Crime + punishment

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of some of the arguments made in these thread by you and others was that the second premise is invalid because we simply cannot grasp what is just or unjust in terms of the afterlife, because God's understanding of justice is infinitely deeper that ours. I am defending our ability to make such a premise, because I don't believe it is reasonable to disregard the tools that God gave us to grasp the basic morality of God's actions. Of course I don't pretend to claim that human beings might be able to discern the fullness of God's plan with regard to the afterlife - I understand that most of that realm is unfathomable for us finite beings. But that doesn't mean we cannot rule out any hypotheses. In the specific case of eternal damnation, I do believe that the tools we have can allow us to reach a clear conclusions as to whether or not such an outcome can be consonant to our basic intuitions about justice. And while it is true that our conclusions can be flawed because we are finite beings, I still reject the idea that this means the inquiry itself is inappropriate.

It is certainly possible to use our reason to make claims of the afterlife in relationship to the moral law. However, it is not possible for us to be as authoritative about the morality of the afterlife as the morality of this life because the two are inherently different.

To me, the argument sounds similar to another one:
1. God is infinitely just.
2. There is injustice in the world.
3. Therefore, either God does not exist, or He is not infinitely just.

Both claims are similarly flawed because they fail to take into account that just the extremity of the first premise. Once it is granted, then our own claims about the morality of God’s actions are laughable unless we actually claim to be infinitely just ourselves, or at least maximally just.

To respond to those who claim to believe in objective morality or natural law but not God, allow me to quote Kant: “Morality in itself constitutes a system, but happiness does not, except insofar as it is distributed precisely in accordance with morality. This, however, is possible only in the intelligible world, under a wise author and regent. Reason sees itself as compelled either to assume such a thing, together with life in such a world, which we must regard as a future one, or else to regard the moral laws as empty figments of the brain.”

First off, this is not how syllogisms work. You can't use one premise to reject another. The whole point of a premise is that if you set it, you have accepted it as true (for the sake of the argument at least) and must follow it to all its logical conclusions. I know it's a a pedantic point and you could easily rearrange your propositions to express the idea you're getting at more accurately, but since you were explicitly trying to turn my own logic against me, I feel obligated to point out that you missed the mark.

Moving on to the substantive point, there is no doubt that the existence of injustice in the world we inhabit is one of the greatest challenges of Christian theology, and piles and piles of volumes have been written to try to grapple with this conundrum. The very fact that many theologians have considered this issue and attempted to provide at least tentative answers already undermines your claim that it's just not something we can even begin to understand. Even if we can't fully understand it, clearly we can make some degree of progress toward a better understanding.

But besides, as challenging as the problem of evil in our material, finite world might be to Christianity, it is nothing when compared to the notion of infinite suffering in the afterlife. Fundamentally, the idea of suffering in a finite context is not inherently incompatible with the idea of infinite justice, since the latter is so great as to make the former utterly irrelevant in comparison. Any finite amount of suffering can be made right given an infinite amount of justice. Infinity minus a very large number is still infinity, after all. Of course, the question still remains as to why even a finite amount of suffering is necessary to begin with, and that is of course a tricky and complex question, but even if we don't understand the reason for it, we have no definitive proof that such a reason cannot exist.

On the other hand, once you add eternal damnation into the equation, the evil also becomes infinite. Even if just a single person is damned, if the harm is extended over an eternity, it becomes impossible to account it as constituting part of a greater good - it's simply big enough to break any such account.* And clearly, coming to such a conclusion is well within our human faculties. We understand what suffering is - this is arguably one of the defining features of our mortal lives - and while we cannot experience infinity itself, extrapolating from a finite amount to an infinite amount IS something we have experience doing in all sorts of domains. So with those empirical and logical premises set, I think reason leads us fairly straightforwardly to such a conclusion.

*The only way that can make sense is if you're willing to claim that suffering can be a positive good, rather than being at most a necessary evil, but I find such a claim beyond contemptible and if you disagree I don't think we have much else to say to each other.

[afleitch]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

[Kingpoleon]

First off, this is not how syllogisms work. You can't use one premise to reject another. The whole point of a premise is that if you set it, you have accepted it as true (for the sake of the argument at least) and must follow it to all its logical conclusions. I know it's a a pedantic point and you could easily rearrange your propositions to express the idea you're getting at more accurately, but since you were explicitly trying to turn my own logic against me, I feel obligated to point out that you missed the mark.

Moving on to the substantive point, there is no doubt that the existence of injustice in the world we inhabit is one of the greatest challenges of Christian theology, and piles and piles of volumes have been written to try to grapple with this conundrum. The very fact that many theologians have considered this issue and attempted to provide at least tentative answers already undermines your claim that it's just not something we can even begin to understand. Even if we can't fully understand it, clearly we can make some degree of progress toward a better understanding.

