk, it seems reasonable.
In the case of Hell, I am unaware of any evidence for such a place (state of existence?), despite having spent a lot of time thinking about it and researching it. Most people who believe in Hell seem to believe in it because their parents did, or they claim personal revelation arrived at through prayer. On the other hand, I am aware of many instances of people making up scary stories for the purposes of political or social control or out of a sense of wishful thinking that those who do bad things will be punished. For example, parents invented Santa and Krampus, and people in ancient India invented Karma. To me, the doctrine of Hell looks a lot like one of these things that someone made up, and I have never seen, heard, or experienced anything that would make me think otherwise.
As I said in my previous email, I also very much hope that Hell is something someone made up, because I hope that the universe is not the kind of place where anyone suffers for eternity. I take comfort that all available evidence points that way. I was pretty miserable when I believed in Hell. I think in part because I couldn’t help but empathize with all of the people who died as non-Christians, including one of my closest high-school friends. I have trouble understanding how anyone can believe in Hell and not be either depressed or a sociopath. Many Christians I know seem to be neither depressed nor sociopaths, so I conclude that they either don’t actually believe in Hell, or that they have a vastly different conception of it from what I had.
To specifically answer your question “if there is a hell (a spiritual and physical place that is COMPLETELY separate from God and his goodness), then the fact that the God, who already exists, is able/willing to save people from it is presumably a good and valuable thing. Would you agree with that?” I suppose I agree with that, but it’s little consolation when my friend is burning and there is no way he can be saved, because he is already dead. The Gospel is about as much of a consolation as winning the lottery when serving life in a supermax.
I don’t think that my nonbelief in Hell is a product of wishful thinking or sticking my head in the sand. There are other terrible things that I think actually are true. For example, I believe that billions of chickens and pigs are raised and slaughtered in horrific conditions, and that there are millions of people suffering due to wars and political strife, and that most murderers and rapists are never brought to justice. There are also things that I wish were true, but I don’t believe are, for example I wish that Heaven would exist, and that there were cures for every disease, and I hope that the Easter bunny will bring me a pound of chocolate next year.
I hope that my beliefs are calibrated with my observations, and I hope that my actions are calibrated with my beliefs. In other words, I hope that I am using my time and abilities, whether they are a gift from God, or the vomit from a random universe, to improve the terrible that seems real, and to actualize the good that seems possible.
Friend:
[I think creation, conscience, and the message of the Bible are strong evidence for the existence of God and Hell. The message of the Gospel is very consoling. I think you're a moral person, but wrong about God, and you could be missing out on real hope by ignoring God]
Me:
I’m with you on your first point. I think the universe sure seems like a miracle.
Regarding your second point, you will probably not be surprised to hear that I find theistic arguments for the existence of the human conscience much less persuasive than the hypothesis that the human conscience is the product of evolution through natural selection. Evidence in support of that hypothesis are:
1. People vary widely in the strength of their conscience. Sociopaths do exist, and so do people who are highly empathetic and prone to feeling guilty.
2. Animals, like dogs and cats, can be artificially selected to be more (or less) empathetic/prosocial. So it is plausible that natural selection also led to a certain level of prosocial behavior in most humans.
3. The human sense of right and wrong is very strongly correlated with what would be advantageous for propagating our genes (or the genes of people related to us). Most of us feel our strongest moral obligations towards humans who are younger than us and closely related to us. The more genetically or culturally different someone is from us, the less we care about their wellbeing.
4. Conjecture: You feel pain if you cut your finger when nobody is looking because physical pain is an evolved mechanism that makes creatures who move around less likely to damage themselves and have fewer offspring. You feel guilt if you engage in antisocial behavior when nobody is looking because people who betray their relatives tend to end up with fewer relatives, so the guilty gene has a selective advantage over the sociopath gene.
