Heaven, hell, and the afterlife

[revots33]

This is particularly for the theists, although I'd like to hear any opinions.

Do you believe in heaven and hell (or some other version of eternal life after death)? Why or why not?

The reason I ask is this. There's been a lot of discussion about why people do/don't believe in God. Many believers see God as the "first cause", from which the universe must have come. Others argue that the complexity of the universe shows purpose, and so must have been designed by a supreme being. There are other philosophical arguments as well, and I think a lot of them have validity.

But I haven't heard many arguments for belief in the existence of heaven or hell. Since this belief cannot be argued in the same way the existence of a Creator can, I'm curious as to what reasons people might have for this belief.

So, why do you believe/not believe in heaven and hell?

And, if there was some hypothetical way to prove, beyond any doubt, that we simply cease to exist at death, and that heaven, hell and the afterlife do not exist - would that knowledge make you stop believing in God? In other words, how much is religious faith connected to the belief in some form of eternal life after we die?

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
And, if there was some hypothetical way to prove, beyond any doubt, that we simply cease to exist at death, and that heaven, hell and the afterlife do not exist - would that knowledge make you stop believing in God? In other words, how much is religious faith connected to the belief in some form of eternal life after we die?





[/ QUOTE ]

To me it would be essential. (I should point out that I'm an atheist). But to me, belief in a god without the belief in a transcendental soul is effective atheism, or at least agnosticism. That's because this god shouldn't, or couldn't possible IMO, have any effect on the believer's life. That is, of course, if we define 'god' in a christian sense.

[Lestat]

I think your last paragraph bears the most intriguing question...

If there is no heaven or hell, does God become much less important to you on an individual level?

[Matt R.]

revots,
I'm a theist, with beliefs much closer to deism than most other theists (I think). Essentially I believe God exists and can/does interact with the universe, but he in no way is required to and does so rarely. But as far as your question goes, I am much less "certain" in an afterlife than I am in a God. While I admit there may not be a God as I can't prove it, if you pressed me I would say I am very close to certain based on what I observe and understand about the world. I think my belief is reasonable, although I understand the views of agnostics and (some) atheists.

Now, I believe very strongly that it is impossible to assign properties with any certainty to "God". I really believe all religions in their pure form (i.e. the non-literalist or fundamentalist interpretations of religious philosophies) all point to some fundamental truth. I actually think it is the epitome of arrogance to say stuff like "God must save me because I believe so and so..." or "there is heaven and God is sending me there because yada yada yada...." To which my response is, "yeah, how the [censored] do you know? Are you so smart as to know the mind of God?" Basically, I think it would be silly to presume to know the "mind" of something infinite or close to infinite in power and knowledge in comparison to us. It has been clear (and I thought obvious) to me since I was <10 years old that the Bible and teachings of Jesus were all primarily allegorical -- not factually true but definitely pointing to a fundamental truth.

That's enough background to how my beliefs work. Essentially I am slightly more than 50/50 towards belief in an afterlife. I have no reason to think an all-powerful being would want to grant eternal life to me, but I also have reason to believe that an all-powerful being is quite possibly omni-benevolent (is that the right word?) and would grant life after death to at least some people. A recurring theme in my religion (Catholicism) is faith, and I believe everything will be okay in the long run because of my faith, regardless of whether there is an afterlife or not. My faith combined with logic tells me "yes, probably", but logically (without combining my faith with it) I can only say "maybe, but who knows?"

[Lestat]

Matt, I'm just curious...

You seem to have a decent view towards God. By that, I mean one I can at least respect, because you obviously are thinking on your own. You seem to instinctively realize that all religious teachings (save for one?), must have much wrong about them and can only be correct in some fundamental way/truth.

What I'm curious about is what makes you think a God like the one you refer to, is even capable of granting an after-life? To me, it seems more likely that the God you're describing cannot.

