See my edit. But to turn on Hitchens again, his problem always was that he was sometimes... unfocused in his objectives. When he'd go off on his famous rant about how "At least in North Korea, you can die", I'm not sure even he knew what exactly he was trying to say there - he was just scoring points.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's indicative of most(all) of the talks I've seen on this subject. They invariably throw in "zingers" for the choir.
But, on the topic of paradise -and to go back to something said earlier- it does seem like the afterlife is the perfect "out" for debating in favor of the omnibenevalance of God. It seems to me any perceived injustice in reality can be claimed to be balanced in the afterlife. It would be like trying to show an equation is unbalanced when you only have one half of it.
I am reminded of a quote from Sam Harris: "If the universe is really organized this way[with a heaven and hell], much of what I believe will stand corrected on the Day of Judgment. However, my basic claim about the connection between facts and values would remain unchallenged. The rewards and punishments of an afterlife would simply alter the temporal characteristics of the moral landscape. If the Bad Life is actually better over the long run than the Good Life—because it wins you endless happiness, while the Good Life represents a mere dollop of pleasure presaging an eternity of suffering—then the Bad Life would surely be better than the Good Life. If this were the way the universe worked, we would be morally obligated to engineer an appropriately pious Bad Life for as many people as possible." - The Moral Landscape
Allowing for an assumed just afterlife at all would seem problematic for anyone arguing against the omnibenevalance of God, so I can understand Hitchens's stance.
It seems to me any perceived injustice in reality can be claimed to be balanced in the afterlife.
This rests on the premise that injustice can be "balanced", which is very questionable to begin with. Worse still, with omnibenevolence involved, the argument must be not just that injustice can be balanced out, but that having the injustice and then balancing it out is a better way to run the world than all other alternatives. Alternatives like, maybe, not having the injustice and then still having an awesome afterlife anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's one of the reasons I used "perceived" injustice. It doesn't seem correct that a maximally just god could be unjust. So -it would seem to me- the argument would be whatever thing is being perceived as unjust wouldn't really be unjust when the current life and just afterlife are both taken into account. One being known the other unknown but assumed 'fair.'
As to my questionable use of the term "balance:" Do not most people feel that sending a guilty criminal to jail is "justice?" So, God would be exacting just punishment in the afterlife for the injustice the guilty man committed. God -himself- not having committed an injustice, but rather being forced to "balance the books" in the face of injustice.
I would say "there must be a better way of doing things" seems like the strongest line of reasoning. It also seems to essentially be a reworded "Problem of Evil" argument, and -thus- subject to the same canned responses I'll not do the credence of repeating. If a theologian doesn't have some kind of reasonable response to the Problem of Evil, he would likely not get very far in a debate.
It all seems rather sticky when simply denying the possibility of a just afterlife -as Hitchens does- might be an easier case to make.
I would like to also add the black and white "Two outcomes: eternal bliss for a finite good life, or eternal suffering for a finite bad life" doesn't seem fair or just at all. A truly just afterlife would probably have more tiers and mobility between them (Purgatory?), or something. However, attempting to explicitly define a "just afterlife" likely would only be a lesson in futility, which I would guess -despite his unnecessary 'zingers'- was Hitchens's main point.
That's one of the reasons I used "perceived" injustice. It doesn't seem correct that a maximally just god could be unjust. So -it would seem to me- the argument would be whatever thing is being perceived as unjust wouldn't really be unjust when the current life and just afterlife are both taken into account. One being known the other unknown but assumed 'fair.'
As to my questionable use of the term "balance:" Do not most people feel that sending a guilty criminal to jail is "justice?" So, God would be exacting just punishment in the afterlife for the injustice the guilty man committed. God -himself- not having committed an injustice, but rather being forced to "balance the books" in the face of injustice.
If I mug you, and then I am punished for it, that does not make the mugging not wrong. The world would have been a better place had I not mugged you, and the ideal of law enforcement is to prevent muggings and other crimes from occurring in the first place.
I would say "there must be a better way of doing things" seems like the strongest line of reasoning. It also seems to essentially be a reworded "Problem of Evil" argument, and -thus- subject to the same canned responses I'll not do the credence of repeating. If a theologian doesn't have some kind of reasonable response to the Problem of Evil, he would likely not get very far in a debate.
Your whole line of "injustice might be balanced in the afterlife" is an attempted counterargument to the problem of evil. If you have to fall back on assuming that there must be some other (unspecified) counterargument, what's the point of what you said?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If I mug you, and then I am punished for it, that does not make the mugging not wrong. The world would have been a better place had I not mugged you, and the ideal of law enforcement is to prevent muggings and other crimes from occurring in the first place.
I completely agree with you.
I just find that a slightly different line of reasoning than whether or not an afterlife could justify earthly injustice. Edit: Maybe I'm mistaken and both lines of reasoning are really one and in the same. I probably should have thought on it more before making this post...
