Posted by Jason on: 11.10.2008 /
Let me get my opinion of hell right out in the open from the outset. It is disgusting and ill conceived. It is probably the single most abhorrent idea to come from human minds in the last 2000 years. The idea that your mistakes and errors of judgment are so vitally important to a creator that he’d punish you forever for them just revolts me. Now you know where I stand I’ll try to put it a bit more rationally for you.
Why have hell in the first place?
Why invent an idea like hell? I don’t think it takes a twisted mind to come up with the idea, just some injustice and an effort to comfort someone. Every day crimes go unsolved, criminals go unpunished and victims are left with a lingering sense of injustice. People want answers and we want solutions. How can this be allowed? How can the murderer, the thief, the oppressor be allowed to prosper?
Religion comes to the rescue. Be comforted, religion says, for these villains may well have escaped mortal justice but in the afterlife they will be made to pay for their heinous crimes. You know this is true because God is just and all knowing. God knows every cheat and every theft, every ill thought that harms another and will punish such wrong.
Also, because nothing is too good for the faithful, this punishment will be truly vengeful. The sinner gets to visited with so much more suffering than they inflicted. The pain they feel is worse and lasts longer than we can possibly imagine. This goes right to our sense of revenge and panders to our less liberal emotions.
Why sin?
There’s a difference between sin and crime in religion that goes beyond moral behaviour. A crime is something that we can measure, someone loses something. It could be money, freedom, health, life or property. Something that was had is taken away by the actions of another.
We can measure it and then we can think of some sort of proportional punishment for the crime. We can show the perpetrator the error of his or her ways by educating them. We can provide them with options so that they don’t repeat the criminal behaviour by training them or giving them places to find help. He can force them to make some kind of restitution for their crimes by compensating their victims or society at large. We can hold them up as an example to others on how not to behave in the hope that the deterrent will benefit society even if one person has to suffer for it. We can also punish them directly as retribution, not to stop them repeating the crime but make the victim and society feel better by exercising our collective power.
Sin is different. Sin includes the very thought of wrong doing. It encompasses the whole act of taking from another and not just the part that hurts. Sin removes the victim and transfers any wrong doing to our most personal ideal. Sin makes a man a criminal before he’s even committed a crime. Every passing wicked thought is a sin, every lust or silent curse becomes a sin even if they are never acted upon.
Beyond that though is the idea that something can still be wrong without it being illegal. Of course that is true, the law is not perfect and changes constantly to adapt to society. Slavery, for example, was well within the law until only a few hundred years ago. Racist was supported in law until the last century, in living memory even. The victims of racism and slavery must have prayed for revenge and deliverance. Hell provides an outlet for that frustration.
Original Sin
Added to the idea of sin is the very strange concept of original sin. Original sin is the stain on our souls that is passed down from that first act of disobedience by Eve and Adam. It’s strange because we don’t hold children responsible for the crimes of their parents. Instead we accept that each person is responsible for their own actions. Yet the idea persists that we are born sinful, that nothing redeems us except the immersion and acceptance of the very faith that brings the idea of original sin up. Talk about selling the disease with the cure.
Hell as a tool for evangelism
As if this weren’t enough, as if people couldn’t be satisfied and comforted by the idea that no sin goes unpunished, it has to be taken one step further. If it had remained as a tool for helping people cope with injustice I might be able to accept it. That isn’t the case though. Which I think is really a shame.
Rather than leave it as a tool of comfort, even if it is false comfort, Christianity has adopted the concept of hell as a tool to retain followers and to frighten people into signing up. Don’t have doubts or question dogma because that would be a sin. Don’t be gay or even think that you might be because that is a sin. Confess your sins because failing to do so will leave a stain on your soul that will send you to hell. Before anyone calls me on exaggerating the ways sin is exploited for keeping or grabbing converts I know I’m exaggerating. I’m doing it for effect but there are some people who do live in real fear of hell. Just spend a few minutes on a deconversion forum and you’ll see plenty of stories of how the fear of hell paralyses people. People unwilling even to consider that their religion might be wrong for fear of inviting an eternity in hell.
Mistakes
I like mistakes. I learn from mistakes, we all do. I need to be free to make them, to really mess up. As I was growing up I needed to experience jealousy, rage, love, and hate and all the attendant errors in judgment than typically come about from these emotions. I needed to make mistakes in order to grow up. I still need to make mistakes, I need to think bad thoughts and recognise that they are wrong and that I’d never act on them.
I need to explore what it means to be a man in the 21st century including the dark side of my own humanity. I don’t need to be afraid that these dark aspects are sinful or that I’m going to burn in hell because of them. I just need to know that I am a good enough man to know that they are wrong and not to act on my anger or irritation. I need to make mistakes so that I don’t repeat them or act in the way that caused me to make the mistake in the first place.
Hell says that everything you might do wrong could very well end up being punished. This might stop you from trying something or testing your own limits. To fear hell is to live in fear. Fear can stop you from doing good as well as harm.
Bad advertising
Hell is the single, most destructive aspect of Christianity that I can think of. It detracts from the good stuff by showing the religion as something that uses fear to control the faithful. It shows God as unmerciful and unjust. Justice is about providing a proportional punishment, retribution and restitution for the sin. Mercy is showing clemency when someone seeks to redress the harm that they have done. Hell is eternal and unyielding. There is no room for mercy. There is no rehabilitation in hell, no effort to show people the error of their ways. There is only punishment and it is out of all proportion to what that person may have done. Indeed they may have done nothing wrong at all.
As much as the teachings of Jesus can benefit people who take them to heart (and I’m talking about reciprocity and love here) the doctrine of hell is a terrible price to pay for the good stuff. If religion were free to change and adapt from it’s mistakes it should throw hell out as a bad idea and be done with it.
Comment by: steve martin
1re: “is probably the single most abhorrent idea to come from human minds in the last 2000 years”
This isn’t quite true. From my understanding, the Persians were the first to really articulate the idea of Hell about 500 years before Christ … the jews / Hebrews idea of Sheol (hell) in the OT was very different than ours but they adopted the Persian version (~100 BC??).