[bunny]

To answer your second question first - I dont think belief in an afterlife is required to believe in god (I was certainly ambivalent about life after death while also being a theist for a time) so it wouldnt matter to me. I think God's existence or non-existence is a significant fact irrespective of whether we have finite or infinite lives and I would still want to have some kind of relationship with him if I believed in him but not in an afterlife.

With regard to heaven and hell: I believe in heaven. This belief is thanks to this forum in fact, and Lestat in particular for pointing out the incompatibility with a benevolent God not giving some comfort to those who are born into a miserable life of suffering - I cant fathom why people do suffer this fate but it seems to me that given God has the option of creating heaven for them he would do so. Clearly this is more a deduced belief than my belief in God and follows on from my theism. I dont think it is necessarily a sound argument, but it makes sense to me.

With regard to hell, I have always been in madnak's camp. That is - it is inconceivable to me that a benevolent God would make hell as it is usually described. I'm not sure if I believe in hell or not (it kind of waxes and wanes) - if I do it is not as an eternal place of torture though. I think if hell exists it is just "not-heaven". In other words, good people live forever in God's presence while bad people...dont. Whether they experience nothing or whether they experience a satisfying existence but not as good as heaven, I have no idea (see my next paragraph).

My final opinion on heaven/hell is that I find them impossible to imagine. Whatever existence we have after death is non-physical (that's my belief anyhow) and as such, so divorced from my current experiences that I really cant speculate what it would be like. It is not inconceivable to me that afterlife is universally wonderful...just better if you are a good person as you will be "completely" happy to be in god's presence, rather than just experiencing life without suffering...

[revots33]

Thanks very much for the thoughtful reply bunny. I think one of my problems with heaven/hell is that it seems such a fundamental concept of my Catholic upbringing (Jesus died to give us eternal life etc.) - yet even priests and religious experts can't seem to agree on what they are like. Some agree, like you, that hell is just "not God". Others believe it is a place of genuine eternal torture. Ideas of heaven seem to differ too, depending on who you talk to.

My problem is, why do we seem to believe so much in something that even our own church experts seem to be interpreting on the fly, in whatever way they want? It seems a pretty reasonable argument to me that, even if God does exist, ideas of heaven and hell may have been created by man. Heaven to counter fears of death and our longing to be reuinited with dead loved ones, and hell to keep people in line with church teachings by threat of eternal torture.

For example, if a man was about to jump off a tall building, but was convinced God would catch him inches before he hit the ground, you'd call him insane. And yet, otherwise rational people are CONVINCED (and I realize bunny that you leave room for doubt, but many do not) that they will somehow be resurrected after they die. There is simply no more proof for one than the other.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm curious about is what makes you think a God like the one you refer to, is even capable of granting an after-life? To me, it seems more likely that the God you're describing cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,
Yes, I tend not to make claims on what I think God can or cannot do. But given that he is responsible for the creation of our universe, it would seem reasonable that he has the power to create the universe in such a way where consciousness could continue to exist past biological death.

I will use an analogy that I think is fairly close to how I view it (I've seen similar analogies to the nature of God on here). If you imagine the creation of say, a computer program or system, and somehow the programs that are present in the system are self-aware, you could say this "system" is similar to our universe. The program follows certain rules, just as we must follow physical laws. Of course this program has a creator (analogous to God) which programmed this universe. Let's say the entities in the program were smart enough to deduce what these rules were and they perform science experiments, practice philosophy and mathematics, etc. Now just because these entities within the program can deduce the rules (just like how we use science) does not mean that nothing created those rules, or the program itself.

So how does this relate to the afterlife? Pretending I was the programmer -- if I knew that my programs were self-aware and concerned themselves with the thought of an afterlife (i.e. they did not want to cease to exist), I would grant them an afterlife if it was within my power. Now the programmer can simply make a backup copy of his self-aware entities, and they would continue to exist past the death that they observe *within* the program. There is no way it is possible that the entities can gather evidence of this process or deduce how it works. But it is there, even if they don't know it.

