K

Moderators:

This is a discussion of C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. I'm putting this in EoG because it touches on the problem of pain a little. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate forum as you see fit.

luvluv:

I'll start by saying that I haven't quite finished the book. If something dramatic happens in the final 25 pages, I'll update my opinions accordingly. Also, I realize that the book is not intended to be a literal representation of the afterlife. That makes coherent discussion a little tough because there are no properties of Heaven or Hell that we know for sure Lewis' believes. I will talk about what I believe to be his thoughts about the afterlife (and this life). They may be different from those that you found on your reading.

This book assumed the existence of God. It certainly was not an argument for His existence and I didn't take it as such. Here are some of the questions I tried to answer while reading. Does it present a view of Hell that is consistent with an omnibenevolent god? Does it present a view of Heaven that is consistent with free will requiring suffering on earth? Is there any evidence or logic presented to give a reason to believe in this version of the afterlife?

As I read the book, I found Lewis' messages about this life more interesting that those about the next. I'll talk about that after I address the answers to the questions above.


Does it present a view of Hell that is consistent with an omnibenevolent god?

I thought this part was handled reasonably well. Those in Hell could choose Heaven if they were willing to give up the things in their lives that kept them out.

I did think Lewis went astray in his descriptions of the inhabitants of Hell. They were one dimensional characatures of human beings. Aside from the aesthetics, Hell seemed a much better place than Heaven until it was populated. Lewis gave no real reasons for why the good people of Hell had such a hard time getting along. Non-Christians on earth don't all seek isolation and engage in endless petty tussles. Why should there be any reason to believe that would change after death?


Does it present a veiw of Heaven that is consistent with free will requiring suffering on earth?

I thought the book came up short in this regard. The inhabitants of Heaven had free will, but they were not subject to suffering. Sure they probably could have chosen to go to Hell, but there was no suffering from random acts of the laws of Heaven. None of the bright beings was cursed with a painful heavenly desease. I think this fact indicates that Lewis believes that God could create a world with free will where the laws of nature do not necessitate needless suffering.


Is there any evidence or logic presented to give a reason to believe in this version of the afterlife?

I don't think this was addressed at all in the book.


On to what I thought Lewis was saying about life on earth. The beings in Hell often exhibited very valid and sometimes even "good" human emotions. The only difference between some in Hell and their counterparts in Heaven was that those in Heaven had summitted themselves to God. The implication seemed to be that an individual could dedicate themselves to the service of others for nothing more than a deep personal desire for the betterment of the human race. Another could perform the same exact works while submitting to God. The first would wind up in Hell bickering and arguing with others while the latter would wind up in Heaven. This seems completely unreasonable to me.

I resented Lewis implying that intellectual activity is not REALLY honest if it results in atheism. I also thought his admonition that those who lose their faith through logic should pray harder instead of following their academic persuits. What kind of God should need His creations to give up their ability to reason?

Finally, I found it interesting how Lewis described the mother's love for her child as instinctive. But, if God is behind it, it is good. Otherwise it is just instinct. This, along with things he's said in The Problem of Pain, lead me to believe that he believes this world would be perfectly functional on its own. That God exists behind the scenes giving an undetectable meaning to the events we witness here. This strikes me as one step away from atheism. If God is not necessary for the operation of this universe, why posit Him at all? It seems to me that it is because Lewis WANTS there to be a God.

As an atheist who doesn't subscribe to the assumption that the Christian God exists, I have found the two C. S. Lewis books I've encountered somewhat lacking. I will probably stay away from the others unless you can recommend one that argues logically (or emotionally I suppose) for the existence of God without presupposing His existence.

luvluv

Well, Christians believe that God is the ultimate source and sustainer of all good, even that good which is occasionally manifested through human choice. When we choose to do good, we are drawing from the source of good. Once a person is in hell (I hope this is not a spoiler but the endless city is not intended as hell, but as purgatory) that person no longer has access to that source of good because they have chosen complete separation from it. Therefore, in hell, they will get progressively worse because of their isolation from all goodness. This age has been called the age of grace in which God offers his goodness freely, and that age of grace may extend at least partially into the afterlife, but there comes a point and time when one makes a final decision about God. As C.S. Lewis says, there are only two kinds of people: those who say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "THY will be done". If you choose to not allow God any access to you, He will respect that, but the cost to you will be all the goodness that has always come from him.