There is a growing number of Christians who do not adopt this version of Hell - for example, there is the idea of “conditional immortality”.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
2Jason wrote:
People who do believe in the version of hell you describe can’t throw it out ‘as a bad idea’ until/unless they come to think it’s untrue. If it’s true then throwing it out is denying reality. If it’s true then it’s up to those who believe in it to warn others and do their best to help others not to end up in hell.
Anyway I agree with you about hell; I don’t believe it’s true. As Steve points out, many Christians don’t believe the version of hell you describe either.
Comment by: JG
3“Religion comes to the rescue. Be comforted, religion says, for these villains may well have escaped mortal justice but in the afterlife they will be made to pay for their heinous crimes. You know this is true because God is just and all knowing. God knows every cheat and every theft, every ill thought that harms another and will punish such wrong.”
?????? What is this idea based on? What the New Testament teaches is that it doesn’t matter what you have done, you can receive complete forgiveness eg the thief on the cross. This is what is sometimes called the offence of the gospel: yes, people do want justice and can be outraged at the idea that people they want to see punished can be forgiven - even paedophiles!
One “version” of hell that makes sense to me is the “hell” people choose to live in when they choose to live in anger, hate and unforgiveness rather than choosing love and forgiveness.
Comment by: Pseudonym
4Oh, the misconceptions, they burn.
Where do I start? At the beginning, I guess.
1. “Hell” is not a Christian invention. In one sense, it’s pre-Christian (as Steve notes). In another sense, it’s post-Christian; most peoples’ idea of Hell comes from Dante, not the Bible.
2. “Revenge”, “punishment”, “pain”… pretty much none of this is from the Bible, or at least it’s a gross misunderstanding of what the highly symbolic and metaphorical language is supposed to be on about.
There is exactly one verse of the Bible which could be used to support the idea of eternal punishment for humans. One. That’s it. And, I might add, its meaning is somewhat unclear.
3. “Sin” is, quite simply, the state of not being perfect. “Original sin” is a theory meant to explain why humans don’t seem to natrually do what they’re supposed to do.
Pretty simple when you get down to it, no?
OK, yes, there’s the “Just So Story” of Adam and Eve. Let me put it this way: Even though “How the Camel Got His Hump” isn’t literally true, camels still have humps.
4. “Hell as a tool for evangelism” appears nowhere in the Bible. Nowhere at all. Not one single place. Jesus didn’t use it, Paul didn’t use it, none of the evangelistic sermons in Acts used it. US Evangelicals can and should learn from this.
I agree with Steve and Helen. Hell, as you describe it, simply does not exist. Even going from the Bible, there’s evidence in there that it exists either. Some Christians have always believed this, and the evidence is that Jesus didn’t believe it either.
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
5JG wrote:
JG, I see what you said in the New Testament but also what Jason said - for example in Matthew 13:47-49
This is not a parable about forgiveness - it’s about justice, about people getting what they deserve.
Comment by: Jason
6Steve, that’s a good point. The idea of a land of punishment existed in many other, earlier faiths before Christianity came about. What I should have said was that the doctrine of hell was popularised in Christianity and made part of the mainstream. So much for proofreading.
Helen mentioned that people cannot just “throw out” hell as a bad idea because they believe it to be true. Actually I think that they are in successive generations. As you say some people reject the idea as part of their faith and some mitigate it by saying that hell isn’t a place of punishment but a separation from God. That Scripture does tend to point to a literal hell with fire and no bathrooms so I’m not sure how Christ followers can justify that. Not without rejecting the bible as a literal work of God anyway. They could do so if the bible was an inspired work. If I were a believer I’d go for that.
JG balked at my interpretation. Your point is fair but I was considering the psychology of the idea of hell as punishment\retribution rather than any scriptural evidence. I should have been clearer on that but I was into a rant by that point. :) Handily Helen (who is wise in the ways of the good book) has retroactively found some evidence to back up my view. I might just claim to have meant that all along. Oh yes.
Anyway, I have to agree with you that your idea of hell does seem valid. Far too often we see people consumed by their obsessions, unable to let go of them and move on. Perhaps the thought that the cause of these obsessions will receive some sort of afterlife punishment can be the catalyst for some to let go.
Pseudonym mentioned Dante. We’ve discussed this before I think and I agree but I’m actually talking about how hell is (and may have been) used by people to create an illusion of life that makes their existence more bearable. Also how the idea is used by others as a comfort to support people with no options.
What is the verse that you mention is point 2? I’m interested in exploring this a bit further.
I’ve not heard that definition of sin before but it does sort of make sense when I think back on some definitions that I have heard. i.e. a separation from God, falling short of God’s grace, failing to live up to God’s plan. I’m not sure I agree with it though as I’ve always understood it to be an idea of wrongdoing through thought or action. We “sin” in thought or deed not in existence after all.
Hell as I describe it certainly does not exist. I’d go so far as to say that it doesn’t exist in any form and then get all pompous and ask believers to show me hell so I can do some measurements of it. I won’t though because hell is a concept, it is exactly what people believe it to be and if evangelicals talk about it as a fiery place of punishment then that is what it is.
I do agree that modern evangelicals should go ahead and correct this most grievous error. It would make a lot of people happier with life but it might lose a few converts.
Comment by: Chris C
7Jason’s opinion of Hell and damnation would certainly be abhorrent to almost anybody. However, it’s not one that is forced upon us by a balanced view of scripture. Unfortunately it is one that’s still commonly held and sadly that’s largely due to the Christendom church of the Middle Ages which grossly distorted the Biblical view of this subject. But in exploring this further we need to begin with sin.