Similarly, in our universe I think it would be impossible for us to scientifically observe the mechanism by which God grants an afterlife. But that it not to say he is not capable of it. Actually, I believe that if there is an afterlife, it if firmly rooted in physical law. Consider how our brain perceives space-time is completely incorrect -- it is almost "magical" how it really works. Given how crazy the workings of our universe are (the parts we cannot directly observe), I don't think it is out of the question that there is some mechanism which we can't currently scientifically observe that could extend human consciousness past organic death.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
So how does this relate to the afterlife? Pretending I was the programmer -- if I knew that my programs were self-aware and concerned themselves with the thought of an afterlife (i.e. they did not want to cease to exist), I would grant them an afterlife if it was within my power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting Matt, I like the computer/program analogy. However, don't you think there are many other things we would like, that the "programmer" does not grant us? We do not want to get frail and sickly as we age. We do not want to be murdered. We do not want to starve to death or be drowned in a tidal wave. So why would God, being benevolent, care about our not wanting to cease to exist enough to grant us an afterlife - but not care about all the other things?

[Matt R.]

Good point. The best answer I can give to that is that (from my perspective) the world would be incredibly dull if God took away some or all of those things. First of all, there could definitely not be free will -- no one would be capable of murdering, stealing, etc. and they would be *forced* to simply be good. If we were to live forever and never get injured, we would not cherish our good health and our life here on earth as much (i.e. without the bad, we would have no perspective to appreciate the good). Also, to prevent things like tidal waves or accidents occuring, the "programmer" would have to constantly intervene to modify the random occurances in his program. He could never just let things happen as they were meant to happen, based on the laws of the program/universe.

But, it's definitely an interesting question. However, I see the world as we have it now as the "best possible" unless God were to constantly intervene every time something bad happened, while still keeping the variety that we observe in our world to keep it interesting. AND, if there is an infinite afterlife, even if we were to somehow undergo constant suffering for 100+ years on this earth, it would be infinitely small relative to whatever we experience after death (in other words, anything bad that we could possibly experience in this life is completely irrelevant if you compare it to infinity).

[bdypdx]

I think a whole bunch of gods/goddesses exist.

Why? The christian one sez.... "I am a jealous god." Now why would this one be jealous if there were not other gods? If the other gods didn't exist there would be no reason for it to be jealous.

Heaven or hell? If there is an afterlife, and a heaven and hell, I sure hope I don't wind up in the same place as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. For me, that would be hell. Hell would be having to watch Pat Robertson leg press 2000 pounds over and over and over......

These discussions seem to be about "god or not". What about a whole boatload of gods? Hindus have a bunch of gods, as did the Greeks and Romans, as did native americans, as did early Europeans... They all had ideas about "afterlife" and it wasn't all about heaven or hell.

Anyway, if there is a heaven, it's a gay orgy with all the guys I like. Hell is everlasting sermons by Jerry Falwell or the pope or some Muslim fanatic. Otherwise I figure that the C, H, O, and N I'm composed of will get recycled into the mix of the planet and universe.

[LCposter]

This is an interesting discussion. Having been brought up with Eastern spirituality rather than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic school of thought, I do believe in heaven/hell, but in a very different context. To me, heaven is nirvana, which occurs when the soul has reached a level of wisdom and purity to be able to rejoin with the universal/collective/original soul. Hell is then life on earth, with its pleasures and pains, in a series of reincarnation births until the soul can "graduate" to nirvana. Note in Buddhism, belief in eternal life and reincarnation are central and yet there is no belief in God (although Hindus, Jains, etc. equate the collective soul with God).

[bdypdx]

Exactly!

Christians, Jews and Muslims are more than happy to fight over their "one" god.

One god?

Why can't they agree?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> But given that he is responsible for the creation of our universe, it would seem reasonable that he has the power to create the universe in such a way where consciousness could continue to exist past biological death. </font>

Why does that follow? I guess what I'm asking is, what makes you think God is capable of granting after-life?

In your example, I'm sure the programmer could write a new problem if the original failed, but what if: This program spawned millions of other new programs and they in turn, spawned millions more programs... Now one of these spawned programs self destructs and ceases to exist. You as the programmer might not even notice the absence of this insignificant spawned program and even if you did, your main creation is continuing just fine. So...

