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.
4 comments:
Greetings, seems to me that much of what you say here echoes Lewis's view of things in The Great Divorce. I'm a big fan of that book; in my own personal experience, it's the most reasonable--and thus the most appealing--view of hell on the market. But it also seems to me that the standard universalist (not the puddleglum-variety- universalist :)) has a decent response ready-to-hand. This is simply that, confronted with God on the other side of the looking glass, that is, clearly, not only is it no longer possible for the non-believer to have false beliefs about God, it's also no longer possible for her to refrain from loving and worshiping God. Seems to me this should be, and (I'd wager) generally is, the universalists response. It's not that God snatches people up and tosses them in heaven whether they like it or not. It's rather that whoever comes face-to-face with God willingly remains in God's presence, of their own accord. Now you might wonder whether this choice to remain in God's presence is free, and if so, in what sense. An incompatibilist is comitted to the belief that if a person freely remains in God's presence, it must have been possible for her to have done otherwise--in this case, it must at least have been possible for her to leave God's presence. At this point the unversalist incompatibilist might just admit that it is, strictly speaking, possible for people to depart from God's presence, but that this possibility is recherche--it's a possibility that is never, in fact, actualized. If you're a compatibilist, you can just say that it's necessary that everyone stays in God's presence, but that these folks are nonetheless 'free'. (But compatibilism is probably false, or more trouble than it's worth, in my humble opinion.) BTW, Corcoran was a prof of mine at Calvin--a super guy--and I hear he's caught a fair share of grief for that article (which is kinda too bad, methinks; I thought it was a helpful piece). Another, BTW: there's an apocryphal tale that circulates in intro theology courses concerning Karl Barth. Apparently Barth was asked once by a student whether he was a universalist. His response: "I'm not, but God might be." Nuff said.
Thanks Luke. I enjoy reading opinions that go slightly (or more than slightly) against the grain of mainstream evangelical thinking on various issues, like this one, or on, say, Nancey Murphy's physicalism, or open theism. It's the arguments for and against that get the brain revving.
Another possibility that Lewis brings up in his essay "Miracles" from God in the Dock is where an individual, if he saw "the end of the world appear...in all the literal trappings of the Apocalypse,...the great white throne...the sensation of being...hurled into the lake of fire, he would continue forever, in that lake itself, to regard his experience as an illusion and to find the explanation of it in psychoanalysis, or cerebral pathology. Experience by itself proves nothing. If a man doubts whether he is dreaming or waking, no experiment can solve his doubt, since every experiment may itself be part of the dream. Experience proves this, or that, or nothing according to the preconceptions we bring to it." So, a peson can simply say that he's been the victim of an illusion.
I guess another question would be is even if the possibility of the universalist incompatiblist's walking away from God is never actualized, is it too late at this point? If Barth is wrong it might be.
And, are you allowed to be a Calvin student and not be a compatibilist? Or do such things hold less importance today than they used to?
Anyway thanks again.
just for the record, i'm not endorsing universalist. (as an aspiring philosopher, i'm not actually allowed to commit myself to one position over another--just to be a general pain in the butt for both sides.) i actually have a lot of sympathy w/ Corcoran's view. there's a book by von Balthasaar that i haven't got around to reading, but the title pretty much sums it up: "Dare we hope that all men be saved?" it's certainly a great hope of mine. and i guess i think that if all men aren't saved, this is b/c something like what Lewis talks about in The Great Divorce is true. as for the incompatibilism, it's all the rage at Calvin these days! go figure. but yeah, Plantinga's whole free-will defense against evil requires incompatibilism. i'm just not sure how to make sense of evil on a compatibilist view of things. though in my eyes compatibilism is perhaps better situated to explain how God and humans interact in salvation w/o slipping into Pelagianism. but that's a whole other issue. i haven't read Murphey's physicalism, but Corcoran is a physicalist along similar lines. check out his new book if you have the chance: "Rethinking Human Nature". i'm sympathetic to his view.
BTW, that's a really interesting Lewis quote. I haven't yet read Miracles, but I should...
Post a Comment