There’s a lot about sin in the Bible. Indeed, sin and God’s offer of salvation from it are significant themes in scripture. Several different Hebrew and Greek words are used to express the idea of sin and all this means that it’s difficult to do it justice in a short post. By far the most dominant theme, however, is that sin is rebellion against God, rejection of His Lordship, and this is often expressed in terms of falling short of God’s standard. The concept of original sin, or the root of wrongdoing, is one of seeking to become like God (Genesis 3 vs 5), asserting our independence of God. So yes, Jason, when we see that the Bibles perspective of the root of sin is rebellion, and not just acts that are wrong, our thoughts can be sinful in that they are often focussed on ourselves and not on God. Further, since this original sin, the self-focus, has become so much apart of our character it’s as though we are born to it. The Bible makes it clear that from God’s perspective we are all affected by it (1Kings 8 vs 46; Galatians 3 vs 22) it even damages our attempts at righteousness (Isaiah 64 vs 6). Nor are its consequences trivial for, as we might anticipate, this self-focus, rather than a God focus, has the logical and hugely significant effect of separating us from God (Genesis 3 vs 8-9). Categorising or ranking our wrongdoing in legal terms, as Jason seeks to do, is an irrelevance. In going our own way and being separated from God we are all guilty.
But there’s good news for it’s possible to see the heart of the rest of scripture as God calling us back to Himself. This reaches its climax in the New Testament where God, in Jesus, pays the price instead of us through His death on the cross. All wrongdoing requires a price to be paid; it’s almost a law of the universe. Either the victim or the perpetrator or both pay it (whether it’s an automobile accident, emotional cruelty or murder). But Jesus’ payment on the cross includes complete forgiveness, not even the memory of wrongdoing remains. And so there’s the possibility of complete restoration to God, the Christian experience of rebirth. However, any gift needs to be accepted. This involves admitting and turning from our self-focus, and the wrongdoing that comes from it, and then making Jesus Saviour and Lord of our lives.
But what of those who refuse this act of grace. Well the choice has been theirs it’s them that have refused to draw near to God and the eternal life that’s only in Him. But there is still a price to be paid. As I believe Jason hints at in his post, it would be unjust for wrongdoing that has escaped justice on earth to be ignored eternally. However, whilst it’s clear that there will be a judgement by God, who knows what’s true and just, there is little detail in the Bible about the future state of those who’ve refused Jesus’ offer. There are a few verses which suggest periods of suffering, but where they indicate that the suffering could be eternal they are applied to forces of evil – the Devil, the Beast and the False Prophet - and not to mankind. Most references to the ‘unsaved’ refer to destruction (sometimes a burning up) or a separation from God, rather than eternal suffering. This is sometimes called the ‘second death’ (a spiritual as opposed to just a physical death). What seems to be eternal, in the sense of irrevocable, is the judgement and the means of carrying it out, not the suffering.
One could say that those facing the second death have chosen to be separated from God themselves. They have decided not to accept Jesus and so any restoration to the Father is impossible because it takes two to make a relationship. Indeed, having thus decided in this life, why should a loving God force one on them in the next.
Some people ask about those who genuinely sought after God but never knew Jesus? Well, that we have to leave with God. But there are hints in scripture that they will get their wish (Matthew 12 vs 41-42; Luke 10 vs 12-14; Hebrews 11). Will not the Judge of all the earth do right (Genesis 18 vs 25).
Comment by: Pseudonym
8Matthew 25:46. Look it up, and you’ll find a huge amount of controversy about what it means.
Comment by: Jason
9Chris, your explanation of sin as rebellion is fine but let me ask something that doesn’t make much sense to me. If sin is as you’ve described then our actions, for good or ill, are irrelevant. Sticking to an old classic let’s suggest that Hitler was sitting in his bunker all nervous waiting for the Russians to come along and blow his brains out. Suddenly an epiphany takes him and he returns to his earlier days as a Catholic and embraces the message of Christ as saviour. Are millions of deaths irrelevant to God as Ivan rushes in and fires at Adolph or is there still some kind of punishment awaiting him?
Sticking with the classics that lovely Mohandas Gandhi never claimed a connection with Christ. Although he did explore the idea once apparently and was rudely rebuffed by a racist white South African in an event that forever turned him apart from Christianity. Is his life of peace and bravery as irrelevant as Hitlers mass slaughters to God?
I’m using examples because it’s always nice to put a face to the people that the divine wisdom accepts and rejects. I ask also because that seems far worse to me than any sort of legalism.
If it is true, as you seem to suggest, then why do some Christians get all hot and bothered by homosexuality. The act itself really isn’t a sin at all only the way that it keeps some apart from the message of Christ. Isn’t paleontology just as bad or working for a living or any number of mundane things that stop us from “getting it”?
Somehow that just seems to make the bigotry all the worse.
Comment by: JG
10“Are millions of deaths irrelevant to God…?”
Interesting. If you forgive someone who hurts you or lets you down does that mean that what they did is irrelevant to you?
By the same logic, if what they did to you is relevant to you, does that mean you don’t forgive them and instead bear them eternal hatred?
Comment by: Jason
11JG, are you saying that it doesn’t matter what someone does in their life as long as they accept Jesus as their personal saviour? I’ve heard of this before but it doesn’t make sense to me.
If someone murders my friend and I choose to forgive them then I would still expect them to serve time in prison for murder. This is a consequence of their actions and is independent of my feelings. Similarly (and I’m saying this to clarify) if I don’t forgive them I still expect them to go to prison.
My forgiveness has no effect on their punishment. None at all.
Hell, as it has been described here by you, Chris and Pseudonym, doesn’t work like that if I’m understanding what you’ve said. Hell works solely on how much God forgives you and how much you love him. What you do in life for good or bad is irrelevant. Or rather than is how heaven works. Hell probably doesn’t factor in to the final judgment at all. Unbelievers are either annihilated or cast out, forever separate from God. That means that in my example of Hitler and Gandhi, Hitler goes to heaven and Gandhi doesn’t.
It’s nice to know that I’ll be in good company anyway.
Let me ask though, and I’m doing this with my tongue firmly in my cheek, where is your incentive to do good? If you have no fear that your actions will condemn you to hell or reward you in heaven then why do good?
Comment by: JG
12Jason,
I appreciate what you say and do understand the apparent difficulties.