First, God must have the capability of giving after-life and even if He does... He must now want to grant it. So I ask again with all due respect... Why are you assuming that these two things follow *if* God even exists in the first place? That seems to be a lot of assumptions.

[LCposter]

Even though I believe in reincarnation, I would like to understand the Christian perspective a little better. So the main assumption is that each individual has a single finite life, after which he/she spends an eternity in heaven or hell.

Presumably, the original critera was good=heaven, bad=hell. This model suffers from the problem of quantification. How many "goods" are needed to cancel out beating your kids or cheating on your wife?

Christian theology solves this problem - Do you accept Jesus Christ as your savior? Yes=heaven, no=hell. Now let me state my objections to this model. I'd be interested to hear a Christian (or even a non-Christian) rebut these points.

1) Heaven/hell seems too binary (like a legal system where for every trial, the only options would be to acquit or execute). It seems that fairness would require a nearly infinitely continuous spectrum of outcomes.

2) Being committed to an eternal fate for actions/decisions reached in a finite lifespan seems disproportionate.

3) By accepting the "believe in Jesus" criteria for entry into heaven one is condemning the majority of one's fellow earthlings to hell, which seems like a decidedly un-Christian thing to do.

4) Basing eternal fate on a single decision is tantamount to saying the sole purpose of life is to decide whether one accepts Christ or not. If that is the case, why would a benevolent and fair God give some people (those born into a Christian household) such a huge "advantage" over others (those born into a non-Christian household). This doesn't even account for those born before Christ, who we have to say are judged by different criteria or go to a different heaven/hell.

If you accept the single life hypothesis and presume a fair and benevolent God and an eternal afterlife, it seems like a fairer model would be that everyone eventually reaches heaven, but they spend some finite amount of time in purgatory to "cleanse them of their sins" so they are fit to enter heaven. It occurred to me that maybe a good way to implement purgatory would be that your life is replayed, but you now experience that life from the perspective of the people you interacted with. Thus, in a very direct way, you would feel pleasure when you did good to others, and pain when you did bad to others.

Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts if people agree or disagree. This may all be basic stuff for someone who went to Sunday school or attends church, but the answers aren't apparent to me.

[bunny]

I wouldnt want to speak for orthodox christian theology, but my personal view is that judgement is based on how well you do with what opportunities you have. I cant imagine someone who never heard of Jesus being barred from heaven on that grounds. Similarly, if someone is unable to believe in God because of their nature, yet live a decent and good life I cant imagine them being punished for it. (So I think you're safe chezlaw /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[ QUOTE ]
1) Heaven/hell seems too binary (like a legal system where for every trial, the only options would be to acquit or execute). It seems that fairness would require a nearly infinitely continuous spectrum of outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is any more binary than nirvana vs not-nirvana. If you posit the existence of something, it seems to me you automatically get the existence of not-that-thing as well.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Being committed to an eternal fate for actions/decisions reached in a finite lifespan seems disproportionate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see this - I think our time here, although finite is equally important (perhaps even more so) and I dont see why it should be otherwise. I think what makes life important are the choices we make, it doesnt matter to me that it is relatively short (infinitesimally so wrt eternity) it is still fundamentally important that we make good choices.

[ QUOTE ]
3) By accepting the "believe in Jesus" criteria for entry into heaven one is condemning the majority of one's fellow earthlings to hell, which seems like a decidedly un-Christian thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I think this depends on exactly what hell is. Also, see my opinion regarding doing the best you can - I dont believe people ignorant of Jesus will be punished for not accepting him.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Basing eternal fate on a single decision is tantamount to saying the sole purpose of life is to decide whether one accepts Christ or not. If that is the case, why would a benevolent and fair God give some people (those born into a Christian household) such a huge "advantage" over others (those born into a non-Christian household). This doesn't even account for those born before Christ, who we have to say are judged by different criteria or go to a different heaven/hell.