The inhabitants of Heaven were subject to suffering. As you know, the spirit beings (from purgatory) did experience pain because of the solidness or "ultimate realness" of their surrounding objects. It is true that their pain lessened the more they obeyed, but there was pain there and the pain emerged from the same source that it emerges from on earth: an ungiving fixed environment. The book did not deal with the pains of the bright beings, but I think we can assume that they experience pain in some sense as well, since they do have the possibility of failing to attain what they seek and since there is a fixed environment that they must interact with.

There are a number of reasons why there aren't any diseases or predators in heaven. Firstly, the population is fixed. It's not getting any larger or smaller and it doesn't require any balancing of death to offset births.

I still think you have an inflated opinion of what omnipotence makes possible. Once even omniscience sets a goal, it can only accomplish that goal in the best way. It's options are limited by not by It's power, but by the goal It sets. Yes in heaven as described by Lewis there is SOME freedom and that freedom does occur without certain forms of suffering (diseases, predation, etc.) but it does not follow that such a path, simply because it excluded certain forms of suffering, would have necessarily been the better path. As I have been trying to tell you, it is just possible that the pathway that allows for some suffering may yield BETTER results than another way. Even for omnipotence, there is always a trade off. It's inherent in deciding to engage in any act. If I choose to make an object a square, that means I no longer have the option of having it also be a circle even if I am omnipotent. If I choose to make an entity which can FULLY worship me and come into an existence approxiamating my own FREELY, the BEST POSSIBLE WAY to do this may allow for significant suffering.

What I am saying is you seem to think that omnipotence could allow someone to do something better than the best way to do it. This is a logical impossibility. There is no way for even Omnipotence to do something in a better way than the best possible way. Yes there are ways that SOME of the goals of God could have possibly been accomplished with less possibility of suffering, but would that have been the BEST way? I don't think we can say that simply because of the presence of suffering. The role suffering takes in our lives is to varied (it occasionally accomplishes great good, more on this later) to state that because one way makes you suffer it can't be the best way.

I really think you just place too much emphasis on the avoidance of suffering. Looking back on my life on the various times I have suffered, at the time I thought it was the worst thing that could have ever happened to me. When I look back, those very things are the best things that could have happened to me. I would be lacking in goodness today in numerous ways without the capacity to suffer. I think the same could one day be said about all the suffering we endure.

But suffice it to say, I think with all due respect, you are unjustified in concluding that the goodness of an enterprise can be gauged simply by the amount of suffering that occurs within each respective enterprise. You are assuming that goodness can be defined solely or primarily by the amount of suffering allowed, and I think that criteria is unjustified. Why is temporal suffering valued over lasting rewards when dealing with the goodness of an enterprise?

I'll give you this, K, you do seek the answers you claim to seek. It has been a really refreshing experience dealing with you. (And you read fast!)

I don't think either the Problem of Pain nor any of C.S. Lewis's books intend to prove the existence of God beyond intellectual doubt. C.S. is on record as saying that he doesn't believe that it is possible to establish anything beyond doubt, because one can always doubt what one doesn't want to believe. Nobodies beliefs are 100% based in reason and 100% divorced from bias or preference. Beyond what the evidence tells us, we all want certain things to be true and others to be false. There is something at work in this beyond reason, and that is our naked preference. It is not for any apologist to make belief intellectually compulsive, it is only to make you see that it is intellectually reasonable, as reasonable as atheism on many points, and to make you see that you have a decision to make. You believe things, K, that have not been proven to you. You could not have a relationship with another human being, nor function in a day, without believing things that have not been proven to you. The apologist's job is simply to make you see that the choice of Christianity is not absurd, it is a choice that is intellecutally available to you, and it is a choice, like most choices, which you will have to make without complete information. If you fail to believe, it is not something that will fall on any apologists head. It is your own decision. The apologist's job is simply to make it easier for you to decide for the existence of God.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

K

luvluv:

I know personal anecdotes don't hold a lot of weight in discussions like this, but here goes anyway. Back when I was a Christian, I also believed that all good came from God. It was meeting very sincere and decent people from other religions that first started me questioning my faith. How could these worshippers of false gods be so genuinely caring for others? Without the Bible, where did they get their profound levels of personal integrity? This really ate at me especially considering the behavior of many of the devout Christians I knew. Because of this, I have a very difficult time believing that all goodness comes from God. I know it's not logically impossible for all goodness to come from God, but it would require a mountain of evidence to convince me. I realize it's not your job to do that. I'm just giving you a little perspective on where I stand.

