Skip to main content

Operation Infinite Justice

We may be able to imagine a universe/omniverse where the laws of physics are different, but we can't imagine a universe/omniverse where they (or some kind of laws governing the nature of things, which is what the laws of physics are) don't exist. So I would say they are logically necessary. 

By contrast, it is easy to imagine a different kind of God than is supposed in the Christian conception, or even a universe with no God at all. So I don't think this test is favorable to God. 

Simplicity and indivisibility are not synonymous with each other. Creativity, analysis, personality...these are all complex functions. I don't think it make sense to call anything capable of such functions "simple". 

And we have zero evidence that a mind can exist without an accompanying brain. Until evidence emerges, I consider such a thing highly improbable. 

CS Lewis poses a false dichotomy. It's not a choice of confirming the man "forever in his present happiness" or condemning him to eternal suffering. As I suggested, there are several other options, such as annihilation or eternal slumber. Lewis seems to think it's important that the evil man understand that he was in the wrong. But why does that matter? On earth, we would say it matters because that would hopefully modify his future behavior. But since that is irrelevant in hell, his understanding is pointless--it changes nothing. 

And is the crime really so bad? Consider the people who may be consigned to eternal suffering. It's one thing if someone believes in the Christian God, and considers Him to be perfectly good, but rejects God's dictates because the person just wants to satisfy their own hedonism. I still can't possibly see how eternal suffering is justified in that case, but at least you could say that person was actively turning away from God. 

But what about someone who doesn't believe in God? Should they be eternally damned because they were mistaken? 

Or take someone who grew up being taught that a non-Christian religion was true. This was hammered into them all their life, and reinforced by all their family and friends. Then, one time, a Christian missionary comes to the person's door, but naturally enough, the missionary doesn't override years of conditioning. Does God say, "Well, that was his chance, and he blew it. Too bad he has to suffer for eternity now." If so, you are rather fortunate to have been born and raised by a family that just happens to be right. 

Or imagine CS Lewis' wicked man, who has lived his whole life preying on others and taking pleasure from his depredations. Then, on his deathbed, he has a genuine "come to Jesus" moment and honestly asks for forgiveness. All the damage he did is done, and he got to enjoy an entire lifetime of wickedness. But presumably he would be forgiven and get to experience eternal bliss in the afterlife. 

Now imagine the opposite case. A man who lives his entire life as a fervent follower of Christ, does missionary work, preaches the Gospel to hundreds, and generally makes many personal sacrifices in order to lead morally exemplary life. But then, in his last months of life, he has a crisis of faith, and decides the evidence for God is woefully insufficient, so he genuinely professes atheism. Presumably that person will suffer for eternity. 

Does that feel like "justice" to you?



Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Bound Up With Causal Chains

It has been almost two years since the last post, but I checked around and no one appears to have definitively resolved the nature of morality in the intervening twenty-two months, so I suppose we should keep this conversation going.  In reading back over the full discussion, I notice that it has grown unwieldy with various offshoots and tributaries. So I propose we table most of the discussions and focus on driving one topic to resolution (or, more likely, mutually agreed impasse). We can then circle back to other disagreements. I believe the spine of our discussion remains the First Cause argument, so I am going to address that while putting a pin in the following topics:  Faith as a "superrational" path to the truth.  Other arguments for the existence of God.  Free will.  Intelligent design.  Before we get into the syllogisms, I will continue to insist that if the refutation of a strong argument for a position doesn't lower your confidence in that positi...
Read more

Can We Trust Faith?

There are big differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. They have the same center, but it definitely is a large jump to convert between them. The reason the Protestant 84% is so high is because there are at least 200 different Protestant denominations in the United States. Some are similar, but many are very different. Anyone rejecting the beliefs of their parents and switching to a new Protestant denomination is not counted in this data. Yes, one of the keys of being rational is indeed constant vigilance with regards to our own biases. Once, I believed a semi-Protestant theology because I wanted it to be true, was not very knowledgeable, and didn't look too deeply into the issue. But one day I realized, as I learned more, that I had to rationally seek the truth, and choose the one belief system that I believed to be the true one. So I researched, and Catholicism always had an answer for any charge anyone tried to lay against it. I have been blessed to have never really do...
Read more

Mind vs. Brain and the Pains of Hell

The laws of physics themselves cannot be the first cause because they are not logically necessary. There is nothing in the nature of the laws of physics to hold themselves in existence, as is demanded of a first cause. We can easily imagine a universe where the law of gravity was a little different (or a lot different) with no logical contradiction. You're right that "as we work backwards in the chain of causation things get simpler and more fundamental." The Catholic Church teaches that simplicity is one of the attributes of God - that God is not "composed or divisible by any physical or metaphysical means." - http://www.saintaquinas.com/article5.html I was talking about this attribute earlier as part of talking about oneness. So how can complete simplicity have a mind? By mind, I do not mean a brain. A mind is an "I" that can reason and choose. True, we have only seen minds connected to brains, which science points to having evolved over time. But th...
Read more