[/ QUOTE ]
See above.

[ QUOTE ]
If you accept the single life hypothesis and presume a fair and benevolent God and an eternal afterlife, it seems like a fairer model would be that everyone eventually reaches heaven, but they spend some finite amount of time in purgatory to "cleanse them of their sins" so they are fit to enter heaven. It occurred to me that maybe a good way to implement purgatory would be that your life is replayed, but you now experience that life from the perspective of the people you interacted with. Thus, in a very direct way, you would feel pleasure when you did good to others, and pain when you did bad to others.

[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly this is fair, I dont know. My belief is that God is just so the way he did it is the fairest possible. I dont require an answer for every question - I am more concerned that my beliefs allow the possibility for an answer to exist.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I'd love to hear thoughts if people agree or disagree. This may all be basic stuff for someone who went to Sunday school or attends church, but the answers aren't apparent to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty ignorant about it - most of my views are "home-grown". I have a question of my own - what makes you think there is reincarnation? (I hope this isnt a hijack - it seems to just be broadening the topic rather than changing it).

[LCposter]

Thanks for the response. The first reason I believe in reincarnation is that I was exposed to it in my upbringing, and it is a belief shared by many people I care about and whose opinion I respect (including my wife, parents, relatives, etc). But there are some philosophically satisying propositions that result from reincarnation which have strengthened my belief. I'll list a few in no particular order:

1) It can help explain the inequity of the world. When an innocent child dies of starvation or cancer, perhaps it's a karmic consequence of a sin from a previous life. Or maybe that's a fate we all have to suffer in some life, to learn to cope with a seemingly "unfair" death. Indeed, through the cycle of karma and rebirth it is possible to obtain perfect justice (here on earth) if this is an important philosophical objective.

2) To me the purpose of life is not only to know and love God and fellow humanity but to also learn and grow. Each lifetime is but a day in the soul's education. Just as it takes many years for a student to become proficient in his area of study, I believe it takes many lifetimes (and different life experiences - man, woman, rich, poor, etc.) for a soul to become wise and pure enough to rejoin God.

3) It allows for infinite redemption. One is never damned but is forever capable of attaining salvation/nirvana. This seems mandatory for my conception of a benelovent God. Indeed the purpose of reincarnation is really rehabilitative rather than punitive.

4) The ideogoly that results is inclusive. Under this belief system, anyone is capable of obtaining nirvana regardless of religious belief (maybe even lack thereof). I cannot reconcile a fair and benevolent God with an eternal judgment based on a single religious decision, especially when this God presumably has allowed such a multitude of religious options to develop.

5) This model reframes the purpose of life as evolving towards self-actualization and enlightenment, rather than a "test" by God to decide how you are to be judged.

I haven't done too much reading on the subject - I'm sure there are other philosophical appeals to the reincarnation belief but these are some that I've thought about in the past. I didn't mean to make it anti-Christian, but most of these arguments are framed in response or contrast to Christianity because I've had to occasionally defend these beliefs (to them or myself) when someone has tried to directly or indirectly convert me.

[Matt R.]

Lestat,
I'm not saying it logically follows from the assumption that God exists. On the contrary, based purely on logic my answer can only be "maybe" to the question of an afterlife. I'm simply saying that it is not logically impossible or inconsistent to say that if God exists he may be merciful to his creation and wish to grant an afterlife, and he is powerful enough (given his ability to create a universe with life) to create an afterlife.

And to the programmer analagy -- the programmer not even noticing if one of his millions of spawned programs ceases to exist. The universe is of course infinitely more complex and beautiful (among other things) in comparison to anything we as humans have created -- such as the most complex computer programs. I would think it likely that a being with the power to create the universe would be infallible or much closer to infallible than any human, and such mistakes would seem unlikely.

Just to clarify, my faith is what dictates that my answer goes from "maybe" to "yes, probably" to the question of an afterlife. I have reasons for choosing my faith, but I doubt the reasons would be acceptable to most atheists.

