It’s a love/hate relationship. Little children chant rhymes for it to come another day. Then they go out and play in the mud. On sunny days they get their parents to take them to water parks. Homeowners curse flooded basements and leaky roofs. They like it when their gardens and lawns get watered for free. I’m Canadian. And I live on the west coast of British Columbia. Here, rain is reality. Rain cleanses the air of the smog and filth being expelled from a million automobile exhausts pipes. It accompanies the windy southeasterlies that blow hats off of the heads of old gentlemen and lift the skirts of red-faced ladies.
In the past couple of weeks rivers have overflowed in various parts of the country, causing much damage of property and displacement of families. The rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous. So it falls on everyone. Well, maybe not on refugees in the Sudan. For them dust is reality. Dust, disease and death. The thing we need the most can either keep us alive or, if withheld, kill us. Such is life. It’s a doubled-edged sword. Great pleasure. Sometimes even greater pain. Earthquakes, tornadoes, typhoons, mudslides. The list goes on and on. The way the natural world operates often seems to conspire against us frail creatures. Combine that with murders, sexual abuse, torture, genocide. So why would God allow such things to occur if they cause such harm to his creatures, his children?
Well, I’ve got some views on the problem of evil but others have already written some good material on it. The following web articles might be of some use to some people.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/bosnia.htm
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/problemofevil.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Monday, June 20, 2005
To Hell and back
In a recent issue of Books and Culture, philosopher Kevin Corcoran ponders the possibility of universalism. Although he finally, and reluctantly, comes to the conclusion that universalism is false, he hopes that it will turn out to be true. I, along with Prof. Corcoran, hope that universalism is true and that as a result, many, if not all, will be saved. I believe, however, that this will not be the case. Even if universalism is true, hell would still be a reality.
Free will is the nub of this difficulty (I’m assuming here the incompatibilist view of free will. I haven’t decided yet if I’m a compatibilist or an incompatibilist). The non-believer doesn’t believe precisely because he, in his freedom, cannot or will not believe. If God were to send everyone, including nonbelievers, to heaven, we would have a situation where there is a mixture of people, some who believe, and some who do not. Well, to be more precise we would have one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and love God, and one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and don’t love God. (After all, once you are in the presence of God Almighty, it would be very difficult to deny his existence and various numbers of qualities he possesses such as his majesty, greatness, etc.).
The ones who don’t believe would behave in the same manner as they did on earth. This would disrupt the peaceful and loving atmosphere that the bible tells us will exist in heaven. Could such people eventually be educated in the presence of the Lord to love Him? Let’s ask the Israelites of the Exodus. They saw the awesome power of God up close and personal. Their reaction was to be worshipful for a time, but then to drift away into idolatry and general disobedience (they didn’t spend forty years in the desert simply because Moses missed the shortcut into Canaan). What reason do we have that those taken to heaven (against their will, I might add) would be any different? One could imagine Genghis Khan or some devotee of violence continuing to do the things he knows how to do well: raping, pillaging, etc.
The disruption these people would cause could become so severe that God would have to cordon them off in a special area where they couldn’t harm those who wish to follow Him. He may even assign a name to it, say, Hell. There would be no danger of believers finding this place. I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis’ conception of hell as being a tiny crack in the ground of heaven (see The Great Divorce).
But what if God were to make regular visits to Hell to show His love to those in there in the hopes that some or even all may eventually embrace Him and be saved. I can’t see how, if the occupants of hell didn’t accept God when in heaven, they would suddenly accept Him in hell. If a person truly wants nothing to do with God, His presence may even drive that person further away from loving Him, just as the presence of a co-worker you find annoying might make you want to avoid him. (comparing an experience of the God of the universe to a mere human experience may not be that appropriate but you get the point, right?...).
Prof. Corcoran says that he hopes “God’s love extends to everyone, and that, eventually, that love will have its way with all and all will embrace it.” I hope so too, but I don’t see that as being likely. It seems to me, then, that hell, i.e., separation from God, is a necessary and, alas, an inevitable reality, even if universalism is true.
Free will is the nub of this difficulty (I’m assuming here the incompatibilist view of free will. I haven’t decided yet if I’m a compatibilist or an incompatibilist). The non-believer doesn’t believe precisely because he, in his freedom, cannot or will not believe. If God were to send everyone, including nonbelievers, to heaven, we would have a situation where there is a mixture of people, some who believe, and some who do not. Well, to be more precise we would have one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and love God, and one group of people who believe the right beliefs about God and don’t love God. (After all, once you are in the presence of God Almighty, it would be very difficult to deny his existence and various numbers of qualities he possesses such as his majesty, greatness, etc.).
The ones who don’t believe would behave in the same manner as they did on earth. This would disrupt the peaceful and loving atmosphere that the bible tells us will exist in heaven. Could such people eventually be educated in the presence of the Lord to love Him? Let’s ask the Israelites of the Exodus. They saw the awesome power of God up close and personal. Their reaction was to be worshipful for a time, but then to drift away into idolatry and general disobedience (they didn’t spend forty years in the desert simply because Moses missed the shortcut into Canaan). What reason do we have that those taken to heaven (against their will, I might add) would be any different? One could imagine Genghis Khan or some devotee of violence continuing to do the things he knows how to do well: raping, pillaging, etc.
The disruption these people would cause could become so severe that God would have to cordon them off in a special area where they couldn’t harm those who wish to follow Him. He may even assign a name to it, say, Hell. There would be no danger of believers finding this place. I'm reminded of C.S. Lewis’ conception of hell as being a tiny crack in the ground of heaven (see The Great Divorce).
But what if God were to make regular visits to Hell to show His love to those in there in the hopes that some or even all may eventually embrace Him and be saved. I can’t see how, if the occupants of hell didn’t accept God when in heaven, they would suddenly accept Him in hell. If a person truly wants nothing to do with God, His presence may even drive that person further away from loving Him, just as the presence of a co-worker you find annoying might make you want to avoid him. (comparing an experience of the God of the universe to a mere human experience may not be that appropriate but you get the point, right?...).
Prof. Corcoran says that he hopes “God’s love extends to everyone, and that, eventually, that love will have its way with all and all will embrace it.” I hope so too, but I don’t see that as being likely. It seems to me, then, that hell, i.e., separation from God, is a necessary and, alas, an inevitable reality, even if universalism is true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)