But let me ask you another question. What if your friend lets you down. Say you had arranged to meet for dinner but they forgot and didn’t turn up.
Do you forgive them? If so does your forgiveness have any effect on their “punishment” - would you want to “punish” your friend for letting you down?
If punishment can be waived for minor things then where do you draw the line?
If your response is that punishment is as required by the government then it is the government who punishes. If someone has been punished by the government, why should God punish them again!
Incentive to do good? Should this not be a natural desire to do good rather than a selfish desire to gain some reward in this life or the next?
Comment by: JG
13Helen,
You quote Matthew 13:47-49 and claim this contradicts the idea of forgiveness.
But this is rather like taking the toe of an elephant and seeking to define the elephant by that toe.
Yes, the toe is true, elephants do have toes like that. But there is more to the elephant than just the toe. We need to seek to understand the whole of the elephant and see each part of the elephant in the context of the whole.
In my experience, both Christians and non Christians frequently fail to see verses and passages in the context of the whole.
Comment by: Pseudonym
14Jason:
Sorry if I gave that impression. I think that Hell is entirely non-literal (i.e. not “real”).
Comment by: Chris C
15Let me try and pick up on your Hitler/Gandhi hypothesis Jason. To begin with I didn’t say that our actions (our wrongdoing) are irrelevant. I said that they stemmed from a root which is rebellion against God, original sin. An understanding of this rebellion is important because it’s by our renouncing it and returning to God through Jesus, as our Saviour, that our resultant wrong doings are forgiven. It’s also true that, from God’s perspective of absolute burning purity, until we make this step of faith, we are all lost in our sins: Hitler, Gandhi and me. This is so no matter how good or bad the actions of individuals appear from our relative assessment and limited knowledge of the whole of their lives (a judgement, which unlike God’s, changes with culture and time). One of the reasons, perhaps, why scripture tells us not to judge, because we’re not up to it.
But in spite of all this, our actions, which stem from our self-focus rather than a God-focus, remain significant even when we’ve accepted Jesus as saviour. All people have a judgement to face for their actions, including Christians (Romans 14: 10; 1Corinthians 3: 12-15; 2 Corinthians 5: 10; 1Peter 1: 17; 4: 17), although this will not jeopardise the place of Christians in the family of God. But it is not to be taken lightly or carelessly. For example, what of me? I’ve spent most of my life living in a developed country whilst millions have died of famine, partially as a direct result of me having chosen to live so well.
Further, our actions are also important on earth, not only because of their direct effects, but because our wrongdoing moves us away from God. So people like Hitler are very unlikely to choose to return to God, especially suddenly, as you propose. This makes your hypothetical scenario very improbable and of course, because we know quite a bit about Hitler’s last hours, he didn’t. But in spite of that lets complete the hypothesis. Acceptance of Christ as Saviour requires genuine repentance. So Hitler would need to face up to the enormity of what he’d done and accept full responsibility. Add to this the judgement mentioned above plus the Biblical teaching that in the age to come, the new heaven and earth, Christians will build upon what God deems to have been righteous in their present life. This leaves a converted Hitler with a far from easy passage. And Gandhi? Well he will face judgement too. Maybe there will be areas where God will say well done, I can’t say, I’ll leave it to God. If he didn’t wish an eternal relationship with God, he will get his choice. If he did: I’ve already indicated above that there are scriptures which suggest that those who genuinely seek God can find Him. Again, “Will not the Judge of all the earth do right” (Genesis 18: 25).
Comment by: Jason
16JG said:
Yes which is pretty much why I don’t believe that gods have anythign to do with morality.
Pseudonym said:
Yes, me to. It is the idea of it that I dislike and the fact that so many people do believe in it.
Chris said:
So we are rewarded for “works” or for faith alone?
Gandhi did great works but had no “Christian” faith so no reward for him.
Torquemada (Hitler was nominally catholic but not a great church goer so we’ll lose him) had great faith but wasn’t so hot on the good deeds. Reward or not? (I bet you didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition?)
Comment by: Pseudonym
17Incidentally, Jason, you might be interested in a book called Godless Morality by Richard Holloway (the former Bishop of Edinburgh). I think there’s a lot in there you’ll agree with.
Comment by: Chris C
18Jason said
Well Jason, I explained the Biblical position on both faith and actions above. I also said I wouldn’t judge Hitler or Gandhi: that was God’s role, although you seem to wish to judge Gandhi yourself. As for Torquemada, I’m not going to judge him either. For example, I couldn’t possibly say whether he was a Christian or not. As I wrote above, being a Christian involves admitting and turning from our self-focus, and the wrongdoing that comes from it, and then making Jesus Saviour and Lord of our lives by seeking to follow His example and His teachings. Torquemada might have believed in God, but then so does the Devil. And no, I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition, and I don’t see even the remotest suggestion of a call for it from Jesus’ teachings to us in the New Testament.
Comment by: JG
19“Yes which is pretty much why I don’t believe that gods have anythign to do with morality.”
Neither do I. ????
But we were talking about “incentive to do good” (your phrase) not morality? Morality is normally defined by reference to right and wrong conduct and duty.
In pure evolutionary terms, it appears to me that morality can only be understood by reference to what is in the best interests of the species as a whole. Because the species regard such morality as being in the best interests of the whole, it is imposed (or is sought to be imposed) by the majority.
How does any “incentive to do good” fit in with pure evolutionary thinking?
Comment by: Pseudonym
20Jason, just an observation:
The question of who’s “in” and who’s “out”, or who’s rewarded and who isn’t… you’re asking the wrong question.
These are questions that fundamentalists, regardless of religion or lack thereof, ask (and answer!). The questions deeply assume insularity and tribalism. It’s no different from the popular atheist blog passtime of deciding who’s irrevocably irrational, or who’s got a mental illness.
As far as Jesus was concerned, this question was almost irrelevant. He was far more interested in the question of what we, personally, should do.