Your whole line of "injustice might be balanced in the afterlife" is an attempted counterargument to the problem of evil. If you have to fall back on assuming that there must be some other (unspecified) counterargument, what's the point of what you said?
Not much of one. I was simply saying the Problem of Evil is a well known problem, and one an intelligent believer should be ready for it. Something you already know. I would not -myself- make such arguments because I don't buy into any supposed solutions to the Problem of Evil. I wouldn't even find playing Devil's Advocate with you all that interesting or enlightening because I could simply read some more of the volumes and volumes written if I wanted to become better informed. I needn't waste your time for that.
If you're asking for my motivation in typing what I typed, it was two fold. First, I didn't like the weak arguments some of the believers on this thread were making, and I hoped to give them some better ideas to make the thread more interesting to me.
Second, I find outright denying a just afterlife more fruitful in these kinds of arguments than allowing for one and going from there, and I was trying to ascertain if you agreed.
Assuming God(for whatever reason)is unable to stop certain forms of injustice on Earth: Could an afterlife controlled by God (which includes hellish punishment) exist alongside God being "omnibenevolent?"
This tables the problem of earthy evil and just focuses in on whether or not Hell could exist alongside an omnibenevolent God.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But, on the topic of paradise -and to go back to something said earlier- it does seem like the afterlife is the perfect "out" for debating in favor of the omnibenevalance of God. It seems to me any perceived injustice in reality can be claimed to be balanced in the afterlife. It would be like trying to show an equation is unbalanced when you only have one half of it.
I am reminded of a quote from Sam Harris:
"If the universe is really organized this way[with a heaven and hell], much of what I believe will stand corrected on the Day of Judgment. However, my basic claim about the connection between facts and values would remain unchallenged. The rewards and punishments of an afterlife would simply alter the temporal characteristics of the moral landscape. If the Bad Life is actually better over the long run than the Good Life—because it wins you endless happiness, while the Good Life represents a mere dollop of pleasure presaging an eternity of suffering—then the Bad Life would surely be better than the Good Life. If this were the way the universe worked, we would be morally obligated to engineer an appropriately pious Bad Life for as many people as possible." - The Moral Landscape
Allowing for an assumed just afterlife at all would seem problematic for anyone arguing against the omnibenevalance of God, so I can understand Hitchens's stance.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As to my questionable use of the term "balance:" Do not most people feel that sending a guilty criminal to jail is "justice?" So, God would be exacting just punishment in the afterlife for the injustice the guilty man committed. God -himself- not having committed an injustice, but rather being forced to "balance the books" in the face of injustice.
I would say "there must be a better way of doing things" seems like the strongest line of reasoning. It also seems to essentially be a reworded "Problem of Evil" argument, and -thus- subject to the same canned responses I'll not do the credence of repeating. If a theologian doesn't have some kind of reasonable response to the Problem of Evil, he would likely not get very far in a debate.
It all seems rather sticky when simply denying the possibility of a just afterlife -as Hitchens does- might be an easier case to make.
I would like to also add the black and white "Two outcomes: eternal bliss for a finite good life, or eternal suffering for a finite bad life" doesn't seem fair or just at all. A truly just afterlife would probably have more tiers and mobility between them (Purgatory?), or something. However, attempting to explicitly define a "just afterlife" likely would only be a lesson in futility, which I would guess -despite his unnecessary 'zingers'- was Hitchens's main point.
Your whole line of "injustice might be balanced in the afterlife" is an attempted counterargument to the problem of evil. If you have to fall back on assuming that there must be some other (unspecified) counterargument, what's the point of what you said?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I just find that a slightly different line of reasoning than whether or not an afterlife could justify earthly injustice. Edit: Maybe I'm mistaken and both lines of reasoning are really one and in the same. I probably should have thought on it more before making this post... Not much of one. I was simply saying the Problem of Evil is a well known problem, and one an intelligent believer should be ready for it. Something you already know. I would not -myself- make such arguments because I don't buy into any supposed solutions to the Problem of Evil. I wouldn't even find playing Devil's Advocate with you all that interesting or enlightening because I could simply read some more of the volumes and volumes written if I wanted to become better informed. I needn't waste your time for that.
If you're asking for my motivation in typing what I typed, it was two fold. First, I didn't like the weak arguments some of the believers on this thread were making, and I hoped to give them some better ideas to make the thread more interesting to me.
Second, I find outright denying a just afterlife more fruitful in these kinds of arguments than allowing for one and going from there, and I was trying to ascertain if you agreed.
Assuming God (for whatever reason) is unable to stop certain forms of injustice on Earth: Could an afterlife controlled by God (which includes hellish punishment) exist alongside God being "omnibenevolent?"
This tables the problem of earthy evil and just focuses in on whether or not Hell could exist alongside an omnibenevolent God.