Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ashibaka · 09-01-2002, 09:49 AM

I am attempting to construct a website where all of the evidences for or against God are picked apart. So far, I'd like to note, I have not yet found a single argument where the theist is more logical than the atheist. But let's cast that aside for a minute and give an argument which I find sort of troubling on the theist's behalf...

Quote:

In the summer of 2002, HazyRigby, an atheist at ChristianForums, posted a very simple argument, which runs: "My husband and I are both atheists. If I were saved and went to Heaven, how would I feel about his going to hell?"

Although it seems easily soluble at first, this is a rather stunning argument. In Hell, it's given that there is little to no happiness. So if her husband died while she was still alive, she would be upset that he was going to suffer. In Heaven, however, there cannot be any suffering; otherwise, it'd be just like the mortal plane and everyone would be whining about something. Let's say that the wife is definitely going to Heaven, and the husband is definitely going to Hell.

If you believe that Christians go to Heaven and atheists simply die, note that the wife would normally still feel upset about not meeting her husband in Heaven.

Heck, let's take this one step further; if a young Christian was hit by a truck and went to Heaven, wouldn't he get depressed waiting decades and decades for his very best friend to show up? Even if everyone goes to Heaven, there's still suffering.

There are only two possible solutions to this conundrum, as far as I know:

1. Heaven does not exist. If you believe this, you are by many measures an atheist.
2. Feelings of sadness in Heaven are blotted out somehow. This is a very upsetting argument; let's look closer.

What force stops people from being unhappy in Heaven? Well, there's only one force around-- God. God must, to satisfy this problem, either keep you from thinking about your loved ones who are not with you, or mess with your mind so that you are happy to see them suffer.

Now, this is a perfectly logical argument, but come on! What sort of loving God is going to stifle your thought to keep you mindlessly happy? Sounds to me like a very imperfect God, a God for whom things have gone horribly wrong and who is fixing them by the most illogical means, a God who is quite obviously not benevolent, or, in short, a God that CANNOT. POSSIBLY. EXIST.

The end!

Please critique this argument. It's not like there's a philosophical law which says that the theory of the Christian God cannot be disproved, but I have a feeling there's a workaround to this argument which I just don't see.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]

Vogelfrei · 09-01-2002, 10:01 AM

It seems to me that the issue would be made much clearer if a more definite understanding of what life in "heaven" consists of.

Most people think that heaven would be pretty much like everday life, except god chats with you occassionally and you don't have to work. In this view, god would have to "mess with your mind" to keep you from behing unhappy.

On the other hand, if life in heaven is more closely related to religious ecstasies and such - and it seems to be consistent to say that the ultimate reward for religious belief would naturally have some religious significance - the "worldly" problem of where your buddies are seems to evaporate.

I would say that the fact that this question can arise in anyone's mind points to how secular the worldview of christians is (they fail to consider that the endpoint of religion might somehow be different from the everyday world). Religion, nowadays, seems to be better understood as a cultural phenomenon, rather than an experiential (= "religious") one.

Laurentius · 09-01-2002, 03:37 PM

I'm not a believer, but I can tell you that Heaven should not be viewed just as a kind of amusement park where people are supposed to have fun. Your going to Heaven (if there were such thing) would mean your transfiguration - a complete metamorphosis from an earthly being into a heavenly one. Questions about what would happen to members of couples, families, gangs and so on should they go to Heaven seem quite pointless when thinking of the quality of a perfect soul (if there were such thing) meant to join God (if there were such being) in Heaven.

Mark_Chid · 09-01-2002, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
I'm not a believer, but I can tell you that Heaven should not be viewed just as a kind of amusement park where people are supposed to have fun. Your going to Heaven (if there were such thing) would mean your transfiguration - a complete metamorphosis from an earthly being into a heavenly one. Questions about what would happen to members of couples, families, gangs and so on should they go to Heaven seem quite pointless when thinking of the quality of a perfect soul (if there were such thing) meant to join God (if there were such being) in Heaven.

Then I have absolutely no interest in what Christianity has to offer me. I like my individuality and have no desire to have it subsumed into part of a great cosmic 'love-in'.

