Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Is it possible to choose Hell?

Until relatively recently in my life I viewed the Christian perspective of Heaven, Hell, and who goes there in a base, karmic "If you life a good life, you go to Heaven; if you live a bad life, you go to Hell" sort of fashion. A few years ago I discovered that soteriological opinions are much more complex and diverse than this. On the end which I will deem "fundamentalist" exist theists who hold that living well isn't sufficient, or isn't relevant at all. What is crucial is the beliefs the individual holds. For instance, regardless of how saintly a person was in life, a certain sort of Christianity may claim that they are going to Hell because they did not believe Jesus (and it must be the correct Jesus) is their savior. A more intriguing and merciful perspective I first encountered in C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce, which, similar to Dante's Divine Comedy, tells the story from the perspective of a character traveling through Hell and then Heaven.

Rather than being forced into the treacherous abyss by a God set on punishing sinners for their crimes, the damned in Lewis' Hell remain by choice. Some refuse to forgive, others refuse to let go of pride. By holding onto such vices these souls cannot let go and enter into Heaven. The doors of Lewis' Hell are locked from the inside, suggesting that if the damned soul wishes, he or she may leave.

Faith traditions such as Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism hold a similar view to that presented in Lewis' tale: the damned are such because they freely reject God's love and forgiveness. Unlike Lewis, the Roman Catholic Church has denied the idea that a soul may potentially escape Hell if they so choose. Instead, the Magesterium holds that a soul damned will remain so for eternity. Many in Orthodox Christianity are in agreement with their Western brothers; however, there exists a school of thought in Orthodoxy that argues, in similar fashion to Lewis, that Hell is not necessarily permanent, and forgiveness remains possible after death. An example of this lies in the words of Met. Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church who, according to this source, states "God is Love, all He created and sustains is always loved by Him. Even the creation that rejects Him continues in existence by His love. This unfathomable Divine Mercy can even make hell* "Gehenna," temporary."

This is all a disorganized introduction to the question presented in the post title: Is it possible to choose Hell? After considering what free will is, I aim to argue that if an individual remains in Hell only as long as they freely reject God, the actor will eventually cease this rejection. Additionally, I will argue that confining an individual to Hell merely because they were in a state opposed to God at death is pointless and runs counter to the mercy of God. 

I believe that the only reasonable way to understand free will in matters of morality is the ability to choose between perceived goods. Some may argue that free will is the ability to choose between good and evil, but I believe the following example demonstrates that this view of free will is incoherent:

Imagine coming across a man wailing in agony as he saws off his own hand. Now, before reading any further ahead (don't cheat!) take a few minutes to speculate about why on earth he is doing such a thing.





Done speculating? Okay. Perhaps you notice he is in a
Road Warrior scenario in which he is desperately attempting to escape an imminent explosion to which he is handcuffed. Perhaps he is just sitting there in no apparent danger and thus you assume that he must be deranged. In either case I would wager you wouldn't assume it is just a perfectly reasonable, sane man sawing off his hand for no reason.

As rational actors we have reasons or motivators for making decision, and we make these decisions because we see them as desireable or good. This isn't to say that our desires or perception of the good can't be off. Most of us at one time or another are victims of less than ideal desires or perceptions, but when we make a decision we are choosing what we perceive as desirable, and this is what is important. 

Someone may object, claiming that they have knowingly made a bad decision. I think there is merit to this objection. I can imagine myself intentionally burning myself to prove a point, knowing it is bad to act in such a way. However, I would wager that I, and anyone else, would eventually reach a point at which they would no longer make the free decision to burn themselves. For example, imagine that, instead of having an intense burning sensation only during contact with the hot surface, the sensation remained for an extended period of time, be it 10 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days, and so on. My guess is that, assuming you are relatively sane, you would no longer be willing to act in such a way. This is because as rational actors we make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis.

If we apply the above to our consideration of damnation, a few things seem to necessarily follow:

1. We don't choose Hell at all, since a rational actor wouldn't make such a choice. Instead our damnation is a punishment enforced against our will.

2. We choose Hell only until we realize that there is a more desirable option, or that the cost is no longer worth the choice.

3. We remain in Hell because our ability to choose the good is compromised. Perhaps we don't know heaven is an option, or perhaps we are so mentally ill that we don't have the capacity to make choices at all. Would a loving God let us remain in such ignorance or dementia, or would the God who is Love grant us clarity so we can act rationally?