I don’t want to put words in Chris’ mouth, but this seems to be the subtext behind his response, too.
Comment by: Hellfire and Damnation | All Reason
21 11/20/08 5:06 PM | Comment Link |[...] ..Real Full Article [...]
Comment by: Jason
22What an interesting question. Thanks for asking it. I think we’d first have to define what we meant by “good” and how our actions to do good benefit the individual and the species to survive.
“Good” is one of those words with multiple meanings. “Morally admirable”, “appealing”, “deserving of esteem or respect” are all suitable or even “good” definitions. “Good” is a moral stance that we consider would be viewed favourably by our peers. A good act requires no witnesses or applause but we are aware that an action is good even if we keep it secret.
Purely on an evolutionary basis an act that is good raises the status of the person who acts in that way. If my actions are beneficial to you then you appreciate them and are more likely to act in a way that benefits me in some way. by being good I gain status by having the beneficiary “owe” me. My status in the social group is improved as well because my actions are seen to be beneficial. I gain greater leeway in my actions, more support for my opinions and preferential treatment by others in the community.
Witnesses to this treatment see how doing good benefits me and seek to emulate good behaviour. Those who don’t do good lose as their reputations suffer and others distrust them.
It’s clearly a simplified explanation but still I can see evolutionary reasons for doing good. Even if good actions are ignored and not reciprocated an animal that acts to benefit the group still gains the continued protection of the group. A group would suffer if they lost a member that benefited them after all.
Pseudonym, it does sound as if I’ve talked around the wrong question but I do think it is important to bring it up once in a while. if nothing else it highlights how horrible the idea of hell as a punishment is. An idea that is still accepted by the majority of Christians. Perhaps accepted and lamented but certainly not dismissed as irrelevant.
The question of what we should do is more interesting though. It is certainly better than what we shouldn’t do.
Comment by: Mike O
23There’s an old (dangerous) phrase - “Forgive and forget.”
Forgiving isn’t forgetting, it’s letting it go. Exactly like in banking, if you default on a loan, they may “forgive” the debt - let it go - but odds are you’ll never get another loan from them. The fact that you defaulted, while forgiven, is not irrelevant.
The price has been paid - there is no more debt. That’s forgiveness.
Comment by: Mike O
24Someone else touched on this, but how can one call himself a Christ follower without doing good? And if following Christ is “the ticket,” and doing good is part of “how” we follow Christ, that’s why we do good.
Oh, and for all the evolutionary, social reasons, too. Just because we’re Christians doesn’t mean we ONLY do good because we have to - he also have the same motivations you do. We’re not exempt from life and how it works. :)
Yes. Both. “Faith without works is dead.”
I take that to mean that faith (spiritual thing) is the measure God (spiritual) uses, but works (physical thing) is the measure we (physical) can use to gauge our faith.
One misconception, I think, is that Christians are not saved by faith, we’re saived by grace. Faith should be growing in a Christian, but whether you have great faith or little faith, if you are sincerely trying to live as a Christ follower, your lack of faith can be over come by the overriding grace that God has towards us.
Comment by: Chris C
25Jason is quite right that the term ‘good’ is a slippery customer when it comes to its possible evolutionary origins. ‘Good’, as exemplified by the kin altruism that’s commonly found in all higher animals, is quite easy to explain in pure evolutionary terms. The first kin altruist, by being ‘good’ towards it’s relatives, encourages the survival of it’s own children and therefore the survival and spread of the kin-altruistic trait, which had been passed onto its offspring’s genes.
However there is no satisfactory Darwinian evolutionary explanation for the distinctly human characteristic of non-kin altruism (‘goodness’ to those that are not related to you) (see Hurst L. New Scientist, 12th Sept 1998).
On balance the first non-kin altruist is always at a survival disadvantage, as are his children, in a population that do not reciprocate in the same way because they do not have the trait. The only way that non-kin altruism can come to dominate in a species is through an idea that is seen to be beneficial and spreads from mind to mind through the population and not through genetic inheritance. Whether you believe that God gave us the idea for non-kin altruism as part of His image in us, or whether we dreamed it up ourselves, depends on your worldview.
However, when we come to Jesus’ teaching, that which takes non-kin altruism to a new level (not expecting or receiving reciprocation, sacrificial, unto death etc, as we’ve discussed elsewhere), it’s difficult to see how this would catch on, even as an idea. Unless the other part of Jesus’ teaching turned out to be true: the promise that Gods presence and power would accompany those receiving Him and putting the idea into practice. In short, it was not just a good idea.
Comment by: Jason
26Mike said:
I should hope not. It is refreshing to see this acknowledged though.
By this definition no faith would be acceptable if you still lived to the standard set down by Jesus. Gandhi would certainly qualify despite his lack of Christian faith.
In fact your religion would be irrelevant except as a structure that you use to define and order your beliefs. I quite like that idea, it’s better than the prescriptive, dominating hegemony of an authoritarian church.
Comment by: Mike O
27The idea of kin-altruism is one evidence (not proof, just evidence) for design over evolution, or that evolution was guided. In godless evolution, the first living things were chemical reactions, incapable of any sort of altruism. But somewhere along the line, the reacting chemical would have had to develop some sort of familial concern for the reactee - something chemical reactions are incapable of doing. If kin-altruism didn’t evolve, how did it enter the evolutionary process?
I’m not quite sure I get your first point, Jason. And I think I am inclined to agree with your second point - Jesus was not about the “dominating hegemony of an authoritarian church” either. If that has become a byproduct of our religion, I don’t believe that’s what Jesus had in mind. In fact, he worked against the authoritarian church structure of his day.
Comment by: Jason
28Chris, non-kin altruism isn’t limited to human beings. A pack isn’t made up solely of family members and packs cooperate for the benefit of the whole.
Not necessarily and not in every situation. Imagine a hunter that shares his kill rather than fighting to retain all of it. Is he at a disadvantage even though those he shares with do not reciprocate? If food is plentiful he has no need to store food then he can afford to share it, a better option than fighting over a kill that he could never eat all alone.