Regarding your third point, and the rest of your email, to me the Bible is just an old book, and churches are just social clubs. As a teenager, I took a lot of inspiration from some of the anecdotes from the life of Jesus. For example, when Jesus told his disciples, “Love your enemies”, and “Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor”, and when Peter cut the ear off of the priest’s servant and Jesus put it back on. That seemed, and still does seem, radical and subversive. But the Christians I knew were neither radical nor were they subversive, they were just the same as everyone else (and it was never fair to expect them to be exceptional).
To be clear, I don’t believe in any God. Not a vengeful narcissistic God, not an all-loving God, not an edgy subversive anarchist God. No God whatsoever. I think there is plenty about the universe that I don’t understand. In particular I have absolutely no clue why we experience consciousness. But I’m not bothered by not knowing, and I don’t feel a need to make things up to fill in the gaps.
Regarding whether the Gospel is consoling or not. I’m still not sure what it is supposed to be consoling me about. I don’t feel wracked with guilt, and I’m not particularly scared of dying even though I don’t think there is an afterlife. I don’t perceive any kind of a God-shaped or religion-shaped hole in my life.
It could be that I’m just flying high because life for me is objectively pretty good right now. But I don’t think that’s what it is, because I’ve also been through plenty of adversity, so I do have some perspective. I don’t mean to claim that I’ve seen and done it all, but I have had at least a glimpse of how brutal and hopeless life can seem and even be. If I were going to have a road to Damascus moment, I guess it would have happened by now. I don’t think very many people change religion after age 30.
In practical terms, if I really took the Bible and the Gospel seriously, how would I feel different and how should I behave differently than I do as an atheist who is mostly happy and tries mostly to act in prosocial ways?
Friend:
[Is your approach to God purely scientific which leads you to think that God is made up, and the comments about hell not the cause but the effects of your stance? I don't know how you would feel or act differently if you were a Christian, it's different for different people. You seem very conscientious, why is that?]
Me:
["Is your approach to God purely scientific which leads you to think that God is made up, and the comments about hell not the cause but the effects of your stance?"]
This is accurate. But it also brushes over some history. I used to believe in both God and Hell, and I was absolutely terrorized by the concept of Hell. I thought about it a lot, and about what the implications of it were. So, I would say that the doctrine of Hell may have something to do with why I left the church to begin with, but it is not why I remain non-religious. I remain non-religious because religions all seem like nonsense to me, and I can’t believe things that seem like nonsense, even if I wanted to believe them, and even if there were psychological benefits to believing them (which there might be for some, I don’t know).
When I think about and discuss Christianity, the doctrine of Hell is the center of my frame of reference. It doesn’t seem to me to matter how “loving” God is, I still would be terrified and distraught to live in a universe where the population of Hell is greater than zero (and I indeed was terrified and distraught when I thought I lived in such a universe). I really really really do not like the doctrine of Hell, no matter how much “but actually, God is loving!” it gets watered down with. I think it does tremendous damage to anyone who believes in it, particularly children (but I might be unfairly over-extrapolating from my own personal experience).
["Do you think that changes to your feelings and actions in this life are the only possible positive result of believing in God?"]
If there is a heaven, I want to go there. If there is a Hell, I for sure want to avoid going there (and for everyone else to avoid going there also). Also, I want to have as accurate as possible of a world view, I want to believe whatever the true cosmology is (I guess mostly for aesthetic reasons?). I don’t really have a concept for anything beyond feelings and actions, between the two of them, they seem to capture the whole of human existence (whether in this life or some other life).
["You seem very conscientious, why is that?"]
I think compassion can be derived with a simple proof from first principles, regardless of why we came to have consciousness (and independent of why we feel a drive towards compassion).
1. I experience consciousness, and I can observe that my conscious experience is made up of joy and suffering.
2. I assign positive value to my own joy and negative value to my own suffering.
3. People and other animals resemble me in their physical form and behavior. It seems very likely that they also experience consciousness and the joy and suffering that goes along with it.
4. I cannot think of any reason why my own joy or suffering should matter more than anyone else’s. Indeed, it seems much more reasonable to assert that everyone’s joy and suffering matter the same amount.
