Is Gandhi in hell? It’s a question that should puncture religious chauvinism and unsettle fundamentalists of every stripe. But there’s a question that should be asked in turn: Is Tony Soprano really in heaven?
A couple of rhetorical questions posed by Ross Douthat, who does us all the favor of reminding us how certain ideas that would otherwise be too ugly and despicable to be shared among polite society become perfectly respectable under the rubric of religion. (Via Steve Mirsky on the twitters.) In this case, the idea is: certain people are just bad, and the appropriate response is to subject them to torment for all time, without hope of reprieve. Now that’s the kind of morality I want my society to be based on.
The quote is extremely telling. Note that the first question is never actually answered — is Gandhi in hell? And there’s a good reason it’s never answered, because the answer would probably be “yes.” Hell is an imaginary place invented by people who think that eternal torture for people they disapprove of would be a good idea. And it’s the rare religion that says “we approve of all good people, whether or not they share our religious beliefs.” Much more commonly, Hell is brought up to scare people away from deviating from a particular religious path. Here’s the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire”, and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”
Do you think that, at the end of his life, Gandhi decided to believe in Jesus and converted?
The second question is equally telling, because even Douthat can’t bring himself to use a non-fictional person as an example of someone who deserves Hell. He’s trying to make the point that “we are defined by the decisions we make,” and if there is no way to make bad decisions then making good decisions is devalued. Which is a fine point to make, and many atheists would be happy to agree. The difference is that we don’t think that people who make bad decisions deserve to be tortured for all of eternity.
This enthusiastic stumping for the reality of Hell betrays not only a shriveled sense of human decency and a repulsive interest in pain inflicted on others, but a deplorable lack of imagination. People have a hard time taking eternity seriously. I don’t know of any theological descriptions of Hell that involve some version of parole hearings at regular intervals. The usual assumption is that it’s an eternal sentence. For all the pious musings about the centrality of human choice, few of Hell’s advocates allow for some version of that choice to persist after death. Seventy years or so on Earth, with unclear instructions and bad advice; infinity years in Hell for making the wrong decisions.
Hell isn’t an essential ingredient in humanity’s freedom of agency; it’s a horrible of invention by despicable people who can’t rise above their own petty bloody-mindedness. The thought of condemning millions of people to an eternity of torment makes Ross Douthat feel good about himself and gives him a chance to indulge in some saucy contrarianism. I tend to take issue with religion on the grounds that it’s factually wrong, not morally reprehensible; but if you want evidence for the latter, here you go.
I was hoping for your take on the Atlas data “leak” Sean…
For the sci-fi fans out there, Iain M. Banks’ new novel (Suface Detail) includes a major plot line involving certain technologically advanced civilizations’ creation and perpetuation of computer-based “hells” where they send the consciousnesses of “evil-doers” in their societies. Other, presumably more enlightened societies take issue and fight a war to stop this practice. It is an interesting question raised by technological advancement, but unfortunately the moral aspect is only briefly discussed, as the main civilization covered by his novels (the Culture) is already known by Banks’ fans to be the type to disapprove.
I guess your post just reminded me of this.
Chris– I don’t really have anything to add to the rumor-mongering, except to note that the premature leak was certainly unfortunate.
Why is it all-too-often that physicists mistake themselves for philosophers? I’m am by no means a religious person, but you know as well as I do that this post attacks a straw man.
@Yoav: Nonsense. This post attacks a particular religious sensibility that is elucidated by Ross Douthat. That Douthat may be philosophically/morally/intellectually bankrupt is something we can discuss, obviously, but Sean attacking his fantasy-based vindictiveness is no more a “stawman” argument than writing a critique of anyone who takes religious dogma at its face-value. Sure, theologians and apologists like to argue that taking a religious precept or scripture at face-value is problematic, but that’s their can-of-worms, not ours. If you say that there is an eternal soul that is consigned to eternal torment for arbitrary reasons regarding intellectual decision-making, it is fair-game to take you to task for the ethics and ontology of such a statement.
