Is the problem of Hell actually a problem?

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What gives you peace?

Avoiding threads with exchanges such as these

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Avoiding threads with exchanges such as these

Indeed, not many places to go, but many ways to get there... 😉

[Night FM]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:36 AM, Eise said:

I think, especially in the way that @Night FM formulates it, it is even worse: obviously only the most terrible threat, burn eternally in hell, works to keep religious people on the right moral path.

Just contrast this with Zen-Buddhist ethics: there morality is a consequence of real insight in who we are. It leads to friendliness and compassion with other living beings. To say it very simple: we are all living in the same boat.

@Night FM: would you, personally, misbehave, when heaven and hell would not exist? If not, why? If yes, then I consider you as a morally bad person, because you only behave morally under the biggest threat possible. Do you really need that, just to be kind to others?

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

Or, we can believe that behaving kindly to others brings inherent benefits. There's no need for consequences, other than not gaining the benefits of fair treatment. Reduce the friction and the whole system has less stress and functions more like it's supposed to.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

That's a bit cynical and also a little bit insulting. I do nice things for people nearly every day and only rarely kick old ladies to the curb, and none of it is due to fear of retribution, now or in an afterlife. 

[OldChemE]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

This sounds rather like the moral distinctions from Kohlberg (6 stages of moral development).  he basically theorized that the 5th stage was that people behaved in order to comply with the rules of society, while the 6th stage was that people did what they did purely because it was right. Kohlberg, if I remember correctly, thought very few people made it to stage 6.  That 5th stage requires laws or some form of punishment ( in the extreme, hell?),while the 6th does not.

[Ken Fabian]

@Night FM Not sure you picked the best venue to have religious beliefs in rewards and punishments in an afterlife as foundational to ethical behavior affirmed. Atheists are the majority here and I've never noticed criminal or exploitative tendencies; you aren't going to find actual cause to believe atheists lack a moral compass.

My own view is that holding to belief in the moral inferiority of those who don't share your religious beliefs is the road to selective abandonment of a moral compass - the ills of the world can be blamed on them, their freedoms restricted and their right to hold positions of trust and responsibility denied. And it is human nature - in my view one of the worst failings of human nature - that when people think someone is innately bad for their religious beliefs or lack of them then doing things that harm them can appear justified and even be a cause for satisfaction and pleasure - I've encountered "good" Christians who think people like me should face legal restrictions, penalties and even vigilante violence for being atheist.

Religious beliefs like turning the other cheek, motes in eyes and beams can moderate that innate urge to hurt those we deem bad or just different. Or it can encourage them - guns and bibles, praise God and hand me ammunition.

I know that if I do bad things to people they will want to do them back. I want to be safe from people doing bad things to me, not perpetrate them. I support having laws and enforcement and courts that seek to determine the facts, without having my lack of religious beliefs counted against me as if it were a crime.

[Skovand]

I’m a Christian myself. Granted I’m a liberal Christian who leans heavily towards omnism and syncretism and believe that a significantly large amount of the Bible is myths, hyperbolic , reimaginings of stories and so on. I also know that my faith is just that, its faith, and there is no concrete evidence of the supernatural including any god. Though interested with that concept and overcame it 8+ years ago or so. 

I see two main issues, that has possibly been touched up on in the thread but I’ve not read it yet. 
 

The first is that it’s ridiculous to think that people only choose to do good out of fear of being punished for doing bad. You can be an atheist and still have a very strong moral and ethical philosophy and position. You can be religious and have a terrible one, even with the fear of eternal conscious torment. 
 

I am a vegan for the animals and for the environment. 80%+ of pastures and crops globally are for livestock and the bulk of one of the earths many lungs, the rainforest, is being cut down for livestock as pastures and as livestock feed farming. A giant portion of our land has been demolished to grow livestock feed and be pastures for them. A bunch of the pesticides being used is for them. Everyone becoming vegan would significantly reduce the environmental impacts we are having on earth and would definitely reduce the amount of suffering happening for no justifiable reason. 
 

that’s my stance and yet my faith does not call for it and neither does the legal system. I would not even be frowned upon by the bulk of humanity if I was eating a cow corpse sandwich. So hell or any form of punishment even standard jail time is not required to take on a moral stance. 
 

secondly , I’m not sure how familiar you are with the numerous concepts of hell or the history of them. I’m not going to dive deeply into them on here. But plenty of Christians, including early church fathers rejected eternal conscious torment in favor of conditional immortality or universalism. Even in universalism one reason why we want to do good is because side we want the world to be a better place. We are not bullies or jerks as much as possible because we know it’s a better planet when it’s built in goodness and love. 

[dimreepr]

13 hours ago, Skovand said:

The first is that it’s ridiculous to think that people only choose to do good out of fear of being punished for doing bad. You can be an atheist and still have a very strong moral and ethical philosophy and position. You can be religious and have a terrible one, even with the fear of eternal conscious torment. 

