This is a response to The Taoist Atheist’s post The Problem of Hell. In his post, he starts out by seeking to establish that “If God exists, then there will be souls in hell for all eternity.” I am perfectly happy to grant that, since I believe it is true.
TTA is a former Catholic, and he presupposes the truth of Catholicism and a traditionalist view of the Bible in making his case. I believe both Catholicism and traditionalism are in error; I am a Protestant and I endorse modern liberal criticism of the Bible. That being the case, there are some points of disagreement between my position and the one he is arguing from, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll skip over those.
His first argument is laid out as follows:
1. If God exists, then there will be souls in hell for all eternity.
2. If there will be souls in hell for all eternity, then God allows souls to suffer for all eternity.
3. If God allows souls to suffer for all eternity, then God does something that is unjust.
4. If God exists, then God never does something that is unjust.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.
The false premise is number three. His first argument for this premise is:
If a form of punishment is not acting as a deterrent, is not physically preventing offenders from reoffending, and is not rehabilitating offenders so that they will not reoffend after their punishment, then it is not a just form of punishment.
The punishment of hell is based on the unjust idea of retribution. Retribution is punishment inflicted for the sole purpose of causing someone to suffer for what he did. Retribution is based on the idea that those who have committed an offense deserve to suffer. The problem with retribution is that nothing good comes out of it. The only “good” that can come out of retribution is the sense of satisfaction that results from knowing that one who has committed an offense is suffering. The idea of retribution is part of human nature. We want those who do evil to suffer for what they did. But the desire for retribution is something that we humans must overcome. Most Christians would agree that you should try to overcome the desire to cause others to suffer. However, Christians don’t realize that since hell does not fulfill any of the purposes of punishment, the only reason God would send souls to hell would be to cause them to suffer.
To which we might simply reply, “says who?” The Christian understanding of Hell is that God sends people there to suffer for their sins, and we have it on God’s authority, that this is “a just form of punishment.” Therefore, those who believe God reject TTA’s view of just punishment, and his argument impugning God’s justice. Further, retributive justice (making someone suffer for their sins), has nothing to do with satisfaction that the criminal is suffering, but rather, in God’s kingdom, is based solely on the moral principle of causing justice to be done.
But we might further ask, is TTA claiming that his view of just punishment is objectively morally true? If so, then where we must ask him, is he getting objective morality from? Only God has the authority over his creation to render morality objective. Therefore, TTA’s morality is merely his subjective opinion, and may be rejected as such.
His second argument for premise three is:
Even if it is just to cause someone to suffer for dying in a state of mortal sin, it would not make sense for the suffering to be eternal. If one suffers for all eternity, then one experiences an infinite amount of suffering. This is because the total amount of suffering experienced over an infinite amount of time will be an infinite amount of suffering.
This is an error, an actual infinite is impossible, see:
But let’s allow The Taoist Atheist to reword his objection, claiming it would not make sense for the suffering to be everlasting. He goes on to say:
Now we must ask if it is possible for one to deserve to experience an infinite amount of suffering. Even if retribution was just, it would seem that the only way one would deserve to experience an infinite amount of suffering would be if one intentionally caused others to experience an infinite amount of suffering. Since we are only on Earth for a finite amount of time, it is impossible to cause others to experience an infinite amount of suffering. Any “sins” we commit are committed over a finite period of time. The “sins” one commits may cause others to experience a finite amount of suffering, but they cannot cause others to experience an infinite amount of suffering. Since we are only on Earth for a finite amount of time, one can only cause others to experience suffering over a finite amount of time. Thus, the only way it would be possible to cause others to experience an infinite amount of suffering would be if it were possible to cause someone to experience an infinite amount of suffering over a finite amount of time. Thus, one would have to be able to cause someone to experience an infinite amount of suffering in a single moment.
Why are those who caused others to experience a finite amount of suffering punished with an infinite amount of suffering?
Christians cannot answer this question. Even if retribution is just, causing a soul to suffer for all eternity is unjust. God causes souls to suffer for all eternity. Thus, God does something that is unjust. But God must be just. Therefore, we have a contradiction. Thus, God does not exist.
Here TTA confuses the amount of time it takes to commit an offense with the gravity of the offense. It only takes an instant to sin, but when a person does sin, they everlastingly ruin God’s creation. They everlastingly ruin themselves, and therefore, they deserve everlasting punishment. Likewise, it only takes a comparative instant for Christ to die on the cross, but in doing so on our behalf, he everlastingly perfects those who accept his offer of salvation. Thus those who are saved by Christ’s death in their place, are everlastingly made perfect, and therefore everlastingly saved from punishment.