4. We choose Hell because the alternative would be worse. I don't mean appears to be worse, but is actually worse. Perhaps in Hell you are roasted for 8 hours a day, but in Heaven it is 10 hours a day. This example is ridiculous on a number of levels, including that it completely reverses our perspective of what is and isn't desirable.  Nonetheless it remains one of the only ways in which I could imagine a soul remaining eternally in Hell.
In addition to the above questions, I think it is essential when considering the idea of eternal suffering to ask "What is the point?" There are many potential answers to this question, the most common of which include "to respect humanity's free will," "so God can exercise His perfect justice," or "to punish people for their choices."

The first has been covered above. I argued that at some point a person would no longer will such a thing, and their damnation would only continue against their will due to ignorance, divine force, or other impairment.

I have heard the second answer, "so God can exercise His perfect justice/ punish sinners," numerous times from Christians of all stripes. I have never been able to understand how a person can see eternal punishment as just. Even if we hold that the punishment should fit the crime, it seems that it would always be finite. Hitler would be forced to experience all of the suffering he caused, and this may amount to 600 million years worth of pain, but it would end. Because we can only ever choose or cause a finite amount of suffering and sin, the punishment could only ever be finite. 

Further, it is often held that the purpose of punishment is behavioral correction. A child is grounded or scolded in an attempt to deter them from deviant behavior in the future. If we hold this view of punishment, then eternal punishment is a nonsensical concept, since it would fail to be corrective.

A final argument I would like to consider is that damnation is eternal because when an individual dies he or she leaves time, and because actions or choices are possible only in a temporal setting it becomes impossible. This argument is easily (and quickly) refuted, especially if one believes in a literal, physical resurrection:

1.A physical body can exist only in a spatial environment.
2. A body can move and think in a spatial environment
3. When a body moves and/ or thinks it exists temporally, since to move from one state to another requires a temporal before, during, and after.
4. Therefore, humans will exist in a temporal afterlife.

A heaven in which we cannot think or act as we do now is a heaven in which we would no longer be human. Thus if one maintains that we will be something similar to ourselves as we exist now, it cannot be said that we leave time when we enter into God's kingdom.

In light of the areas I have touched on above, I cannot help but be inclined towards universal reconciliation. If Hell exists only as long as it is chosen, then I firmly posit that it cannot be necessarily permanent.  I may be completely in error on these subjects, and if so I hope for a reader who will provide his corrective insights.

16 comments:

  1. Fascinating exploration. Regarding the argument that Heaven after the general resurrection will be temporal, I don't think that follows. For one thing, Jesus is already resurrected and is in Heaven with His human body. But I don't think we would say that Heaven became temporal the moment Christ ascended into Heaven. That would be a weird thing, as if Heaven was out of time before and now it is bound to time.

    More generally, consider the angels, who with perfect knowledge still made an irrevocable choice. The fallen angels chose pride and rejected God. Now, you don't hear of Satan changing his mind after X thousands of years and deciding "hey, maybe I'll quit this whole evil mastermind gig and become good again." No, because he made a choice against God with full knowledge. In other words, it is possible to do that. To say 'No' to God even seeing Him clearly.

    Similarly I think we can make the same decision. Unlike the angels, we have time to repent, time to change and turn to God, but if we continue to reject the chances He gives us, we are making the same decision that Satan made, the only difference is we made it ten thousand times over an eighty year life and he made it once in a timeless life.

    God bless!
    Devin

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the reply, Devin.

      "Regarding the argument that Heaven after the general resurrection will be temporal, I don't think that follows. For one thing, Jesus is already resurrected and is in Heaven with His human body."

      Do you believe that Jesus is able to think and move wherever he is? For example, can he take two steps forward? If so, then wouldn't you have to concede that Christ exists in some form of temporal state since movement requires before, during, and after?

      If you don't believe Christ is able to physically move, do you believe he exists in an atemporal suspension of some sort?

      "That would be a weird thing, as if Heaven was out of time before and now it is bound to time."

      Perhaps heaven has always been temporal, since it exists for human beings which are temporal.

      "More generally, consider the angels, who with perfect knowledge still made an irrevocable choice. The fallen angels chose pride and rejected God."