The real question is, “Is Sean Carroll going to Hell when he dies?” I think we all know the answer to this question 😉
It is morally reprehensible that religions use a hell as a control mechanism; but also, it is a mechanism that is inconsistently addressed in the new testiment and horribly misinterpreted by christian religions in general. I have given up on religion altogether, although very well schooled on the topic during my youth. While most would have to admit that “Gandhi is in hell” if you are to assume he did not convert to christianity on his death bead, little John in his second epistle said something to the effect – anyone who knows love knows God for God is love. This one statement in the new testiment set me entirely free from religion, and it became clear to me the manipulations that are intended around conversion and spreading the good word. Gandhi knew love, Tony Soprano did not. Not trying to score a point for god’s love, just relating that even little John knew something was wrong with the message. People need to act responsibly in their own circumstance, and trying to hold someone other than yourself accountable based on your thoughts and beliefs is flat wrong.
Sean,
Now you’re talking!! Couldn’t agree with you more.
While I’m on board with the notion that Hell, in any modern context, is reprehensible, the “invention” of Hell is actually a pretty complicated story. The whole concept of an afterlife in Abrahamic religions evolved considerably over millennia, from a bleak semi-oblivion for saint and sinner alike on up. From Sheol to Gehenna is interesting history. The syncretic effects of translation and migration (e.g. Sheol to Hades, Gehenna to Hel) is also pretty interesting history. It’s not as simple as bad people dreaming up bad things to do to other people to keep them in line. Again, I do think it’s fair to characterize those who adhere to this ancient tradition today, and who, like Mr. Douthat, are in a position to know better, as depraved.
I try my very hardest not to read Ross Douthat’s articles, but even his titles are so egregious that I can’t look away. He’s the deadly car crash of NYT op-eds.
I don’t believe any educated Catholic would argue that Ghandi is in hell. If we actually believe in a loving God, then we can neither presume to know the goodness God finds in the minds and hearts of non-Christians, nor can we deny that they can live equally beautiful lives promoting love in accordance with the conscience with which we believe God has imbued us all.
Given your post’s proximity to the Church’s Good Friday intercessions, I like to note that Catholics everywhere pray for non-Christians, not for their conversion, but for the end of inter-religious strife and for our own ability to better witness the Love we have found through faith. Additionally, we pray for those who don’t believe in God, that they (and we) may honestly pursue Truth and lead lives morally following their (and our) consciences.
All that said, I won’t attest to how other Christian faiths understand Hell. Certainly there are those that use the idea to threaten those of different cultural backgrounds. It’s a shame these Christian extremists warrant reactionary posts like the above that do not fully incorporate modern understandings of Christian faith.
Lastly, C. S. Lewis forwards a beautiful understanding of Hell as the emptiness we create for ourselves by holding on to those things (vice, fear, and perhaps even misplaced love) that distract us from seeking out that which is truly real. Check out “The Great Divorce.”
That line from the Catholic catechism is not the full picture of what Catholics believe about hell. If you read the rest of the section on Catholicism in the link you gave, you’ll see that Pope John Paul II asserted that hell is the state of being completely unable to accept God’s love. This is a common theological understanding of hell.
In addition, that understand in conjunction with “Nostra Aetate” from Vatican II indicate that if a person’s beliefs in life prepare them to accept God’s love after death, it is possible for them to enter into heaven. It is hard for me to believe that Gandhi, with his deeply held commitment to love (regardless of the fact that that commitment was born out of his Hindu faith), would have been unable to accept God’s love when he died.
Considering that this is an extremely common belief among catholics, supported by official church teachings, it is hard for me to understand why Ross would even pose the question.
I asked a theologian about hell once. Like Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, I figured that I’d share the same fate of most of my friends. It wouldn’t seem right otherwise. The theologian told me that the fire that Christ referenced was not a metaphysical location, but an actual trash refuse that existed outside of the town he lived in. Christ used this as an allegory, but in the synoptical texts never refers to it as some fate of the person who fails to believe. Now in the book of John, things become different because Christ emphasizes belief over deeds. Many people, including Elaine Pagels, believe John was a fabrication designed to gain political control over the Christians. I don’t know whether this is true, but it seems sensible.
Adam,
“Considering that this is an extremely common belief among catholics, supported by official church teachings, it is hard for me to understand why Ross would even pose the question.”