Genetic inheritance predisposes certain behaviours. Humans birth vulnerable young that require extended periods of care just to survive. A lack of ability to sacrifice and share for the benefit of the young would quickly result in human extinction. This ability to care for young exists whether or not the child is carried and extends beyond the parents to other members of the group. We are all genetically predisposed to view babies as something to care for. Sadly not all of us act on that.
I disagree that altruism can only be carried from mind to mind and not in the inherited genetic code. Societies independent and separated by language, religion and culture as well as geography develop similar moral structures. How can this be explained except as a function of anthropology and evolution?
I’m not saying that ideas don’t travel, clearly they do. Only that basic characteristics like altruism exist independent of the drift and travel of ideas.
Comment by: Jason
29Mike, “By this definition no faith would be acceptable if you still lived to the standard set down by Jesus” should have read “By this definition an absence of faith would be acceptable if you still lived to the standard set down by Jesus”. Sorry.
I’m saying that the religion isn’t important as long as someone lives in accordance with the example set down by Jesus. I’d go so far as to suggest that the example isn’t necessary and that you could well take it from other sources. But then I would say that.
As for design over evolution you know I reject the idea out of hand given the vast evidence supporting evolution. Guided evolution is a different matter though. I suppose I’d need to be satisfied by the evidence.
On abiogenesis (not evolution), if we don’t understand the mechanism whereby chemical hydrocarbons became life (I know I don’t) then it is an area that is worth investigating further. Besides which we know that chemical reactions are responsible for kin altruism. We can observe it in brain chemistry to a limited degree. As our understanding of the brain grows and our technology improves we’ll be able to learn more.
I’m not saying that God didn’t influence evolution, it is an untestable hypothesis. I’m saying that we should investigate because it is an interesting topic that is worth knowing. If it turns out that the mechanisms that we believe to be true are wrong then we’ve learnt something and have to start with a new theory. Saying that God made it so potentially strips us of this opportunity.
Saying that we don’t know so it must be God weakens science and religion. It weakens science because it robs us of our curiosity to discover how things work. It weakens religion because God loses his place as the gaps are filled.
If you want to keep a belief and explore the universe through science then why not consider how God made it so in naturalistic terms? I find the idea that an entity could cause the universe to come into existence through the Big Bang and have foreseen the steps needed to cause life to occur naturally to be much more interesting and compelling than a God who interferes and tweaks existence on a regular basis. A hands on God implies one that lacked the ability to set things off and leave it well enough alone. Like a chef who must constantly check that the cake is rising the idea spoils the creation.
Comment by: Chris C
30Jason said
This is simply extended kin-altruism. All members of the pack are more closely related to each other than they are to members of other packs, whom they will often attack. An individual joining from another pack, as I believe sometimes happens, still has the kin-altruism trait, which has spread through the species. They simply switch their kin-identity to the new pack. Human non-kin altruism is common and works beyond the tribe/group/family that the person is a member of and is, I understand, a unique expression of our culture. Of course, humans also express kin-altruistic tribalism as well, sadly sometimes more than the other.
As I said, the Christian faith has a perfectly good explanation. Non-kin altruism (sacrificial care for others, irrespective of race, creed etc) exists in God’s image: we are made in that image: we all received the potential for it from God. Of course God may have used the evolutionary process to create it in us, but at the moment natural selection can’t explain non-kin altruism. The Christian expression of it has clearly travelled rapidly across almost all cultures, in spite of the difficulties you highlight.
Comment by: Seren
31Chris C:
I think perhaps the cart is being put before the horse here.
Heritable behavioural traits emerge in Darwinian evolution in the same way heritable physical traits emerge - by random mutation.
In other words, mammals don’t behave in ways that protect their kin because this will ensure their kin’s survival. Rather, animals that display kin-protecting behaviours have offspring that are more likely to survive, therefore heritable kin-protecting traits become more and more common in the species.
Non-kin altruism may simply be a trait that has arisen and not been selected against. Or it may be connected with kin-altruism - the trait that is selected for may be empathy which is usually displayed towards kin (because they are the ones a mammal is around more often), but, once developed, is felt for non-kin, even for beings of a different species.
Comment by: JG
32The difficulty is that in pure evolutionary terms, caring for weaker members of the species goes completely against the principle of survival of the fittest.
“Animals that display kin-protecting behaviours have offspring that are more likely to survive” ????? On what is this statement based? In what way do kin-protecting behaviours help the animal displaying those behaviours survive as opposed to those animals in receipt of such behaviours?
Helping weaker members survive ultimately weakens the species.
Comment by: Jason
33Chris said:
Yes, exactly. Where does the extended kin altruism end? Extended family members in the group? Those with similar skin or fur colour? Those that do not pose a threat? Same species, same race? Dogs, apes (including humans), and the common cow all exhibit protective behaviour to the young and to the injured from species that are not a threat. In an evolutionary vein this could be explained as kin altruism that has become confused. Displaying altruism to a party that is non-hostile does not harm us as a species so it has not been a factor in competition with less altruistic species.
You are assuming that we are created by a god in a certain format. If we are created in an image then where is that image? Again you are assuming that Christianity has travelled globally in 2000 years but tribes in South America have been discovered in the last century that were untouched by the rest of the world. They weren’t selfish monsters by any means. Altruism is a trait that benefits the individual and the species in an environment where cooperation is important to survival. Perhaps altruism and mutual trust are the very basis for social structures to form. Members of a cooperating group have a better chance of survival than an uncooperative individual. This is simply an example of how a characteristic can remain in a species as it evolves. How it was introduced I don’t know, I have some ideas but I’m not going to make an assumption about a god causing it without good evidence to back that idea. If gods gave animals morality then where is the evidence for this?
Comment by: Jason
34JG said:
A common error in reading about evolution is that people assume that it is the survival of the individual that is meant by survival of the fittest. It is not. It is survival of the gene. A gene that survives to be passed on is a successful gene. If a gene or combination of genes is responsible the attribute common in many animals that we might call “caring for others” then this might be related to the gene for “caring for young”. We are genetically programmed to care for our offspring, why should this not extend to others as well?