[Peter666]

The amount of evil one can get away with in life would make anyone with a reasonable sense of justice go mad if there is no punishment after death.

Eg. Stalin, Hitler, Zedong. Pol Pot died peacefully in his sleep. It is incredible to think how one person is able to ruin the lives of millions of people.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The amount of evil one can get away with in life would make anyone with a reasonable sense of justice go mad if there is no punishment after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be one evil [censored], then. Not that I have any doubt you think I belong in hell, Petey.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amount of evil one can get away with in life would make anyone with a reasonable sense of justice go mad if there is no punishment after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be one evil [censored], then. Not that I have any doubt you think I belong in hell, Petey.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you comfortably fit between Stalin and Hitler /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[revots33]

It seems like a lot of the belief in an afterlife is concerned with the idea of justice. It is consoling to think that an innocent child who starves to death in Africa will be rewarded with eternal happiness, while an evil man like Hitler will be punished with eternal torment. But. because an idea is consoling, does that make it likely?

Speaking strictly from reason... given the fact that all this worldly injustice would drive men mad - would not that be a compelling argument for why man would have, out of necessity, invented the idea of some sort of life after death where the scales of justice would finally be balanced?

It just seems that there are so many compelling reasons why man might have made this idea up, that to assume it's probably true is ignoring all the compelling arguments why it is probably an invention of the human mind.

To me, the idea of a just afterlife is the ultimate "out" for God. We can praise God when something good happens to us in this life, and believe he has answered our prayers. But, there is no earthly horror or suffering too horrific to be countered by the argument of eternal bliss after death.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

So, why do you believe/not believe in heaven and hell?



[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe in an "afterlife." My consciousness/self awareness is, as far as I know, a direct consequence of neural firings in my brain. I do not know what it means, nor can I make any sense out of claims that I will continue to be "alive" or "aware" after I die, i.e., after my neural activity ceases.

Claims of an "afterlife," are, in effect, that we will experience sensations of neural activity with no brain. This is all a load of rubbish, imho.

[Peter666]

I think it is true that man would have to make up Heaven and Hell through his reason due to the injustices of life if he wanted to cope and survive.

Yet that same reason would tell him he is living a lie thus not giving him any reason to live. The consequences are metaphysical suicide.

Generally, those who reject eternal justice can do so because they live a fairly comfortable and safe existence in this present life. In other words, they are spoiled. If they were living in sub-human conditions, like a poor country in Africa, their ideas would quickly change. They would either kill themselves, or come to eternal conclusions to cope with life.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Yet that same reason would tell him he is living a lie thus not giving him any reason to live. The consequences are metaphysical suicide.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, although I think you are underestimating man's ability to convince himself of true belief in something that doesn't exist, if he wants to believe it enough.

For example, the suicide pilots who flew the planes into the Word Trade Center believed that 72 virgins would be awaiting them in paradise after they died. Now, many would probably see this plainly as a man-made fiction. And in fact without this fiction, it might be difficult to recruit suicide bombers. But, whether or not this truly will happen to them after death, it is still believed by the bombers just as strongly as Christians believe they will go to heaven. Neither belief is inherently more logical than the other.

In other words, no one actually believes they are living a lie, although obviously many people are. I credit that to man's ability to deceive himself, more than to evidence for heaven's existence.

[Peter666]

I agree that there is no reasonable proof to prove in a specific type of afterlife. Whether it is a perfect paradise, 72 virgins, or Hades, this comes down to a matter of faith.

But I think it is reasonable and natural to think of an afterlife of some sort, due to the fact that we are able to have non material and abstract ideas. It is the common conclusion of almost all civilizations, and even primitive peoples.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly!

Christians, Jews and Muslims are more than happy to fight over their "one" god.

One god?

Why can't they agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a good point if it were true. But the Holy Trinity and Allah different beliefs altogether. Jews and Christians emerged from the same Father, but the Jews reject the Son and the notion of Trinity.

Those people who claim that the three religions worship the same God know nothing about the respective religions.