The Problem of Hell Redux

Con basically has three contentions here.The Free-Will Defense There are three problems with this defense:1) As Marilyn McCord Adams has aptly pointed out it'd be entirely irrational, unreasonable, and unethical for God to trust such limited, ignorant, and deception-prone creatures such as ourselves to make decisions regarding our eternal fate - especially since the consequences are so horrible in the case of hell! [1] We start out this life in a state of severe ignorance and helplessness and only, very gradually and very slowly, develop a picture of the world that is influenced by people just as imperfect and non-ideal as we are. This leads to us come up with with "adaptational strategies" (as she says) in order to cope with problems that we cannot really conceive the true consequences of or that we can truly get a handle on. Yet, these ways of thinking are carried on into adulthood either subconsciously or consciously. In any case, we start off in this life as immature, ignorant beings and the "holdovers" from childhood carry into adulthood which effect how we act and think. For God to create beings such as us (with all these setbacks to truly clear rational thinking) and then entrust us to make a decision about our eternal destinies in hell (which is the worse horror imaginable and even then it's scope is beyond our grasp) would be the height unreasonableness and would be immoral to boot. Imagine a parent putting their two year old in a room with perfectly safe, breathable gas but the gas will ignite if a flame is started in the room. Imagine further that there are matches with gaudy (kid-attractive) colors lying in the middle of the room. Even if the parent tells their child not to touch the stove and the child knows to obey their parent the parents are still at fault for putting their child in a situation like that in the first place. They should've known better.2) An important distinction needs to be made here. This free will defense presumes libertarian free will as opposed to compatibalist free will. [2][3] This defense places way too much value on the "inviolability" of (libertarian) free will. What reason is there to believe that in the supposed "sacrosanctity" of libertarian free will especially when considered next to the doctrine of hell. If God could not get people to accept salvation with the libertarian free will why should he not then get by irrationally choosing that option why should you not interfere with their libertarian freely willed decision? Remember, hell is an irreparable harm and anyone who had an adequate conception of hell would not want to go there. So the only the way they could choose to go there is only through irrationally choosing to go there. If I were to irrationally (maybe due to a mental illness) choose to jump off the empire state building without a parachute for no particular reason I would hope someone I know would stop me and my 'free will' be damned. I would not want them to sit back and say, "Oh, well, you know, that's his choice and I'm going to respect that. Even though in a sane and rational state of mind he would never choose to do that and he has no reason to do it now, I'm going to just sit back and watch it play out." A good friend wouldn't do that. A good God wouldn't just sit back and watch as his creatures freely choose to do irreparable harms to themselves.3) Similarly to the second point, Thomas Talbott has questioned the very coherence of the notion of a fully-informed, rational person choosing to go to hell. [4] Hell is the worst fate imaginable - in fact, it's even worse than we can imagine. If, as it is said Christian theology, God is truly the source of all that is good (love, happiness, etc) then hell would be separation from the source of all that is good. Now, if a fully-informed, rational person were to consider this hell they'd surely not choose this option for themselves. As he notes that one of the necessary conditions of being a moral agent (and being held for responsible for your actions) and/or a free will agent is a minimal degree of rationality. Obviously an infant is not a moral agent. If someone were to choose an option which they have no reason to do it and a strong reasons not to do they would be in such in a state of irrationality you'd be hard pressed to say they made a "free choice". In the case of hell a fully-informed, rational person would never choose hell; the only way they could do so is in a state of severe ignorance. But if they are in a state of severe ignorance my 1) shows the problems with that option. If they aren't then why would they choose hell except in a severe bout of irrationality? In that case, it wouldn't be a free choice.The Divine Mystery Defense Con here just simply contradicts himself. He claims that we can't apply human ethical claims (or by extension any human claim) to God because he is inherently indescribable and unknown. If that is the truly the case, then how is Con talking about God in his previous round as if some things can be known about him? He is deigning to describe how God works (he leaves people to freely choose hell) and also to state some truths about God. If he truly believed that God is absolutely indescribable and unknown he wouldn't accepted this debate because he wouldn't even had a concept of what God really is like. So if Con wants to say something meaningful about God he still has to deal with my objections. All he does is appeal to the 'possibility' that God might condemn people to eternal torment when that is the exact issue in question. It's begging the question. The Heart-Hardening/Memory Wipe Defense 1) When someone truly loves someone else they'd want to know about the fate of their loved ones. How many times have you heard someone say they want to know what happened to their loved one even if it pains them to know the truth? Con says God wipes the memory would actually seem to lead to a case of where God is deceiving the saved. For one, if their pain involves memories of loved ones he would essentially be erasing memories of loved ones altogether. Yet, plausibly, much of what the former life one has on earth (including, perhaps, the circumstances in which the saved even got saved) revolve around those memories of their loved ones (and considering the biblical edict that we should love our neighbors as ourselves this widens the scope of the problem considerably). In essence, heaven on Con's supposition would be like taking someone taking us to a beach resort in wherein on the other side of the high, high walls lies people anguishing in suffering, poverty and pain. The high walls are there so people at the beach resort don't have to see these folks, because, yknow, that'd "ruin their experience".2) Con simply just ignores my point here. I said that an essential part of love is caring for others' well-being. If that is the case, as Christian theology surely teaches, then part of caring for others' well-being would be possessing empathy. It's all well and good to say God is love. It's another thing to say what love is as I have done (partially) and Con has not. So if the saved "cannot feel pain" it'd only be because there are no loved ones in pain for all eternity; not because God somehow shields their feelings of love for their loved ones. Either that or he hardens their hearts to where they start to not feel pain for the suffering of others in which that is morally problematic as well.Sources[1] "The Problem of Hell: A Problem of Evil for Christians", Adams, Marilyn, in Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, ed. Kelly James Clark (Broadview Press, 2008), pp 439 - 443 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] "Freedom, Damnation, and the Power to Sin with Impunity", Religious Studies 37 (2001), pp. 417-434.