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.
This is why Darwin called Christianity a damnable doctrine:
“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.
And this is a damnable doctrine.”
From Darwin’s Autobiography
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1497&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
Attributed to Mark Twain:
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. ”
So perhaps hell really is being dead, really dead, not existing whatsoever; or is that heaven? Sometimes I get confused.
Anchor,
400 hundred years is nothing.
You say, “[y]et we have the capacity to recognize that our conceptions are never the Real McCoy and are only hazy representations of natural reality at best, or utterly mistaken fantasies at worst.”
But I think we are making remarkable progress. Here we are today, making these comments and explaning the world in better and better ways. Your own remarks reflect this truth.
We may not be able to advance sufficiently to progress for another 10,000 years; sad, but true enough.
But I’m optimist. 🙂 I think when conscious beings arise in the multiverse and reach the point where they are are truly self aware, exercising the degree of reason that I glimpse here, and when this is coupled with how quickly we are changing the world — and ever more rapidly — I can’t help but believe that (at least) we have a decent shot.
We do know that the laws of physics put no upper bound on our progress — it’s entirely in our hands.
I am a college student, and I’d like to offer a counter argument to your view of Hell, not against your view of Hell not existing but against your belief that Hell is an eternal place of torture. The christian bible doesn’t ever say that hell is a place of eternal torture (well at least any scholarly and honest translation does not). Hell is a place invented by humans. The only representation we get of a place that is not heaven after death in the bible is Sodom and Gomorra. In the story of Sodom and Gomorra, God wipes them from the face of the earth and out of a “hellish” existence. Hell is God’s mercy for those who would despise heaven. If God is a merciful God he would never force someone to go to heaven who would despise it. That would be truly sending someone to hell.
I realize i am using the bible to argue with one who does not believe in the bible, but it is a valid as i am attempting to correct your beliefs about christians.
Now for the disclaimer, I am only a Sophomore in college, I have been a christian all my life, but I believe in the rule of logic, but i also believe that religion has no need of scientific logic, as such all arguments that contain religion and science are invalid. Being so young I am sure i have much to learn about debate, logical thinking, but i believed that my opinions were under-represented and were worth stating. I am also sure that some day my beliefs will change, if I continue to be honest with myself, and hopefully those beliefs will come to a closer approximation of the truth.
Like many concepts from Abrahamic religions, our modern concept of Hell is a great deal more vulgar and less useful than it originally was. Looking beyond the horror gore imagery, Hell can be seen as an image of a phenomenon in which a person can become psychologically trapped in a condition of misery.
The story I have in mind is that of Lucifer, who was God’s greatest lover, holding onto the “feeling” of God throwing him out of Heaven when he refused to serve Man (“go to hell!”) Another is a French play in which three people are put in a cell: a man who falls in love with a lesbian, who falls in love with a pretty young woman, who falls in love with the man, each being completely disinterested in return. The climax comes when the cell door is opened but no one leaves. They are trapped in a “hell” by their own choice. This is the true nature of Hell.
That Hell has evolved to become a boogie man used by clergy to scare us straight is, to me, beyond debate. But there is a kernel in there worthy of reflection.
#47, Naked Bunny,
I don’t have an ego. What’s wrong with having trouble accepting that you absolutely cease to exist after death forever? I understand biology and physics and what we are made of.
Jonathan @54
The King James Bible, Mark, 9, verse 43:
Even the New International Version has it as: “where the fire never goes out.”
Did you mean that we should read “never” to be be a shorter time than “eternal”?
Ghandi would be in the first circle of hell, Limbo. No torture. He gets to hang out with the good Greeks, Romans, and unbaptized babies.
Tudza, I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church did away with Lumbo a few years ago. I found it amusing that all the sudden they said Limbo didn’t exist after centuries of teaching otherwise.
Mike 53,
I fully appreciate how far we’ve come out from under the dark cloud of superstition in ‘only’ 400 years (say, 20 generations). I also consider myself optimistic, fully agree that there are no upper bounds on our progress, that it is indeed entirely in our hands. I even think we have MORE than a “decent shot” (probalistically speaking) 😉
Rational thinking and a willingness or even passion to understand nature as it is (rather than imposing onto it what we wish it to be) is by far the most powerful and effective – if not the ONLY – means of constructing a serviceably valid model of the world humans possess. Rational thinking and the fruits of knowledge we harvest by it through the application of the scientific method is a mighty tough blaze to put out. But it needs constant nurturing and feeding.