      Unfortunately, we are often left speculating about angels and the state they were in prior to their fall. Did they make a decision with a full knowledge of what they were getting themselves into? This example brings me back to my discussion about what could possibly lead an intelligent entity, human, demonic, or angelic, to willingly act against God. I have yet to make sense of how this could be a possibility.

      What sources or evidences are there that Satan made his decision with a full knowledge? I can't help but believe that if Satan actually rejected God will full consent and freedom there must be something else going on. Perhaps Hell isn't that bad. Perhaps Satan is actually the hero- an angel that rebels against a tyrannical deity. If so we are all in trouble.

      "...he made it once in a timeless life."

      How can a decision be made outside of time? To make a decision Satan must have existed prior to making his decision, during his decision, and after his decision at which point he was fallen.

      Perhaps my next blog post will be about time and whether timelessness is a coherent idea.

      Delete
  2. So this is not my area of expertise, but I thought "Heaven" is a bit of a misnomer anyway, since what we're really looking forward to is a "New Earth." At least I know many Christians say this. It seems to me that calling it a New Earth implies temporality. But I'm just shooting from the hip here, I have no idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This seems to be the way Eastern Christianity and thinkers like NT Wright have spoken of the afterlife. If I remember correctly this view is compatible, if not dogmatic, in Roman Catholicism.

      I think people often confuse "experiencing time differently" with "living outside of time."

      Delete
  3. Addressing various points...

    God condemns no one and wants all to be saved. He does not punish sinners with Hell, but in His love lets us freely reject Him. His justice is perfect in reading our hearts. Mitigating circumstances (like mental illness) could never be perfectly judged by us but are judged perfectly by Him. If God finds a person not culpable of rejecting Him, then they have not freely separated themselves from Him in the first place and would not be in Hell.

    If the damned could reconsider their lot, change their hearts, turn to God and be saved then of course every person would ultimately be saved. This would only be a matter of time, but there is no time in eternity -- Heaven and Hell are outside of it. When in our lives we have willfully formed ourselves apart from God, then that is who we are at death and who we remain forever.

    It makes no sense to effectively conflate Hell and Purgatory, which in essence those who believe Hell is not permanent are doing. These are two very different judgements. That all are (at least eventually) saved is the heresy of universalism. Were it true, then it would not matter how anyone lived their life -- how sinful, how non-repentent or how hateful. This is very opposite of what I read in Holy Scripture!

    FWIW, I wrote about this some here. There is also a good Catholic Answers piece here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "there is no time in eternity -- Heaven and Hell are outside of it."

      If we have physical, resurrected bodies, we will necessarily be in a temporal setting. How can we be a-temporal without being drastically different creatures than we are in our current state?

      "It makes no sense to effectively conflate Hell and Purgatory, which in essence those who believe Hell is not permanent are doing."

      Technically, the concept makes perfect sense. I think what you mean to say is it conflicts with Catholic teaching.

      "That all are (at least eventually) saved is the heresy of universalism. Were it true, then it would not matter how anyone lived their life -- how sinful, how non-repentent or how hateful."

      This is not true. It could be the case that souls must still pay the price for their sins in a purgatory of sorts; the punishment will just not be permanent. Universalism isn't necessarily a "it doesn't matter what you did! Come on in!" philosophy. Many universalists maintain that how we live and act in this life are still very important, and purgation/ purification will be necessary in the hereafter.

      Frankly, in light of God's infinite love, universalism makes a lot more sense to me than the idea that a soul forever being tormented, unable to escape.

      "This is very opposite of what I read in Holy Scripture!"

      If you have specific passages in mind we can discuss those.

      Delete
  4. It's not a question of time, it's a question of ontology. And although many things are possible (an infinity, really) only a few actually exist or ever materialize. It is "possible" for me to ____ the dead: most-probably I never will. It is "possible" for Satan to repent. He won't. Hasn't done it in the last fourteen billion years, not even in the last month, despite reading your brilliant post on how "dumb" it is of silly little him not to, and how absurd it is to still cling to his stupid pride instead of becoming meek like God, and thus enter salvation. The bliss of Heaven is not some sort of a spiritual Disneyland, it comes as the direct result of embracing a certain specific way of existence. A selfless existence. What greater or more unbearable sacrifice than that of renouncing oneself ? For some, the price is too high. How could it not be ? For others, it's worth it. That's that. Plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They don't choose hell directly, they're not mindless sado-masochists: they choose the train that takes them there, because they like its color. After all, it is a very pretty color: You would like it too !... Come on, what do you say: wanna give it a ride ?...