As for caring for others as a sign of weakness, I think not. Logically care given will be reciprocated either by the person cared for or another member of the group. An individual may not benefit directly from the care they give by someone they care for will in all probability. A reputation gained for being uncaring and dismissive of other’s pain or need will not receive the same status within a group as others who help.
Comment by: Seren
35Unfortunately “survival of the fittest” is often taken to mean “survival of the jocks.”
In actual fact the phrase is tautological, as “fitness” is defined as what it is that survives.
Comment by: Chris C
36Seren says
I agree.
A trait that is not selected for (that is neutral) does not spread in a species let alone become dominant. I repeat, I know of no scientifically accepted Darwinian evolutionary explanation for the human expression of non-kin altruism.
Comment by: Chris C
37Sorry Jason, but none of your points explain the evolution of non-kin altruism from a chance gene mutation in the first individual to groups beyond kin. The further the expression of the altruism (food, time, care, support etc) is directed away from it’s own (or it’s offspring’s) genes, the more disadvantaged the survival of those genes become, unless you invoke some reciprocation (you don’t have to define exactly where kin and non-kin begin or end in this argument). However, any such reciprocation can’t be gene determined, as the recipients don’t yet have the gene. As I’ve said, I can see how the idea could spread that non-kin altruistic reciprocation (e.g. trade) could be an advantage. And this is probably why the full expression of non-kin altruism is limited to humans, who can reason in this way. But none of this requires natural selection through chance genetic mutations.
I drew in Jesus’ development of non-reciprocating non-kin altruism (there must be a better term: love perhaps; not Eros) just to show how quickly a counter-intuitive idea (as opposed to a genetic trait) can spread if it has some Spiritual power behind it. Of course I didn’t mean by ‘worldwide’ that every single person had heard the message, or that some who hadn’t were not Jesus like in their altruism: as I say, we are all made in His image. You ask a question about this.
Look to Jesus (Matthew 11 vs 27; John 10 vs 30; 14 vs 9; Colossians 1 vs 15). He calls all, and by the indwelling of His Spirit empowers those who follow (by making Him their Lord and Saviour), to be ‘born again’ (John 3 vs 3-8), as a new creation (2Corinthians 5 vs 17-19), to become better at being Gods image here on earth.
Comment by: Mike O
38Why is it so important that altruism - kin or not - evolved? It’s just such a stretch to give evolution credit for something that is conceptual.
Besides, the non-altruistic also prosper. I see no survival of the fittest in regards to altruism. We all know it’s the right thing to do in most cases, but whether or not you are altruistic has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you will survive. It’s a crap-shoot either way
Comment by: Jason
39Mike asked why it was important that altruism evolved. The answer is simple I’m afraid. Without a creator defining our characteristics after a model (perhaps himself) all our human characteristics must come from an evolutionary source. It isn’t just that we are bipedal mammals with reasoning abilities, we also have violence and apathy, love and curiosity. If these were not given to us then they must have evolved. There must be a reason that we love and share and hate.
We have a biological imperative to reproduce and to care for our young. For me it seems obvious that altruism is simply an extension of this genetic instinct, along with empathy, self sacrifice and love. The precise evolutionary cause of this set of genetic traits is something that I don’t have the knowledge to pass on. Luckily I don’t have to because some clever clogs at Stanford has already provided a very good explanation.
Comment by: Pseudonym
40Mike O said:
Jason replied:
This is awfully circular. It almost sounds like the convers of Intelligent Design: We evolved, therefore whatever happened, evolutiondidit.
Mike does have a point, which is this: The nitty gritty of evolution is that it doesn’t work on the level of concepts and gross features such as “kin-altruism”, or “love”, or “legs”. Rather, an evolutionary step is a new protein or a piece of structural RNA. Simple adaptions are usually the ability to metabolise some chemical, or a change in the regulation of some hormone, or a chemical that protects a certain type of cell against some particular virus. Even some chemicals, like hemoglobin, aren’t produced by a single gene somewhere, but are produced by a complex sequence of chemical reactions inside the cell from basic pieces. If that wasn’t complex enough, fetuses have a different form of hemoglobin produced by a partially separate process.
“Kin-altruism” is, as Mike correctly points out, a concept. You can’t point to the gene, the protein or the biological structure which corresponds to “kin-altruism”. Rather, it’s a description that we apply to some emergent property of our biology.
(BTW, it’s also something that that not everyone has. We call them “sociopaths”.)
This isn’t to say that it didn’t “evolve”, but rather, it’s something that emerges from our evolutionary heritage.
It reminds me of a story from Goedel Escher Bach, where someone complained that a computer system started going very slowly when more than 20 people logged on. The suggestion: Go into the source code of the software, find where the number “20″ is, and change it to 100. In reality, there’s no such number.
Comment by: Jason
41That might be true if evolution were an event or a being but it isn’t. Evolution isn’t a cause at all but a process. When we look for an evolutionary reason for a characteristic it is really a shortcut to say that we are looking for a reason that we evolved in this way or that we are this way because circumstances caused our evolution to take this path.
That said, I like your explanation
better than mine.
Comment by: Seren
42Chris C:
That comment suggests that you think non-kin altruism is dominant in the Homo sapiens sapiens species.
I’m not sure that’s true.
What do you think of the possibility that alturism, or the development of compassion, come from the application of our reasoning skills (which were selected for in the mists of pre-history for entirely different reasons)?
I’d suggest that the writings of Socrates make a pretty good case for that argument.
xx s.
Comment by: Mike O
43But what if there is a creator? That is a grand assumption you’re making. As you have said many times, the existance or non-existance of God can never be proven scientifically.
You’re basically saying, “we can’t know scientifically whether or not there is a god, but since there isn’t, altruism must have evolved.”So the answer is only simple if you accept the base assumption … which we can’t know for sure is true.
Altruism is an evidence that the base assumption may not be true.