Therefore, TTA’s bold claim that “Christians cannot answer this question,” is false. How many other false arguments does TTA have against Christianity?
God is perfectly just in requiring everlasting punishment for an everlasting crime, regardless of the fact that the crime was committed in a finite amount of time.
And again we have to ask, is TTA claiming that his view of just punishment is objectively morally true? If so, then where we must ask him, is he getting objective morality from? Only God has the authority over his creation to render morality objective. Therefore, TTA’s morality is merely his subjective opinion, and may be rejected as such.
His second argument is laid out as follows:
1. If God exists, then there will be souls in hell for all eternity.
2. If there will be souls in hell for all eternity, then those in heaven are not supremely happy.
3. If God exists, then those in heaven are supremely happy.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
The false premise is number three.
My issue is with the claim that those in heaven will always and at all times be supremely happy. The Bible doesn’t claim this, it is an idea that has worked its way into popular thought about heaven, but nowhere does Scripture affirm this idea. Heaven to be sure will be a place of overall happiness, but I believe there will be sadness and regret there as well. For example, people who did not do all they could in this life to earn heavenly rewards will be sad when they see others living a better life than them in heaven. As 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 says:
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 the work of each builder will become visible, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each has done. 14 If what has been built on the foundation survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If the work is burned up, the builder will suffer loss; the builder will be saved, but only as through fire.
People will “suffer loss” in heaven. People will also suffer the loss of loved ones in heaven, those who have gone to hell. But we are not without consolation, Isaiah 25:8 says:
Isaiah 25:8 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
8 he will swallow up death forever.
Then the Lord God will wipe away the tears from all faces,
and the disgrace of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the Lord has spoken.
So God will make our sadness in heaven, over the loss of loved ones to hell, bearable. We will be truly new creations in heaven, we will not be subject to all the sadness we are on earth now, things will be different. We will be changed physically, mentally, and spiritually.
God exists, and those in heaven are not supremely happy all the time. His argument fails.
His third argument is laid out as follows:
1. If God exists, then there will be souls in hell for all eternity.
2. If there will be souls in hell for all eternity, then God is not infinitely happy.
3. If God exists, then God is infinitely happy.
4. Therefore, God does not exist.
The false premise is number three.
God is not infinitely happy. An actual infinite is impossible, as Professor Craig’s article above explains. Further, God is not always happy. As the Bible says in Genesis 6:5-7:
Genesis 6:5-7 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
5 The Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out from the earth the human beings I have created—people together with animals and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
And again, Deuteronomy 9:8-14 says:
8 Even at Horeb you provoked the Lord to wrath, and the Lord was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you. 9 When I went up the mountain to receive the stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant that the Lord made with you, I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water. 10 And the Lord gave me the two stone tablets written with the finger of God; on them were all the words that the Lord had spoken to you at the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly. 11 At the end of forty days and forty nights the Lord gave me the two stone tablets, the tablets of the covenant. 12 Then the Lord said to me, “Get up, go down quickly from here, for your people whom you have brought from Egypt have acted corruptly. They have been quick to turn from the way that I commanded them; they have cast an image for themselves.” 13 Furthermore the Lordsaid to me, “I have seen that this people is indeed a stubborn people. 14 Let me alone that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and more numerous than they.”
And again, Ephesians 4:30 says:
Ephesians 4:30 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption.
And examples could be multiplied many times over. God is not always happy. Therefore, his argument fails.
C. S. Lewis Debates 
Pingback: A Response to a Response to my Post on the Problem of Hell – The Taoist Atheist
“Here TTA confuses the amount of time it takes to commit an offense with the gravity of the offense. It only takes an instant to sin, but when a person does sin, they everlastingly ruin God’s creation.”
I do not think this is correct. I don’t think God’s creation is ruined. But I would agree that the amount of harm is not only a measure of the timing of the harm. And I think that is all you need to establish.
Now retributive justice deals with the balance of harm not just the timing of the crime. So it says the punishment should fit the crime. I think you make some good points about how that is possible even with eternity.
Another way I was thinking of is the idea of a limit. 1/2 plus 1/4 plus 1/8 etc will have a limit. So the to the extent the suffering decreases continually it would never go beyond a certain finite limit.
Does the Taoist atheist need to adopt our view or moral realism in order to critique our view? That is can he not show that our view of morality is inconsistent with our view of Hell?
LikeLike