      Delete
    2. Thank you for the reply.

      The conclusion one comes to on these issues necessarily boils down, at least in part, to the presuppositions with which they begin. Do we hold that hell will be a state of suffering which we will consciously recognize as such, or do we devolve into mindless animals that are basically dead? If the former, I stand by my original post. It is absurd that any rational being, aware of why they are suffering and how they could go about remedying their lot would yet choose to experience such horror.

      You state that "They don't choose hell directly, they're not mindless sado-masochists: they choose the train that takes them there, because they like its color." My primary question in response would be whether or not they understand that they are choosing hell, or at least understand that they are choosing evil. If not can we really say they are making such a choice? If you choose a specific ice cream flavor because you perceive that it will bring you the most satisfaction, but then after consuming it the vendor reveals that it was actually poison is it fair to say that you chose poison, or do you have to understand what you are getting yourself into?

      Delete
    3. The door that leads out of pain is itself unbearably painful.

      As I already said: The bliss of Heaven comes as the direct result of embracing a certain specific way of existence. A selfless existence. What greater or more unbearable sacrifice than that of renouncing oneself ? For some, the price is too high. How could it not be ?

      To make it clearer: It's not about "wanting to feel good": nobody is into SM. It's about very sincerely and very consciously embracing a certain way of existence. The thing itself. NOT ITS FRUITS. Mentally knowing that the undesirable thing is the right thing, is ultimately irrelevant. You won't embrace the rose for the beauty of its petals if you consider it too high a price to be stung by its thorns.

      Look, here are some simple examples: All Orthodox/Catholic Christians know that theoretically the bliss awaiting monks infinitely surpasses that awaiting married people. So why then are there so few monks in any given Orthodox and Catholic country or nation ? Only a few lousy thousands in a land of millions or even tens of millions ? Hmmm ? Of course, you might say that "infinitely less bliss" is not quite the same as "infinitely great suffering". But when you really think about it, the mechanism or mentality underlying those two different choices is ultimately the same.

      Here's another thing: God is all-knowing, knowing the hearts of men; dwelling outside of time, so that the future is not a mystery to Him; and He never lies. He also informs us that these states are eternal. So why would anyone think any different ? Logically, there is no choice but to believe Him. Just like logically there is no choice but to embrace Heaven, as you argue. But, as you can clearly see, logic is overrated. Logic (the Logos) also happens to be the Son of God. Was He treasured, when He came to us ? When the pagan Roman soldiers, who had obviously no bone in the whole Jewish-Christian controversy, came to the Priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees, and informed them of His resurrection, was there any logical reason to doubt the truth of their testimony ? Did they ever doubt that is was an objective or impartial statement ? No. Did they embrace it or accept it ? No. In fact, they persecuted His followers even more so than before. Just because something is not logical, doesn't mean that it's untrue. It wasn't logical for Catholics to form the Inquisition despite Christ's clear teachings against such measures. But nevertheless it happened.

      Still not convinced ? Don't worry, you will be. It is unavoidable. We will all die, in no more than a few decades, and shall enter one of these two states. If you're really-really lucky, and will find yourself amongst the damned, then you will finally truly know from within your self why damnation will never be abandoned, despite still theoretically knowing that it "should". But there are no "should" and `would` left when the mind has reached a conscious choice. Yet if by some grave misfortune or twisted irony of fate you will find yourself amongst the Saints, despair not, you will still get your answer, by first realizing from within yourself why it is absurd to leave such a blessed state, and then intuitively understanding that a similar but diametrically opposed conclusion has been reached by the damned; which will become all the more obvious when approaching them, and asking them to join you and God and the Saints in heavenly bliss, but they will very categorically and hatefully refuse, despising to their guts what is required of them to do in order to arrive there in that state which is indeed as blissful as theirs is repugnant. And since that refusal and rejection in based in their conscious being, time has nothing to do with it. They will cement themselves in evil as you will cement yourself in good. And that's that. So fear not, and dread not, because whatever happens, you will eventually understand the answer to your question, since you yourself will experience it, as will we all.

