Should Christians be Ashamed to Believe in Hell?

I recently read a question that was posted by a non-believer to a board that both Christians and atheists follow. There, someone posted a simple question: "Christians, Do you ever feel ashamed that you believe in Hell?" The question is a provocative one. It seems to assume that the doctrine of hell is something to be ashamed of or embarrassed about. Yet, there are Christians who may never have felt uncomfortable with the concept of hell react to such a charge in just that way.

But there's no good reason to be embarrassed about the concept of hell. If one starts with the premise that God exists, then hell becomes something that makes a lot of sense. I'd like to examine both sides of this issue to show just why Hell offers nothing to be embarrassed about.

Shame Implies Moral Failing

What is it about the idea of hell that makes people feel ashamed? Shame is a feeling normally associated with moral failing, that is it is properly invoked when the person believes or does something that's in error. For example, one may be ashamed that he or she didn't know the answer to an elementary math question. The implication here is that the person's education was deficient. However, I don't think the questioner has this kind of shame is directly in view. Because he addressed the question to Christians, the fact that they believe in Hell as a real place would follow. It's a belief that has been established since the beginning of the faith. To invoke that kind of shame, the questioner could have just as easily asked "Do you ever feel ashamed that you believe in God?" Notice that the response Christians would have to that question would be different; it doesn't illicit shame in and of itself. Therefore, I think the shame that is meant by the questioner is different than a shame of ignorance.

It seems clear that the shame implied by the question is one of moral failing. The questioner is implying that by believing in hell, the Christian is holding to something that is unconscionable, the torment of other human beings in the afterlife. The unstated premise is that such a view is itself immoral. But is it? If one holds to the atheist caricature of hell being a place of torment for those who don't "believe like me" or "believe the right beliefs," then perhaps shame would come into play. But that's a straw man that doesn't resemble the Christian doctrine of hell at all.

The Need for Justice

Because the questioner presupposes the belief in Hell can be something to be ashamed about, he is implying some type of moral standard in his question itself. Yet, moral standards mean that good and evil exist. To be ashamed of believing that people will be tormented is saying that tormenting people is wrong. It shouldn't be done. But, that forces the question, "What should be done to the person who inflicts torment on another person?" If inflicting torment is wrong, then shouldn't the person inflicting torment be punished for his or her wrongdoing? It wouldn't be enough to simply remove the tormentor out of range of the victim. That isn't justice. The victim's suffering requires that the perpetrator be held accountable for his deeds.

Christianity holds that God is a just God as well as a loving one. That means that God must deal with those individuals who have done evil in the world. Think of Stalin. He was a tyrant who was responsible for the deaths of millions of lives, yet he lived comfortably in power until the end of his days. Isn't the idea of Stalin getting away with his crimes an example of the moral failing of the way this world works? Hell appeals to a concept of moral rightness and justice. Rejection of hell implies the moral principles that the questioner wishes to draw upon are themselves nonbinding. They can be dodged without repercussions. And if they can be dodged without repercussions, then why should anyone adhere to them?

Of course, Christians talk about hell in a much larger context than only the destination of the most evil. God never intended for people to go to hell, but because of his love and justice, he must quarantine them there. You may read more about that here. But for my purposes in this article, the idea that there is a hell is nothing that should cause feelings of shame on the part of the believer. A world in which a perpetrator never gets caught in this life and then simply ceases to be is unfair to his victims. It minimizes the real suffering and pain they've experienced as simply a part of an uncaring, unjust world. If there is no hell, then the universe itself is unfair. The atheist may choose to believe in such a world, but they have no grounds upon which to claim that Christians should be ashamed. If there's no justice, there's no need for shame.

Image courtesy Jpatokal at wts wikivoyage [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Examining the Atheist Ten Commandments

Last year, atheists Le Bayer and John Figdor ran a contest that asked atheists to rethink the Ten Commandments and suggest their own precepts that they believe people should follow. The contest offered $10,000 divided between the ten winners for the "crowdsourced Rethink of the Ten Commandments."1

I think the idea that Le Bayer and Figdor came up with was a genius one in the fact that it aptly promoted their book, Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart.

Crowdsourcing the Ten Commandments doesn't strike me as the most appropriate way to discern moral precepts. All one has to do is look at the horrendous issues with the crowdsourced Wikipedia to see that having a huge amount of contributors doesn't guarantee the truth will be produced. Wikipedia suffers from bias in many of its historically and politically focused articles. Also, edit wars, where different people with specific agendas will change or undo another's edit of an article to advance their own agendas are a continuing problem around the world.2 Yet, even here Wikipedia has an advantage as it is supposed to be focusing on factual data while ethical precepts fall into the category of prescriptions for human actions, whether we like them or wish to follow them.