Indeed, but it's designed to persuade bad people to not do bad thing's, their belief is essential; so athiest's are giving them a green light to be an arsehole... Irony???

[Skovand]

I also look at it this way. I could be in a country where I have all authority, all power and all wealth. Could be free to do whatever I want. There are still a lot of things I would not do. For example, I would still not eat animals. I would still not just harm others for fun. I would not force someone to be with me in any way. I would still be faithful to my fiancee. I would still help others. Maybe sometimes I help because I simply see them struggling. Maybe sometimes I help because it makes me feel better to help. Sometimes I may help because I feel obligated to help even if I don’t actually want too. 
 

why is not important. Does not matter if it’s some magical law written on our hearts or if it’s because of millions of years of evolution within tribal family type groups. 

[Ken Fabian]

Seems superfluous to make an imaginary afterlife a factor for everyday morality - so many good reasons to treat people fairly, honestly and kindly and reasons to have the rule of law (for mutual benefit) - and kinda pointless if there are easy "redemption" options for de-sinning after committing atrocities. \

Don't know if Night FM is still peddling around here but going by his own words (which rarely address any points any others make and even more rarely their main points) I'm not convinced FM has a good grasp of morality and ethics. Not convinced FM has a good grasp of theology for that matter; a lot of lifelong religious don't accept the existence of Hell or any kind of eternal damnation.

At the personal level I am more interested in avoiding being a victim of criminal behavior and being treated fairly and honestly than I am in indulging in criminal behavior at the expense of others. That I live somewhere where criminal behavior is the exception - and strong religious conviction is also the exception - suggests it is not dependent on fear of Hell.

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Seems superfluous to make an imaginary afterlife a factor for everyday morality - so many good reasons to treat people fairly, honestly and kindly and reasons to have the rule of law (for mutual benefit) - and kinda pointless if there are easy "redemption" options for de-sinning after committing atrocities. \

Don't know if Night FM is still peddling around here but going by his own words (which rarely address any points any others make and even more rarely their main points) I'm not convinced FM has a good grasp of morality and ethics. Not convinced FM has a good grasp of theology for that matter; a lot of lifelong religious don't accept the existence of Hell or any kind of eternal damnation.

At the personal level I am more interested in avoiding being a victim of criminal behavior and being treated fairly and honestly than I am in indulging in criminal behavior at the expense of others. That I live somewhere where criminal behavior is the exception - and strong religious conviction is also the exception - suggests it is not dependent on fear of Hell.

Looks as if Night FM got 86ed on 7th Nov. I agree about the doubtful theology. That poster seemed to be yet another tiresome  product of Bible Belt Christianity, which I found bizarrely naïve and narrow-minded during my 2 years in Houston. 

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, Skovand said:

I also look at it this way. I could be in a country where I have all authority, all power and all wealth. Could be free to do whatever I want. There are still a lot of things I would not do. For example, I would still not eat animals. I would still not just harm others for fun. I would not force someone to be with me in any way. I would still be faithful to my fiancee. I would still help others. Maybe sometimes I help because I simply see them struggling. Maybe sometimes I help because it makes me feel better to help. Sometimes I may help because I feel obligated to help even if I don’t actually want too. 

Congratulations your moral compass is well aligned, for whatever reason (usually luck); unfortunately your, lucky, bias mean's you can't imagine the motives of someone with a less than lucky up-bringing.

The only problem with hell is that no-one believes in it, other than the poor soul's trying to avoid it...

[Ken Fabian]

For people living amidst unavoidable, perpetual warfare I wonder if the promise of afterlife rewards and punishments makes accepting going into battle and suicidal self sacrifice for the sake of the community a bit easier and more tolerable - and make failure to support or engage in it more intolerable. But I think it may be as much about the sense of being a distinct community as the beliefs - not so much the details of those beliefs as the having beliefs in common, making Us different from Them.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

For people living amidst unavoidable, perpetual warfare I wonder if the promise of afterlife rewards and punishments makes accepting going into battle and suicidal self sacrifice for the sake of the community a bit easier and more tolerable - and make failure to support or engage in it more intolerable. But I think it may be as much about the sense of being a distinct community as the beliefs - not so much the details of those beliefs as the having beliefs in common, making Us different from Them.

Indeed, but culture starts from the family, in a fractal sense there is no scale; a successful society always impose a scale that includes them.

Edited December 28, 2024 by dimreepr

[exchemist]

18 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

For people living amidst unavoidable, perpetual warfare I wonder if the promise of afterlife rewards and punishments makes accepting going into battle and suicidal self sacrifice for the sake of the community a bit easier and more tolerable - and make failure to support or engage in it more intolerable. But I think it may be as much about the sense of being a distinct community as the beliefs - not so much the details of those beliefs as the having beliefs in common, making Us different from Them.

I’ve no doubt it has played a role in encouraging altruistic behaviour in lots of ways, up to and including self-sacrifice.