Comment by: Jason
44Mike, I’m saying that it is important that we seek an evolutionary reason for our behaviour in order to continually test evolution as a theory. If we could think of something with no possible evolutionary explanation then that would be cause to challenge the theory. If there is something about it that does not have an evolutionary explanation then there must be another explanation for it.
This explanation may be a different theory not covered in evolution, it could be a deity or some other external source or it could be something we’ve never thought of. We have an opportunity to discover more about ourselves by testing the theory of evolution and trying to come up with ways that it might not work.
Not at all. I’m not talking about gods at all. I’m saying that there must be an evolutionary explanation for altruism for evolution to be valid. I think that there are several valid reasons why we would evolve characteristics that we see as altruistic today, a few of which I’ve touched on.
God really has nothing to do with it. Evolution stands without any need to reference a creator. This is something that cannot be said of the current efforts of the intelligent design crowd who seem to base their theory not on evidence but on the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
Going back to your point about the existence or non-existence of God can never be proven scientifically. The reason for this is that there has never been a definition of “god” to test against. Every time I’ve ever heard one it is either so vague as to mean anything or changes when you try to pin it down. A bit like the location of the soul really.
Comment by: Pseudonym
45Or consciousness. Or kin-altruism.
Comment by: Jason
46On the contrary consciousness and altruism are well defined.
Consciousness is regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one’s environment. It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. (from wikipedia)
Scientists interested in animal or child development have clear tests for self awareness such as the mirror test or repetition of recordings of the subject.
Altruism similarly is well defined as the desire to help others without personal reward. There are many arguments that altruism isn’t even possible because every charitable action has some small personal benefit, whether in status, reciprocation, or just a good feeling. I take this as a bit silly personally as it messes about with the definition of “selfish” to cover any action that benefits the actor.
Comment by: Chris C
47Seren said
I agree that this is a possibility. Indeed I said above, way back ‘in the mists of pre-history’ as far as this topic is concerned that:
I consider that mind to mind equates with reasoning skills. Indeed, as I’ve also said somewhere on this overlong topic that this is perhaps why we as a species express it so uniquely; ok, I don’t insist that it’s dominant in the way a genetically inherited characteristic might be.
Comment by: Pseudonym
48Here’s the actual quote from Wikipedia for comparison, with emphasis added:
I’m not sure how you got the idea that it’s “well-defined” from that.
Do you also take exception to Dawkins’ use of the term in The Selfish Gene? It’s the same sense in both cases.
Comment by: Jason
49Thanks for the clean up Pseudonym. Conciousness has clear definitions for the area of science or philosophy that is concerned with it.
Is there any research on the soul or gods?
How so?
Comment by: Mike O
50Methinks that if I used this logic to justify my application of spirituality to reality “to continually test” the effects of spirituality, I might be tagged as closed-minded and simple, trying to find ways to make my theory credible.
I don’t mean that to say that evolution isn’t credible, or that it shouldn’t continually be tested - not at all! I’m just saying that as a logical statement, I don’t think you’d let me get away with that one.
Comment by: Pseudonym
51No, as the Wikipedia entry indicates, defining “consciousness” is one of the unsolved problems that researchers are actively working on.
The real problem is that so far, we think we only have one example of consciousness. It’s kind of like coming up with a definition of a “planet” based only one solar system, and not all of it at that.
It depends what you call “research”. If you allow philosophical research into consciousness as valid research, then you’d also have to allow philosophical research into the concepts of “soul” and “gods”. There’s no shortage of that.
One thing to keep in mind is that there’s been a terminology shift in the last couple of hundred years. Philosophers tend to use terms like “psyche” or “self” rather than “soul” nowadays, but it’s the same thing.
You said it yourself: Kin-altruism benefits the gene.
Comment by: Pseudonym
52Incidentally, to bring this back on topic to hellfire and damnation, I came across some excerpts from Leslie Weatherhead’s most excellent book, The Christian Agnostic. The whole book is well worth a read.
Comment by: Jason
53Mike:
I think I’m not explaining it well. I didn’t mean that evolution is true so there must be an evolutionary reason for altruism. I meant that there must be an evolutionary explanation for altruism if evolution is true. This is because there is not other explanation that evolution allows for. That might be a taught meme but that must imply an evolutionary mechanism for retaining and passing on memes in animals without a spoken language. I say that because other animals display altruism from time to time, not just humans.
Comment by: Jason
54Pseudonym, you’re right. I was explaining consciousness in the way that I thought it was and not the way that it is actually defined.
Is it? I don’t think that this is universally accepted at all. whenever I have tried to use the word “soul” to mean something held as part of our cognitive abilities and housed in our brain I am always told that this is only part of the idea.
Comment by: Mike O
55Historically, I think there was a lot of confusion in the Christian community about waht the soul really was. What I’ve heard taught over the past 10 years or so (not that this is a main topic for anyone!) is that the soul is our “thoughts, will and emotions” - our personality and what we’re like, abd our spirit is the transcendant part that connects to, and will one day go to be with, God.
Plus, in modern culture the word “soul” carries with it spiritual connotations because it is rarely, if ever, used outside of a religious context. That doesn’t mean it has a spiritual definition, only that it is a word (typically) used by spiritual people. Just as the Spanish word agua means water, but is not commonly used by non-spanish speaking people. So when people use it, it conjurs up a spanish application.
Comment by: Jason
56I’m not sure how much confusion there is in the Christian community over the meaning of “soul” but for me the word has almost no meaning at all. There are better words to describe our thought processes, emotions and personality that “soul” simply distracts from.
The transcendent part is supernatural and has little meaning for me. The soul weighs nothing and does not operate on any measurable wavelength. It has neither mass nor energy. As such in effect it cannot be said to exist at all.
Having said that it is an idea that is revealing in terms of the hopes and fears of human beings. As humans we are frightened of the unknown and hope to live on after we die. That no mechanism for this is evident is a reason that some would invent the idea of a living soul. It tells us much about ourselves.
–
Then there is James Brown.