Commandments with Assumptions

There are a few things that strike me about the ten beliefs that AddictingInfo calls "non-commandments."3 One that jumps out clearly, though, is that they seem to contradict one another. For example, the first two beliefs (you can read the entire list here) are "#1 - Be open minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence" and "#2 -Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true." So far, so good. I don't have any problem with either of those. However, the next commandment reads, "#3 - The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world" and offers the explanation that "Every time humans have questions this method is used to solve them. If we don't know, we don't know but instead of making up the answer we use this method to reach a conclusion/answer." Well, this claim is demonstrably false. As I've written on before, science cannot answer questions of a moral nature. For example, science can never answer "should we clone a human being."

Science also falls short on answering questions like "Why does the natural world exist at all?" How do we get a something out of a nothing? While folks like Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss try to redefine the concept of nothing so they can escape the implication of God, their efforts fall flat. The universe itself—traditionally referred to as the cosmos—needs explaining, just as one cannot look at the liquid inside a bucket and hope to explain how the bucket itself came to be. The bucket must precede its content or the liquid cannot be contained. Similarly, the explanation for the natural order of the universe cannot be found appealing to natural laws or processes. Those are the very things needing an explanation.

Contradiction of Belief

Because this third belief holds very specific assumptions about the world and what's real, it is actually violating the previous two precepts. Would anyone who holds to this belief be willing to alter his or her view with new evidence? Given the problems with relying on science to explain the natural world as a whole, will those who cling to this third precept be open minded enough that they would jettison it, even if it contradicts their desired belief?

Another inherent contradiction can be found in the last statements. Three of them propose moral standards by which all people should adhere:

• #7 - Treat others as you would want them to treat you and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
• #8 - We have the responsibility to consider others including future generations.
• #10 - Leave the world a better place than you found it.

While the last two seem a bit redundant, all of these appeal to an idea of obligation to someone other than yourself. There is a set standard that one must live by, and that is to put another person before yourself. First of all, how did the person discover this? Was it via science? Did they boil something in a flask for a certain amount of time and make measurements against a control group? If these precepts weren't discovered via the scientific method, is there another reliable way to discover real truths about our natural world?

Secondly, there's one belief that lands smack dab in the middle of these platitudes: "#9 - There is no one right way to live." Well, commandments numbered 7, 8, and 10 seem to argue differently. In fact, publishing this list at all argues for a certain perspective, as does the book that Le Bayer and Figdor are hoping to sell. I can't see how one who holds to this belief can assent to any of the others as in any way binding. In fact, if you are to take this statement as something everyone should believe to be true, which is exactly the way the list is intended, then one should ask "why should I believe this?" What if my way of living is to reject the idea that there is no one right way to live? What now?

While the idea of crafting a new Ten Commandments seems intriguing, one can quickly see that without anchoring the authority of commandments on a transcendent God, they become void of any real meaning or force. The conclusion is obvious, but I wonder if atheists are willing to be open minded enough to accept it.

References

1. "The Rethink Prize - Atheist Mind Humanist Heart." Atheist Mind Humanist Heart. Mind Heart Project LLC, 29 Oct. 2014. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. http://www.atheistmindhumanistheart.com/the-rethink-prize/.
2. R.L.W., G.D. AND L.P. "Edit Wars." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 05 Aug. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2015. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/08/daily-chart-1.
3. Fletcher, Joe. "Atheists Rewrite The Ten Commandments - They're Much Better Than The Originals." Addicting Info. Addicting Info, 22 Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Apr. 2015. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/12/22/atheist-ten-commandments/.

Jesus and Logical Fallacies: The Genetic Fallacy

Technology can be a great tool and certain technological achievements have made huge impacts on humanity. The printing press helped usher in the Renaissance and the steam engine fueled the Industrial Revolution. With the advent of the Internet, humanity has entered into the Information Age1, one which pundits lauded as a golden time where an explosion in knowledge would help more people to become more intelligent. However, as anyone who has engaged in an online debate will tell you, that isn't necessarily the case. There's a whole lot of junk out there as well, and it takes a thoughtful person to sift through the arguments.

One mistake I see constantly is a person who rejects any religious claim and asserts that a certain proposition must be right because it is scientific. Such people ridicule religious thought as "ancient" or "superstitious" because it is old or simply part of a traditional faith culture.  Scientists are the ones who really know; and we need to trust them because they are the unbiased discoverers of truth.

Such charges are nonsense. Assuming science can be the ultimate arbitrar for truth is a form of scientism that ignores the fact that scientists are just as biased as anyone else. Those that assume such are making a mistake in thinking, one that even Jesus faced in his day.