I've argued this before - the 'Good News' is no such thing, but Christians get very antsy when I do that. They aren't used to an argument that goes. "Even If I accept all that you believe as absolute fact, it doesn't make me happy - it scares the hell out of me - I don't have any use for that kind of 'love'."

pug846 · 09-02-2002, 05:19 AM

There's a movie about this called "What Dreams May Come." Robin Williams is in it. It's a *really* good flick.

Just a quick side note to your 1st alternative: Not as many Christians believe in a literal heaven or hell as you might have thought. Not believing in hell certainly doesn't make you an atheist.

ashibaka · 09-02-2002, 05:43 AM

First of all, thanks to everyone for your comments. This will definitely be beneficial to the outcome of my website.

Now, the two alternative Heavens suggested...

Quote:

Originally posted by Vogelfrei:
Most people think that heaven would be pretty much like everday life, except god chats with you occassionally and you don't have to work. In this view, god would have to "mess with your mind" to keep you from behing unhappy.

On the other hand, if life in heaven is more closely related to religious ecstasies and such - and it seems to be consistent to say that the ultimate reward for religious belief would naturally have some religious significance - the "worldly" problem of where your buddies are seems to evaporate. [Laurentius apparently supports this idea]

The first idea makes sense. It doesn't appeal to me (one life is enough for me, thanks), but I could definitely see that as a Christian Heaven.

The second idea is beyond my comprehension. @_@ Then again, I suppose that God is supposed to be beyond human comprehension, so I guess maybe some people could support that idea.

Philip Osborne · 09-02-2002, 07:15 AM

"What force stops people from being unhappy in Heaven? Well, there's only one force around-- God. God must, to satisfy this problem, either keep you from thinking about your loved ones who are not with you, or mess with your mind so that you are happy to see them suffer."

Here's a possible answer to that objection, which seems consistent with Christian principles: Christianity assumes that everything God does is morally correct and perfectly consistent with omnibenevolence. One of the more universally accepted ideas of heaven is that one who is in heaven is finally able to come to knowledge of why God has done things in the way He has. So presumably, the woman in your post, if she were to go to heaven, she would come to knowledge of why God has chosen for her husband not to be saved, and how this is consistent with God's loving nature.

One might object that even if the woman understood why her husband was not saved, she would still be upset, because she loves her husband. However, Christian doctrine holds that God is perfectly loving, and so the woman does not suffer anthing God would not from her husband not being saved. Yet it is in virtue of God's greater understanding that He understands why this decision must be made, and does not feel guilty or sorry about it; God doesn't make mistakes, and God knows this. So presumably, the greater understanding conferred to the woman by her presence in heaven will allow her to overcome any suffering she would otherwise feel over the loss of her husband.

-Philip

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]

Vogelfrei · 09-02-2002, 07:18 AM

Just because it's beyond your comprehension doesn't mean it's beyond human comprehension; I certainly didn't mean my original statement as an appeal to "God's mysterious ways" or anything potentially-true-but-incomprehensible like that. In fact, I think religious experiences are very "human" things, which many people clearly do pursue, and at least claim to experience.

In the East, you meditate.
In the West, you do drugs.

Meaningful percentages of people pursue either of those activities, or both, so...

rainbow walking · 09-02-2002, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ashibaka:
I am attempting to construct a website where all of the evidences for or against God are picked apart. So far, I'd like to note, I have not yet found a single argument where the theist is more logical than the atheist. But let's cast that aside for a minute and give an argument which I find sort of troubling on the theist's behalf...

Please critique this argument. It's not like there's a philosophical law which says that the theory of the Christian God cannot be disproved, but I have a feeling there's a workaround to this argument which I just don't see.

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: ashibaka ]

Well, in the NT Jesus made several references to this declaring that in heaven people neither marry nor are given in marriage but are as the angels. So if you can figure out anything about the angels you'll likely have your answer.

HRG · 09-02-2002, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philip Osborne:
[QB]"What force stops people from being unhappy in Heaven? Well, there's only one force around-- God. God must, to satisfy this problem, either keep you from thinking about your loved ones who are not with you, or mess with your mind so that you are happy to see them suffer."