5. Therefore, I should act in ways that maximize the joy and minimize the suffering of others, even if, at times, I have to suffer for it.
I have a friend who donates blood every eight weeks. I will always remember his response when someone asked him why. He said,
“Because people fucking need it.”
I really don’t think morality or theology has to be any more complicated than that. Be nice to people and animals because they need you to be nice to them.
That’s it!
Friend:
[Some definitions of words, they thought we had different ideas about]
Me:
[Some discussion about terminology]
Friend:
[More discussion about terminology. Martin Luther was also very troubled by the idea of Hell. Hell is a place of terrible physical and spiritual suffering. God and goodness are the same thing, can you give any counterexamples?]
Me:
[yet more discussion about terminology]
Yeah, Martin Luther was another admirable radical. I think everyone should follow his example and deeply question the beliefs and traditions that they were brought up with, despite how uncomfortable that can be (and dangerous for Martin Luther, but thankfully not so much for me). Otherwise how can anyone be confident in the truth of what they believe, or confront the limits of their knowledge? It doesn't really surprise me that when confronting similar social/moral/theological questions, Martin Luther and I came to different conclusions. We are different people with different backgrounds and access to different information.
It looks like your conception of the Christian Hell is not so different from mine after all.
I think God is a fictional character, so I don't have opinions about the nature of God any more than I have opinions about the nature of dragons (I also don't hate God any more than I hate dragons). I also don't have a strong concept of good or evil. The closest concepts that seem coherent to me are joy and suffering. Hypothetically speaking, to the extent that God created a universe containing Hell (an eternal place of extreme suffering, as we've now agreed) and created people who he knew some of which would eventually experience Hell, then I can't see how God could be considered good. That sounds evil to me, irrespective of how delightful free will and Heaven are.
Friend:
[Are parents evil for having children, even though they know that those children will inevitably experience some suffering, regardless of how great the parents are?]
Me:
All I can say is that when I was a Christian, I wished I'd never been born. I don't think it is responsible for people who believe in Hell to have children. For others, the risk calculation is much different, because there are no eternal consequences. I don't think temporary suffering is an ultimate evil, I think eternal suffering is an ultimate evil.
I happen to have thought about this topic a lot. I'm pasting below the contents of an essay I wrote in 2010 (when I was in the middle/towards the end of the process of losing my faith) about this. (I've never shared it with anyone, because I'm aware that it is offensive, but you did ask...)
Why it is unethical for anyone who believes in Hell to have children
[text of essay omitted. One sentence summary: nobody would voluntarily choose to be born into a universe where they would have a non-zero chance of experiencing eternal terrible pain, so it would violate the Golden Rule, and be a cruel gamble to force anyone to be born into such a universe.]
Both together:
[Some discussion about whether a good God is compatible with the existence of Hell and with the existence of people who can experience Hell]
Me:
I think life can be meaningful and joyous (and full of love!) even if there is no possibility for anyone to burn for eternity.
Friend:
How? [...]
Me:
I don't see any connection between love and eternal torture. I certainly don't see how the existence or non-existence of one could entail the existence or non-existence of the other. I'm actually quite happy that my conception of love doesn't entail eternal torture for me or anyone else, that seems like the best kind of love.
Friend:
[Do you see any connection between love and pain?]
Me:
I see some connection there, but I don't think they are exact opposites. I also don't think that the absence of love is pain. For me, the absence of love is closer to indifference or ennui.
I read somewhere recently "a common facet of romantic love is an (often very strong) fear that they'll stop loving you. Unconditional love doesn't have that, you just want what's best for them."
That seemed really insightful.
There is a connection here to the Stoic (or Buddhist, but I'm less familiar with Buddhism than with Stoicism) conception of pain/suffering as unfulfilled desire. The absence of love, when you deeply desire love, is painful. The pain is more strongly connected to desire than to love.
Not having what you want (whether that is love or something else) causes suffering. Love is just a common thing that people tend to want.
In any case, I don't think that the existence of pain entails the existence of eternal pain.