But besides, as challenging as the problem of evil in our material, finite world might be to Christianity, it is nothing when compared to the notion of infinite suffering in the afterlife. Fundamentally, the idea of suffering in a finite context is not inherently incompatible with the idea of infinite justice, since the latter is so great as to make the former utterly irrelevant in comparison. Any finite amount of suffering can be made right given an infinite amount of justice. Infinity minus a very large number is still infinity, after all. Of course, the question still remains as to why even a finite amount of suffering is necessary to begin with, and that is of course a tricky and complex question, but even if we don't understand the reason for it, we have no definitive proof that such a reason cannot exist.

On the other hand, once you add eternal damnation into the equation, the evil also becomes infinite. Even if just a single person is damned, if the harm is extended over an eternity, it becomes impossible to account it as constituting part of a greater good - it's simply big enough to break any such account.* And clearly, coming to such a conclusion is well within our human faculties. We understand what suffering is - this is arguably one of the defining features of our mortal lives - and while we cannot experience infinity itself, extrapolating from a finite amount to an infinite amount IS something we have experience doing in all sorts of domains. So with those empirical and logical premises set, I think reason leads us fairly straightforwardly to such a conclusion.

*The only way that can make sense is if you're willing to claim that suffering can be a positive good, rather than being at most a necessary evil, but I find such a claim beyond contemptible and if you disagree I don't think we have much else to say to each other.

I am happy to pedantically rearrange it, but my point was that I think any defensive response must be based in the first point, that of infinite justice.

The problem of evil is obviously very real and serious. In my time learning about theology, I have learned several broad answers: the “greater good” response; the necessity of free will; skeptical theism; afterlife theodicy (see Aquinas); turning the table; karma; and Evil God. I am advocating skeptical theism, as coined by Draper. While reason is (probably) the best cornerstone for morality, it is limited - see bounded rationality. This argument, to my knowledge, dates to the 1990s, and the vast majority of rebuttals I have read simply accuse it of philosophical laziness rather than any logical inconsistency.

[Senator Spark]

A moral standard exists regardless of the fact if there is a God. There would be no way to know if a crime should be punished more severely because if somebody is dead and gone they can't come back to let us know.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

[afleitch]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

Why would it for us though?

Though related to your point it would make even less sense for god to punish with eternal pain when he experienced physical and psychological pain for a few days and it broke him.

[Mopsus]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Do you think so? Every sadhu or Orthodox monk I've ever seen a photo of looks pretty joyful to me.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

Why would it for us though?

Though related to your point it would make even less sense for god to punish with eternal pain when he experienced physical and psychological pain for a few days and it broke him.

Why would it not for us, when Christ's resurrection, as the Firstborn from the Dead, is what accomplishes our own?

Christ was broken and died, and then restored, as the promise is that we may be as well.  The tradition of felix culpa within Christianity emphasizes that what is broken and then healed is in some sense more whole and blessed than had nothing been broken.  It is what allows us to know grace.

[afleitch]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

Why would it for us though?

Though related to your point it would make even less sense for god to punish with eternal pain when he experienced physical and psychological pain for a few days and it broke him.

Why would it not for us, when Christ's resurrection, as the Firstborn from the Dead, is what accomplishes our own?

Christ was broken and died, and then restored, as the promise is that we may be as well.  The tradition of felix culpa within Christianity emphasizes that what is broken and then healed is in some sense more whole and blessed than had nothing been broken.  It is what allows us to know grace.

That doesn't answer my question. You've just pointed to two examples of knowing joy from pain or in the case of felix culpa, gain from loss.

If you feel joy for infinity, into which the finite time of feeling pain  isn't divisible, it's not joy. It's a new neutral equilibrium.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You can't infinitely suffer. Putting aside the materialistic nature of physical or mental suffering somehow having to keep going after death, suffering devoid of any context of what not suffering 'feels' like ceases to be suffering by any measure. For the same reason a promise of eternal joy is hollow as it's impossible to feel eternal joy without the context of pain or loss. Those who try and seek it in life, destroy themselves.

Can the memory of pain and loss provide the context for eternal joy?   Christ's resurrected body retained the marks of his crucifixion.

Why would it for us though?

Though related to your point it would make even less sense for god to punish with eternal pain when he experienced physical and psychological pain for a few days and it broke him.

Why would it not for us, when Christ's resurrection, as the Firstborn from the Dead, is what accomplishes our own?

Christ was broken and died, and then restored, as the promise is that we may be as well.  The tradition of felix culpa within Christianity emphasizes that what is broken and then healed is in some sense more whole and blessed than had nothing been broken.  It is what allows us to know grace.

That doesn't answer my question. You've just pointed to two examples of knowing joy from pain or in the case of felix culpa, gain from loss.

If you feel joy for infinity, into which the finite time of feeling pain  isn't divisible, it's not joy. It's a new neutral equilibrium.

I agree emotion has a relative aspect, but I don't believe it is merely relative.