I do have an inflated idea of what omnipotence makes possible - with God all things are possible ! I don't really have much of a problem with suffering based on choices or a struggle for a greater good. I have yet to see compelling reasons for why innocent people should suffer NEEDLESSLY here on earth. If there were a reason (besides God's unknowable plan) why an innocent's suffering would help them in the hereafter, I would find it much more palatable. This world may be the best possible world an omnipotent god could create. But I am unable to accept it without a reasonable explanation why. I find myself unable to put my faith in the possibility that there is a grand plan that I can't make sense of.

I admit that we all look at things with our own personal bias. In fact, I had a very strong Christian bias for more than half of my life. Atheist was the dirtiest of words. I had never known one. Imagine the horror I felt when I was forced to confront the fact that I was indeed an atheist. It took me months to come to grip with the fact. I even sugarcoated it with a pantheistic spin for a while. Fortunately, since that time, I've met several other atheists. They haven't been the demons I'd feared they'd be. Every one of them has a well-thought-out set of personal ethics. Again, personal anecdotes are all well and good, but they clearly have no convincing power in a debate. This one was included to show what my bias was when I began my search for truth.

Lastly, I would like to say that these discussions have been nothing but rewarding for me. Your posts don't preach, you don't enter a debate unprepared simply to make your voice heard, and your positions show a that they have been carefully considered over a significant period of time. As much as anything, I appreciate the time you've apparently invested searching for a consistent set of beliefs. Consistency and reason will always be better received than dogma. I personally don't think either of us will be swayed from our fundamental beliefs, but even so, I thank you for the civility you've shown in our disagreement.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

A simple question: how can one be 'completely separated' from an omnipresent God?

Keith.

luvluv

Thank you and right back at you. I've been participating in these boards for quite a while and these exchanges are rarely matters of civil debate, they usually degrade quickly into ad hominems and the like.

I don't think that all good comes from Christianity, but that it comes from God. I think it is available to everyone now (atheists, Satanists, etc), but if and when someone makes their final rejection of God they separate themselves not only from Him but from every good thing He gives them. I've never believed atheists can't be good people but I've never doubted where their (and my) goodness really originates from.

phlebas

Perhaps the concept of "good" and "evil" is a human construct?

There doesn't need to be some external source -- we have a set of possible human behaviors, and we affix these adjectives to them.

If there was a definite source for what is good and what is evil, there would be fewer (or even no) gray areas.

It's generally thought of as good to give food to a hungry child, and bad to set a hungry child on fire. But there are behaviors in between which some people think are good, some think are bad.

K

phlebas:

Your post made me think of a joke I'd seen somewhere.

"Give a man food and he is not hungry for one night. Light him on fire and he is never hungry again."

Sorry, I couldn't resist. I Wish I could remember where I saw it so I could give credit where credit is due.

phlebas

Ha! I am totally stealing that for my sig quote in my email

RogerLeeCooke

I've always loved that book, even though it was written for the edification of Christians, which I am not. The book was not written as an argument. I consider it the most whimsical of Lewis' writings on theology. He himself said it was purely speculative and should not be taken as a reflection of his view on "the exact shape of things to come."

Lewis' targets, which he thought were exaggerated when he wrote it, were not so much atheists as liberal theologians in the Anglican Church. In all but name the Episcopal shade in the book, retaining all the outward rites of Christianity while not believing in any of its theology, is a secular humanist looking for something new for Christianity to mean. (Aside: there's an article on this in the current issue of The Atlantic.) If Lewis had lived to see Bishop Spong, he'd have followed his mentor GK Chesterton into the Roman Church as fast as his legs could carry him.

I thought the weakest point in the book occurred when the ham actor married to the saintly Sarah finally vanished down the throat of his alter ego. Having done all she could to save him, Sarah showed no remorse at his loss. Lewis doesn't explain this emotional implausibility, except to say, "You see that [the damnation of other souls] does not [spoil the happiness of the saints]." Saying it doesn't make it so. If I really felt that my dearest friends and relatives were damned, I'm sure I couldn't enjoy being in paradise with the Lord. My wife, who is one of those liberal Anglicans that Lewis despised, no doubt reassures herself that God is going to save her reprobate husband in spite of himself; that way she doesn't have to believe I'm damned.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: RogerLeeCooke ]</p>

luvluv

Roger you need to read the book again. C.S. Lewis and George McDonald had a very long discussion in the book about why the saved do not worry about the lost. He gave reasons.