      Delete
    4. So let us drink, and eat, and be merry, and put aside such silly little questions, no different than a little child asking his parents about birds and bees, when in fact he will eventually come to understand them anyway from within himself at the appointed time, with or without their answers, which his mind can't comprehend at that age anyway...

      Delete
    5. Perhaps a small link to better illustrate my point (while simultaneously elevating my depressing blog-statistics) would be in order here...

      Delete
    6. Thank you once again for a thoughtful reply.
      It seems that in your consideration of this issue you divide choices from their consequences, which from my perspective seems absurd. The two naturally go hand in hand.
      From what I have observed of rational human beings, they frequently suffer through pains in order to achieve the good, especially as they become further convinced of the beneficial consequence. For example, a rational individual would not walk on broken glass without reason, but if the other side held a reward worth enduring the painful steps across the shards, then the task could be endured. We make decisions and endure hardships for the perceived benefits associated with such actions.

      So once again, if we hold that an individual that suffers hell is conscious, rational, and aware of the reward that would be had if they endured the refining fires on the path to heaven it seems obvious that the rational agent would choose heaven. If the soul loses rationality, then God leaves us in an animalistic state to suffer helplessly for eternity. If we lose our consciousness, then it is absurd to speak of suffering since one must necessarily be conscious to suffer.
      To reiterate, I hold that an individual will only choose something as long as it is seen as good. Hell will be seen by rational souls as undesirable and thus they will seek after relief. I choose to believe in a God that would grant such relief.

      “All Orthodox/Catholic Christians know that theoretically the bliss awaiting monks infinitely surpasses that awaiting married people.”
      According to what?

      “So why then are there so few monks in any given Orthodox and Catholic country or nation ? Only a few lousy thousands in a land of millions or even tens of millions ? Hmmm ?”

      because they don’t actually believe this is true?

      “Of course, you might say that "infinitely less bliss" is not quite the same as "infinitely great suffering". But when you really think about it, the mechanism or mentality underlying those two different choices is ultimately the same.”

      This is absolutely false. The man who experiences a pleasure of 10 and a man who experiences pleasure of 2 are still both experiencing pleasure. No suffering is experienced. There is a world of difference between this and the soul that suffers the worst horrors imagineable.

      “ When the pagan Roman soldiers, who had obviously no bone in the whole Jewish-Christian controversy, came to the Priests, Pharisees, and Sadducees, and informed them of His resurrection, was there any logical reason to doubt the truth of their testimony ? Did they ever doubt that is was an objective or impartial statement ? No. Did they embrace it or accept it ? No.”

      Given that we were not there, it seems that the most we can say is that it is possible that those who denied the resurrection may have done so on illogical grounds, but I can think of several logical reasons why they may have doubted Christian claims. For example, perhaps some priests, Romans, etc. heard a bad argument for the resurrection. Perhaps they weren’t presented with evidence. Perhaps they found good evidence against the Christian claim. There are numerous possible reasons.

      Delete
    7. From what I have observed of rational human beings

      Sharpen your sense of observation. Haven't you noticed by now how most people just don't change, ever, not even when all logic and reasoned argument urges them to ? Not even when they know everything is lost ? Rather they still "march on" to their own impending doom.

      Either way, if you don't believe me, feel free to spend eternity preaching repentance to the damned, and describing to them the pleasures of the Kingdom: see if any of them will ever budge.


      According to what?

      The teachings of our faith.


      Because they don’t actually believe this is true?

      They know this to be true.

      The pagan Roman soldiers weren't Christians.

      Delete
    8. the task could be endured

      It could, but it won't.


      I choose to believe in a God that would grant such relief.

      It's not God that's withholding anything from anyone.

      Delete
    9. As I said, but perhaps I wasn't being too clear: You have to very consciously and very sincerely embrace the thing itself, NOT its fruits. If you can't embrace the road, you can't arrive at the destination. But that "road" is a very specific form of existence. Either you WANT to exist in that way, regardless of the outcome, or you don't. It's really THAT simple. YOU have to ACTUALLY embrace the thing ITSELF. It is the thing itself that has to genuinely fulfill you, not its fruits. But if the thing itself is genuinely and sincerely undesirable to all parts of your being, mental knowledge of its outcome makes NO difference whatsoever. (I'm afraid I just can't explain it better than this).

      Delete