Here's a possible answer to that objection, which seems consistent with Christian principles: Christianity assumes that everything God does is morally correct and perfectly consistent with omnibenevolence. One of the more universally accepted ideas of heaven is that one who is in heaven is finally able to come to knowledge of why God has done things in the way He has. So presumably, the woman in your post, if she were to go to heaven, she would come to knowledge of why God has chosen for her husband not to be saved, and how this is consistent with God's loving nature.

Not saving a single being that one could choose to save is inconsistent with loving nature - almost by definition. With due respect, this apologetic defense sounds like a claim that God's full knowledge might include a disproof of the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry.

I assume of course that "loving" - like any term of human language - is defined by ordinary human usage. Obviously, a redefinition of "loving" to mean "what God does" (or something similar) solves the problem in a rather tautological way.

Regards,
HRG.

09-02-2002, 07:15 AM	#7
Philip Osborne Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cherry Hill, NJ Posts: 147	"What force stops people from being unhappy in Heaven? Well, there's only one force around-- God. God must, to satisfy this problem, either keep you from thinking about your loved ones who are not with you, or mess with your mind so that you are happy to see them suffer." Here's a possible answer to that objection, which seems consistent with Christian principles: Christianity assumes that everything God does is morally correct and perfectly consistent with omnibenevolence. One of the more universally accepted ideas of heaven is that one who is in heaven is finally able to come to knowledge of why God has done things in the way He has. So presumably, the woman in your post, if she were to go to heaven, she would come to knowledge of why God has chosen for her husband not to be saved, and how this is consistent with God's loving nature. One might object that even if the woman understood why her husband was not saved, she would still be upset, because she loves her husband. However, Christian doctrine holds that God is perfectly loving, and so the woman does not suffer anthing God would not from her husband not being saved. Yet it is in virtue of God's greater understanding that He understands why this decision must be made, and does not feel guilty or sorry about it; God doesn't make mistakes, and God knows this. So presumably, the greater understanding conferred to the woman by her presence in heaven will allow her to overcome any suffering she would otherwise feel over the loss of her husband. -Philip [ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Philip Osborne ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-01-2002, 10:01 AM	#2
Vogelfrei Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: NY Posts: 37	It seems to me that the issue would be made much clearer if a more definite understanding of what life in "heaven" consists of. Most people think that heaven would be pretty much like everday life, except god chats with you occassionally and you don't have to work. In this view, god would have to "mess with your mind" to keep you from behing unhappy. On the other hand, if life in heaven is more closely related to religious ecstasies and such - and it seems to be consistent to say that the ultimate reward for religious belief would naturally have some religious significance - the "worldly" problem of where your buddies are seems to evaporate. I would say that the fact that this question can arise in anyone's mind points to how secular the worldview of christians is (they fail to consider that the endpoint of religion might somehow be different from the everyday world). Religion, nowadays, seems to be better understood as a cultural phenomenon, rather than an experiential (= "religious") one.

09-01-2002, 03:37 PM	#3
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	I'm not a believer, but I can tell you that Heaven should not be viewed just as a kind of amusement park where people are supposed to have fun. Your going to Heaven (if there were such thing) would mean your transfiguration - a complete metamorphosis from an earthly being into a heavenly one. Questions about what would happen to members of couples, families, gangs and so on should they go to Heaven seem quite pointless when thinking of the quality of a perfect soul (if there were such thing) meant to join God (if there were such being) in Heaven.

09-02-2002, 05:19 AM	#5
pug846 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,587	There's a movie about this called "What Dreams May Come." Robin Williams is in it. It's a really good flick. Just a quick side note to your 1st alternative: Not as many Christians believe in a literal heaven or hell as you might have thought. Not believing in hell certainly doesn't make you an atheist.

09-02-2002, 07:18 AM	#8
Vogelfrei Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: NY Posts: 37	Just because it's beyond your comprehension doesn't mean it's beyond human comprehension; I certainly didn't mean my original statement as an appeal to "God's mysterious ways" or anything potentially-true-but-incomprehensible like that. In fact, I think religious experiences are very "human" things, which many people clearly do pursue, and at least claim to experience. In the East, you meditate. In the West, you do drugs. Meaningful percentages of people pursue either of those activities, or both, so...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.