Friend:
[It's possible that both eternal love and eternal pain exist]
Me:
Yes, it could be that some people suffer eternally. I sure hope that's not the case though!
Friend:
[But if both do exist, and there is a God loves us and wants everyone to experience eternal love, we should want to learn more about that God]
Me:
[...]
My hope is in the Lord, that he doesn't exist, or at least that he will leave us alone and let us pass into oblivion instead of forcing us into this terrible dichotomy between heaven and hell, where, by the criteria set in the gospel (Mark 16:16), most of us will be condemned.
Friend:
[How can you want both to be left alone by God, and to not experience Hell. Being left along by God is the definition of Hell.]
Me:
It's not that complicated, I just don't want anyone to suffer eternally. In church I learned that some people are destined to suffer for eternity, and you seem to also think that some people will suffer for eternity. I hope that isn't true. When I thought that was true, I wanted to the universe, including myself to not exist.
The God stuff, I don't really care about one way or another.
Friend:
[... I believe God has done everything to make sure this won't happen for anyone, short of forcing people to receive that benefit ...]
Me:
I'm all for forcing, if that's what it takes. God is a fool if he thinks humans are smart enough to know what's good for them. I would sacrifice free will (indeed, I would sacrifice the entire universe) to prevent one person from suffering eternally.
Friend:
[You said you once believed that Hell was real, did that ever cause you to trust deeply in God or share your faith with others]
[Is the reason you don't believe in Hell because you think God is made up?]
Me:
[ Yes ...]
I don't remember ever not being deeply troubled by the existence of Hell. The Christian experience was always kind of scary for me. I was motivated (I guess by a fear that my friends and family would go to Hell?) to share my faith with others, and even considered (I'm not sure for how long, but I do remember considering it) becoming a pastor. [ ... ]. I took faith extremely seriously. For sure too seriously for my own mental health.
[...]
I am not aware of any evidence for the existence of the kind of God whose existence entails the existence of eternal suffering. I think the existence of consciousness is a little spooky and could reasonably be interpreted as evidence for some kind of God. The assertion that the absence of God is eternal suffering is a wild (and wildly pessimistic) assertion.
Friend:
[Do you ever feel guilty and regretful? How do you deal with that? Is the process different now that you don't believe in God from when you did? Is it better?]
[... I don't think it's pessimistic or optimistic to assert that Hell could exist, just realistic. ]
Me:
I sometimes feel guilty about things. I try to deal with it in a practical way. Apologizing and trying to undo, as much as possible, whatever harm I cause. Sometimes I hurt people in ways that I can't make amends for. I find that writing helps a lot. I write about what I can do to make sure I don't hurt people in the same way in the future, and then I occasionally revisit my collection of writings, and reflect on if I'm actually following through. Sometimes I can't sleep until I've taken the time to write about something that is bothering me. I try to focus on what I can change and do better instead of ruminating over past mistakes. For me, focusing on the practical aspects seems to be more effective in helping me move on and to hurt people less in the future than the embrace of a merciful God. I don't want to throw shade on the mechanisms that other people use to cope, it could just be that I'm older now, and people tend to get better at coping as they age and accumulate experience and perspective. I don't pretend to have attained a level of emotional maturity that would be inaccessible through a Christian approach. Atheism seems to be working out ok for me though.
[...]
Both together:
[ nit picking about details ]
Me:
Are we done now? I feel like we've done a sufficiently thorough tour of eschatology.
Friend:
Sure. Maybe to summarize:
You desperately don’t want there to be eternal suffering and don’t see evidence for it. as such there’s no need for a god to rescue anyone from it, especially since it seems made up.
I don’t want there to be eternal suffering but am convinced that there is sufficient enough evidence for it to be taken seriously. As such I seek to know and share god as the rescuer for all and am willing to submit my own reason to uphold biblical truths as though they were from God.
Me:
Seems like a fair summary.
Both together:
[Various parting niceties]
No comments:
Post a Comment