But my optimism is tempered by reality and the historical record too. It doesn’t take very much for the forces of irrationality and mob mentality (yes, often fostered by superstition) to turn the tables and exhile whole societies straight back into the darkness. Nature simply does NOT care. It’s up to us alone to accept the responsibility of our future, one consistent with natural reality. We have no choice but to ensure we do not slide back into the gloom. If we don’t, there will inevitably come a time when the flower – exhausted by constant neglect and abuse – will wither and blossom no more.
Nature doesn’t care. Nature isn’t a conscious being with a vested interest in our welfare. We can’t hope for any assistance or divine intervention. Praying for salvation does nothing.
If we knock ourselves off, we’ll have done it at our own hands and we have only ourselves to hold responsible. Fat lot of comfort to us, in such a dismal and appallingly possible cicumstance, that nature may be cranking out intelligent critters like hot cakes in the universe, let alone a mutltiverse: we won’t be among the success stories. And if the final dregs of humanity have any pride left, they might at last realize that we blew it not because nature is inherently endowed with some sinister or evil property (or an omnipotent scorekeeper that rescues us just in time), but because we were too stupid or stubborn to admit that we brought about our demise by dragging preposterous mental baggage along with us for the ride, because we could not part with the reassuring objects of our veneration, nonsense artifacts of the mind that are worshipped literally above everything else.
That is the chief irony that has always struck me: how the pious so often hold the putative creative products of their Infallible Designer Being in such contempt, and the rapidity with which they are able to twist their necks around 180 degrees like Linda Blair and proclaim it as evidence of their Creator deity’s perfection is nothing short of stunning.
This all reminds me of a rather telling exchange in the classic film, “The African Queen”, where a pious spinster character by the name of Rosie Sayer (played by Katherine Hepburn) responds to a remark by the drunkard river-boat skipper called Charlie Allnut (played by Humphrey Bogart). Allnut says during the course of a dispute, “A man takes a drop too much once in a while, why, it’s only human nature.” To which Rosie replies, “NATURE, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above!”
Providence or luck save the day for the fictional movie characters, but its clear that the attitude displayed by Rosie remains disquietingly popular today, 20-odd generations after the blossoming of the Enlightenment…Man, are we ever asking for it.
@Yoav and whoschad: I couldn’t agree with you more. As to Yoav’s question, the answer appears to be pure ego, as most physicists (especially theorists) just naturally assume they’re the smartest people they’ve ever met. As a fellow traveler, this has to be absolutely the worst critique of religion I’ve ever seen. Sorta makes one ashamed of being a non-believer.
@61 realta fuar:
What on Earth are you talking about? Sean was responding to a fatuous article in the NY Times with a perfectly reasonable and accurate criticism. Have you even read the original article?
Fuar, I’m afraid you need to work on your reading comprehension. This is a critique of a particular individual’s view if hell (one shared by the vast majority of Christians), not a critique of all religion as you claim. If you find the traditional view of heL stupid take it up with the majority of Christians and the author of the article Sean was responding to.
There is, of course, absolutely no reason why someone needs professional philosophy credentials to comment on this topic (or any other topic, really: what matters in philosophy is the quality and clarity of the argument, not the credentials of the speaker). So equally, Sean doesn’t need to have someone (i.e., me) say that from a professional philosopher’s perspective, his argument is completely fine. But what the hell(!), I’ll say it anyway.
The difference is that we don’t think that people who make bad decisions deserve to be tortured for all of eternity
This is an overstatement. Unless you’ve asked every atheist what they think you can’t just imply that all atheists share your moral standard. I actually know a good number of atheists that are of the opinion that certain people deserve to be punished (painfully and for many years) for their crimes. Maybe religious people are more inclined to have that mentality (this might not even be true, I don’t have data on that), but it is certainly not exclusive to them.
If you want to criticize religious beliefs it’s your right to do so, but be honest in the process. There are plenty of religious people who have great moral standards and have no problems with scientific progress. There are also plenty of atheists who have ridiculously low moral standards. If you haven’t met one of those, good for you, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
David– thanks. The irony of people purporting to defend the honor of philosophy (or theology) while resorting to credentialism rather than arguments never ceases to amuse.
I find the “is Gandhi in hell?” question itself somewhat questionable. It presupposes the primacy of a certain view of the afterlife. Do hindus go around asking if a European of similar altruism attained moksha? I doubt it, the idea is distasteful.