Because heaven, hell and religion in general is such a bad explanation for things, anyone can come along, pick and choose what words they prefer, vary this or that aspect of their theology, and go on from there as if nothing had happened.
Official church teachings themselves have done exactly that every time reason and scientific progress has wrested some area from their grip.
Good explanations, like scientific explanations, provide no such luxury. A good scientific explanation is hard to change around and vary the inputs, and if you’re forced too, because of anomalous facts that arise, the theory no longer stands.
On the other hand, it’s impossible to disprove myths.
Religion is dumb. News at 11.
Let’s up the level of sophistication on this blog, please. There’s a reason people including myself subscribe to this blog, and posts like this are definitely not it.
Is there honestly anything in this post that couldn’t have been written by any angst-ridden Middle Schooler anywhere in the world? I can’t believe I spent time here reading this (for example):
“Hell is an imaginary place invented by people who think that eternal torture for people they disapprove of would be a good idea.”
I’m not normally this up front, but this post is seriously a joke. I say this as a concerned reader who strongly urges you to stick to writing what you’re good at.
Another post on religion by someone who, once again, distorts everything about religion, a topic he’s far removed from and knows little about. Just stick to physics and going on The Colbert Report.
whoschad,
“Hell is an imaginary place invented by people who think that eternal torture for people they disapprove of would be a good idea.”
I don’t pretend to know what motivates individuals to embrace concepts like heaven and hell. I’m sure it is very complex, but I certainly don’t see anything wrong with the first half of the sentence: hell is an imaginary place invented by people. I’d be interested what evidence you have to the contrary.
> I don’t know of any theological descriptions of Hell that involve some version of parole hearings at regular intervals.
There’s actually something rather like that in C S Lewis’s “The great divorce”, mentioned in an earlier comment. (It’s not exactly “regular intervals”, and Lewis might have disclaimed the adjective “theological” (a) for himself and (b) for that particular bit of speculation.)
Sean doesn’t want to read C.S. Lewis because he prefers to stick to his own prejudices about religion and those who practice it. Sean is just too good and smart for C.S. Lewis, right? Sean is sooooo smart!
As is to be expected, dissent doesn’t take the form of “logic” or “evidence” or for at matter even “counterarguments” at all, only vague insinuations that greater sophistication makes everything better. (And of course the usual complaints by anonymous Internet commentators about the lack of proper credentials.). Believe me, I’m well aware of the sophisticated arguments that are being left unarticulated, and I’m happy to stand by every single thing I wrote.
Agree that hell doesn’t come with images of regular parole hearings. Disagree that the typical religious view of hell is an eternal sentence….at least in the past century or so, christian writings have often depicted hell as less an eternal sentence, and more the eternal inevitability of choosing a life without god. So in this hell, even if you were given a parole hearing, it’s too late for you to bring yourself to choose God (e.g. look at C.S. Lewis’s “Great Divorce” which has little to do with fire and brimstone, and more to do with an eternal life in which one is tortured by never achieving fulfillment).
So for these images of hell, it is less the case that those in hell are not given a chance to repent, but that those in hell are believed to be beyond rehabilitation….I’m not sure if that is any less offsensive, but at least slightly different.
Phil,
Please read @ 19 g’s home pages (you can link through his “name”). You might find it interesting, or not.
g,
I found your comments (here and on your home pages) generous and thoughtful.
Sean,
Keep up the good work.
@16, 17:
Quit the butt hurt. You don’t like what a blogger says, stop reading his blog.
Also,
“a topic he’s far removed from and knows little about”
1. Atheists seem to know more about religion than theists. The relevant poll was extensively discussed, but I’ll find a citation if you really need it.
2. It’s pretty impossible to be far removed from public religious celebration and language in the USA. To the extent that atheists are part of the culture, we’re going to react to this stuff and we’re going to call it “religion.” If you have a problem with us calling stuff like Douthat’s op ed “religion” then that’s something you’re going to have to take up with the mainstream theists who say this stuff in the first place.
You guys are acting like we (atheists) made this whole “hell” thing up. Wasn’t us, we’re just responding to what other people say about it. Why don’t you sort out these thorny theological questions with the other believers and get back to us when you have it straight among yourselves.
Dan L,
Here is a link to the survey you referenced:
http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx
On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.