Assuming Error Because of the Source

In John chapter 7, during the Feast of Booths, the Chief Priests and the Pharisees had sent its officers out to arrest Jesus, but the officers came back without him. John records the scene:

The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, "Why did you not bring him?" The officers answered, "No one ever spoke like this man!" The Pharisees answered them, "Have you also been deceived? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed." Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, "Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" They replied, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee."2

The Jewish Leadership is arguing that Jesus must be lying about his speaking on God's behalf because he comes out of Galilee, and they tell Nicodemus, that "no prophet arises from Galilee." This is a logical mistake known as the genetic fallacy, which is when you don't look at the merits of the argument, but you simply dismiss it because if its source. It's like arguing that because my 2nd grade math teacher was placed in jail for perjury, I shouldn't believe his claim that 2+2=4.

Here, the officers are reporting that Jesus's teaching is remarkable, something that needs to be considered. However, the Priests and Pharisees dismiss their claim, stating it cannot be true because Jesus comes from the wrong area of Israel. They challenge Nicodemus to "Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee." Here, the leaders were actually wrong even in their challenge. There were at least two prophets of the Old Testament that came from the Galilean region, Jonah, who came from Gath-hepher (2 Kings 14:25), which is just north of Nazareth, and Nahum.3 In Jesus's day, the people of Galilee were composed of many different races, and as the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, "Their mixed origin explains the differences in speech which distinguished them from their brethren in the South, who regarded Galilee and the Galileans with a certain proud contempt (Joh 1:46; 7:52)."4 So it may very well be their bias against people from Galilee that the leaders were trying to exploit against Jesus.

Assuming Truth Because of the Source

The Jewish leadership offered another form of the genetic fallacy when they faced off against Jesus in John 8. In an exchange that became a bit tense, Jesus challenged them by saying, "I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father."5  The Pharisees responded by claiming they were true Jews: "Abraham is our father," they exclaimed. But just being the biological offspring of Abraham doesn't make one righteous or right. This is a literal version of the genetic fallacy! Jesus corrected them and states that they don't follow the faith of Abraham, they follow their spiritual father, the Devil.

In the first instance we see the Pharisees dismissing Jesus's claims because he isn't from Galilee.  The Jewish leadership does not recognize anyone from Galilee as authoritative. This is very much like those who would dismiss any biblical teaching because they say the source, which is the Bible, is invalid. In the second instance, the leadership held that they couldn't be wrong because they came from the right source; they were the descendants of Abraham. This is very much like the claim that science and scientists hold the authority over any other claims because they come from a scientific origin.

Neither of these arguments are logically valid. One must look at the actual argument and the reasons supporting it to judge its worth. To discriminate either for or against a view based on its origin—whether it is new or old, faith-based of scientific, comes from an expert or a novice—without examining the argument itself is a form of prejudice. It's the genetic fallacy, and something we should all avoid.

References

1. "Living in the Information Age." Ushistory.org. Independence Hall Association, 2014. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. http://www.ushistory.org/us/60d.asp.
2. John 7:45-52, ESV. (Crossway, 2001).
3. Souvay, Charles. "Nahum." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. Web. 13 Apr. 2015 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10670a.htm.
4. "Galilee." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online. Ed. James Orr. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/G/galilee.html.
5. John 8:37-38. ESV.

Where Do Moral Values Originate? (video)

Most people recognize that moral values and obligations are real. However, they disagree strongly on where moral values come from. In this clip, Lenny explores the three possible origins of moral obligations: they are either determined by nature, they are designed by men, or they are discovered as something independent of ourselves and our world. See which concept makes the most sense.

Why it Is Reasonable and Scientific to Consider the Soul

A 2008 article in the magazine New Scientist by Amanda Gefter criticized several Christian philosophers for rejecting a purely physicalist account of consciousness. However, Dr. Angus Menuge provides a compelling rebuttal as to why it is both reasonable and scientific to consider a human being as one who is made up of both a body and a soul:

At any given time, scientists should infer the best current explanation of the available
evidence, and right now, the best evidence from both neuroscience and rigorous philosophical analysis is that consciousness is not reducible to the physical. Churchland’s refusal to draw this inference is based not on evidence, but on what Karl Popper called "promissory materialism," a reliance on the mere speculative possibility of a materialistic explanation. Since this attitude can be maintained indefinitely, it means that even if a non-materialist account is correct (and supported by overwhelming evidence), that inconvenient truth can always be ignored. Surely the project of science should be one of following the evidence wherever it leads, not of protecting a preconceived materialist philosophy. Isn’t it that philosophy—the one that constantly changes its shape to avoid engagement with troublesome evidence, either ignoring the data or simply declaring it materialistic—that most resembles a virus?

Gorra, Joseph. "EPS Philosophers Respond to New Scientist Article On 'Creationism' and Materialism."  EPS Blog. Evangelical Philosophical Society, 23 Oct. 2008. Web. 11 Apr. 2015. http://blog.epsociety.org/2008/10/eps-philosophers-respond-to-new.asp