Sean,
I am amazed that such an intelligent person in one sphere (physics) would **publish** something so naive and simple-minded in another. I imagine you have spent tens of thousands of hours studying physics. How many have you spent studying religion? 🙂
Publishing things like this simply exposes yourself as a fool. No one can be an expert at everything, but most have the good sense not to embarrass themselves through their ignorance in a public forum. Thank goodness you aren’t indefinitely insulated from sophomoric thinking by tenure!
This just in: millions of believers in “science” think atoms are “round” and that electrons surround the nucleus in circular orbits. This model has clear flaws, so science is disproved! Don’t tell me about what so called “expert” or “credentialed” science believers say, they don’t represent the majority.
The invention of an “afterlife,” either in Heaven or in Hell, comes from the fear of total oblivion for “eternity.” But “eternity” should be time-invariant. So why should people be upset by the fact that when they die they will not reappear in some kind of place (TBD), when nobody seems to be distressed by the fact that before birth, they were also nowhere to be found?
Tintin,
In reference to your comment, “…by the fact that before birth, they were also nowhere to be found”:
(1) You use “fact” very loosely, certainly not with the rigor that I would expect from a good scientist;
(2) Many people in various religions believe that they existed before birth.
Tintin,
You make the serious mistake of assuming a past stretching to infinity. As everyone knows, certain religious folks believe that the Heavens, Earth, and all life on Earth was created by direct act of the Abrahamic God during a relatively short period, sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. Big difference between that and infinity 🙂 So, if someone believes some wierd idea that you didn’t explicitly address, there goes your whole theory.
Brian,
“Many people in various religions believe that they existed before birth.”
Well that’s the problem isn’t it? Many people in various religions believe all sorts of nonsense. It’s like whac-a-mole, knock down one absurd view and another pops up. That’s why myths of all kinds are simply bad explanations. Unlike scientific explanations, myths can be varied, modified and changed at will to support any crackpot view without ever being “disproved.”
@ Brian (71)
Actually, I only wrote these few words in the context of Sean’s remarks, which were made in the framework of Christianity only. I am certainly well aware that many major and minor religions believe either in an eternal existence of a “soul” (however it is defined), with or without reincarnation. My comment, if you care to re-read it, had only to do with the argument I have heard (too) often about the absurdity of life if it is not followed by a “higher,” eternal FUTURE “life.”
As for the word “fact” I would agree that it was used loosely, its rigorous scientific interpretation not being on my mind. However, I would also point out that not a single factual (read scientific) account of reincarnation has ever been recorded.
@ Mike (72)
Even with a very “limited” time-reversed eternity of some 5,000 – 10,000 years, I have yet to meet a Christian who ever mentioned (worried) the whereabouts of his/her soul up until his/her own birth. He/she has no recollection of this past “existence,” and does not feel the least anxious or depressed about it. However, without the promise of a “better world,” the whole meaning of his/her life falls apart…But God is by definition eternal, and shouldn’t the “souls” also be, and in BOTH directions?
Tintin,
You took my comment too seriously 😉
“But God is by definition eternal, and shouldn’t the “souls” also be, and in BOTH directions?”
Sounds like a good argument to me — but I don’t think you’re going to win this one by splitting theological hairs — that way lies madness 🙂
As a theist scientist myself, I have to say that Sean is right here. There ARE people who believe in the literal fire-and-brimstone Hell, and believe in a overliteral interpretation of John 14:6– i.e., that if you haven’t accepted Jesus, you’re going to Hell. Those people would therefore believe that Ghandi is in Hell.
(For a good time, drive along the BG highway in Kentucky. There’s this awesome place you pass where a billboard on one side of the street reads “HELL IS REAL”. On the opposite side of the street: a pornographic bookstore.)
However, this still is a bit of a straw man. If you’re on a science blog talking about religion, the fundamentalists are just too easy to make fun of. They are real, they’re out there, and they form a distressingly large fraction of the USA. But it’s like shooting fish in a barrel to come up with things that their philosophy would claim that are absurd.
My own views on Hell are… well, dunno. Hell is certainly a metaophor, and many of us (anybody who ever has been on the tenure track, for example) have been through its outer layers. But I’m agnostic on the notion of whether or not there’s an afterlife at all. I want there to be one, mostly so I can find out what happens (e.g. if they don’t work out quantum gravity while I’m alive, I’d be so disappointed). But I have to admit that I’m dubious about any sort of continuity of consciousness past death, as much as I want there to be something like that. (And, of course, there’s absolutely no scientific evidence for that, but religion isn’t science.)