1. One of the traditional beliefs of Heaven is that there is “exceeding joy.”
The soul, which may be better understood as our minds, is supposedly what continues to exist after the death of our bodies(psychological continuity). Considering that the contents of my mind, (my personality, the things I enjoy), includes experiencing the company of certain other minds(my father, mother, friends, etc.), it seems that finding out that either one, or worse, all of these other people may not be found in heaven by me, but rather suffering in eternal hell, would cause me great sadness. Though “exceeding joy” eliminates the possibility that I should feel this way.
2. Heaven is an attractive idea because we can spend an eternity with a particular loved one and experience none of the worldly risk of death and separation. If it were the case that my loved one was not in heaven I would not only be extremely sad, I would be in anguish that they were more than likely, either not existing, or suffering in eternal damnation. The original comfort that the idea of heaven offered, that even though we may be separated by death I will see them again, is immediately eliminated as soon as I arrive at the very place that allowed me this feeling of comfort. So I may have been happier before I arrived at Heaven, when I still had hope, even though it was false. In other words, I would be happier with the idea of heaven, then I would be in heaven.
3. If there is no anguish and suffering in heaven, then it must be the case that I do not feel the loss of my loved one the way I am expecting that I would. Though if that is the case then there is not a psychological continuity from Earth to Heaven. Which means I would not be the same person I am now. This is problematic because it is allegedly my mind(soul) that is eternal. Secondly if I am not to be aware of the sadness of loss, then my mind must be in some altered version of my current self that does not include me being aware of such losses, which is a form of deception. And it is odd to think of God as a deceiver, or as heaven as a place of deceptive happiness.
4. If heaven is a place of deceptive happiness, or a place where I do not remember my loss of loved ones that may not be there, then it is not a place that I would want to be, and again, it sounds odd for one to say they would not want to be in Heaven.
5. To avoid this problem but still maintain Heaven, then maybe heaven is a place where everyone gets in. If this is the case, however, life long Christians, or good intentioned people, would be annoyed to see the likes of murderers. This again means that we would either confront many discomforts in heaven, or our state of mind would be deceptively altered in a way that I would not be aware of who they were on Earth. This is problematic because I am supposed to remember my Earth life and Earth friends, and by definition, God should be no deceiver.
6. Many Religious believers assert that sin is a part of the world because people have “free will.” Additionally that free will is a core value, or is the core value of all values. Moreover, that it makes no sense to say there is a Heaven or a Hell without the necessary condition of being free and making ethical decisions. So Heaven must be a place where people, like on Earth, can exercise free will, especially since it is a core value, and we could not imagine heaven not being of free people, that would make no sense. Though this would mean that bad things, or sin could take place, which leaves us with Heaven being, possibly, just as uncomfortable and dangerous as the Earth could be. Which defeats the idea of Heaven. In other words, the thought of “free-will” both defends and eventually contradicts itself when applied to Heaven.
7. The “free-will” theodicy does not account for the problem of natural disasters, for example the 98' earthquake in S.W. China that killed 69,000 people. Why would God allow this? Or better why would God create a world where such atrocities occur that seem arbitrary and have no relation to human morality? One answer is that God did not create the world ex nihilo (creatio ex nihilo) but rather made Earth from matter that already existed(creatio ex materia). So of that matter, naturally and always having the properties it does, this became the best possible world. Another argument is that God allows this to give people a sense of overcoming and union in the process of faith. This is a bad argument since God would be using the means of something else to serve his higher purpose, and that’s a weakness not implied in his name. Secondly, such an allowance is using other people as a means to teach other people about faith, which disregards the value of some while favoring others - also not implied in his name. So if heaven is a place where people have free will, it may mean even natural disruptions could cause distress and sadness even in Heaven.
8. It seems that a world, heaven, being a place without suffering and eternal happiness, is, upon speculation, a counter-intuitive place. Can one even know what happiness is without sadness anyway? It seems that since human beings value freedom and venerate reality (that is not being deceived or hallucinating their experiences) they will always choose a world in which suffering happens.
9. Jean-Paul Sartre has said, in his book No Exit, that “hell is other people.” This makes sense in a few ways. If we are to believe that free-individuals interact freely while maintaining their personalities(physiological continuity) then it seems inevitable that conflict would arise from differing opinions, even in a perfect world(heaven). The problem might be solved if Heaven were actually a solitary place where an individual could do and be whatever they wanted. The problem is though that our current physiological state is a state which finds enjoyment with other people. But as soon as other people are involved in your heaven, conflicts of interest are inevitable, some suffering is inevitable. So in way, yes Hell is created by “other people.” Hell is other people. But so is Heaven. Heaven is also other people. This can make sense if we note that a common feature of the world is pain, and joy. Could there be one without the other?
10. I believe it was Sartre (though I may be wrong because I couldn’t find the original source) that said that the idea of heaven, or even God, is man multiplied by infinity. The imagination is a powerful thing that allows us to create ideas that are wild and impossible. How much has imagination played, or even how much have our emotions played into our concepts of Heaven, which many consider to be reality. Is the traditional heaven an idea that man has imagined by multiplying al his values by infinity? I’m not saying that heaven does or doesn’t exist, or that even God does or doesn’t exist. I am saying that some things seem impossible to rationaly think of in any world.
- If all of these characteristics, free-will, psychological continuity, and some suffering, seem like necessary characteristics of heaven and earth, so why would God make two worlds of the same nature? Why not jut stick with this one? These are the kind of brain frying thoughts that really annoy me. Of course, if we left this up to someone like A.J. Ayers, or any known empiricist, they would say this entire conversation is meaningless and not worth even discussing. Though I'm sure that's true, and despite the annoyance, it's still entertaining nonetheless.
Also- there is no marriage in heaven, which seems to lead to no sex in heaven. Isn't it odd that one of the things humanity enjoys the most would be left out of heaven?
No comments:
Post a Comment