There are two ways to look at descriptions and representations. One way is to imagine that a description or a representation functions like a portrait, that it captures the likeness of the object of the portrait. Now, certainly, a portrait is a kind of representation, and we could imagine that a diary might provide something like a written portrait of someone's mind. This is obviously a metaphor, but the metaphor works.
But not all descriptions or representations are intended to be likenesses. For example, a legal description in a deed does not give us a likeness of the parcel conveyed, it is intended to clearly specify the reference of the deed. Rather than a portrait, a good deed functions like an index finger, telling us "that real estate." An architectural rendering is an interesting case. In some sense, we are interested in the representational value of the rendering. We want to visualize how the flow of the building may or may not work. But on the other hand, blueprints serve another function, they help the crew constructing the building to know how to proceed. Thus, a description might variously show us what an object is like, help us to find where an object is, or even tell us what to do. It is important to note that a description or a representation might be nothing like its object, but might still tell us how to find the object, and how to go about getting there.
For me, I start from the supposition that human life matters, by which I mean that I believe that all our choices, no matter how insignificant, matter in the ultimate scheme of things. This belief may be criticized as irrational. The sun is due to burn out in five billion years, and all life as we know it on Earth will be dead. Will it ultimately matter that Hitler murdered millions of people? Can we say that it would ultimately have been better if Hitler spent his life striving for world peace and not world war? I fall in with those who choose to say it does matter, that all our lives matter ultimately.
But what does it mean to say all our lives matter ultimately? Ultimately, life as we know it will cease to exist, the sun will burn out, the universe may experience heat death. It is clear that when I speak of the ultimate, it cannot be the ultimate in the domain of facts. What I mean is that based on the choices we make in our lives, we will face ultimate reward or ultimate punishment. This reward or punishment will not happen within the space of facts, but in the after-fact or after-life. I am, of course, speaking of the reality of Hell.
Why do I write of the reality of Hell? This sounds very old fashioned, and may strike some as evidence of intellectual or mental decline. But the bottom line is this: our lives can only have ethical meaning if our lives have some kind of ethical consequence. Rather than absolve us of some great burden, the denial of Hell divests our lives of great meaning. If there is no Hell, then in what sense has Hitler been held accountable for his choices? What distinguishes him from Gandhi, ultimately? Why would one follow Gandhi over Hitler if it does not matter in the end? Ironically, the denial of Hell, rather than spare us, condemns us to live lives from the point of view that our lives ultimately don't matter. It takes Hell from its location beyond mortal life, and makes mortal life the realization of its condition. It is better to try and fail than live a life devoid of hope.
In the oldest conception, the question of heaven and hell is nothing more than the expression of the relationship of a soul with God. Heaven is communion with God, and in Hell we choose ex-communication. If God is love, then to live with a view toward heaven is to live in communion with love. Heaven may be impossible here, but intimations of heaven are. Certainly, cruelty, despair, hatred, envy, these are all possible, and give us visions of alternative human possibilities.
So what does it mean to say that one believes in the reality of God and God's judgment, and the reality of heaven and hell? The mode of God's being, to my understanding, is inconceivable. Whatever heaven and hell might be, they are surely not actual places anywhere. Certainly, we have mental images, of court rooms, of burning landscapes with tortured souls, of angelic choirs and light. But there can be no issue of these images "corresponding with reality." There can be no question of proof in these matters.
What I am talking about is a specific attitude that one takes to life. The purpose of the pictures was never to describe some metaphysical castle in n-space. The purpose of the pictures is to orient us in the world, and to direct us in how to live. Perhaps in walking this path, we begin to understand the truth which we are called to, this truth that is a higher truth, beyond a world of mere facts and trivialities. A truth written in the heart, not in text books. But not something that can be written out to the satisfaction of geometers. The truth of faith.
The question of attitude is a question of choice. We can live our lives as if they don't matter, or we can live our lives as if they do. Nothing can ever prove, one way or the other, whether our lives have value, except perhaps ourselves. So why do we deny Hell? Why do we embrace meaninglessness? The reality of salvation is something that can be experienced in this life. Why do we choose to turn away from it? What are we running from. . . if hell does not exist?
This is a worldview which is no doubt valid and meaningful for you and for those who have grown up immersed in theistic beliefs. However, it presumes that without these beliefs, life is meaningless. Denying Hell means embracing meaninglessness. This is a fallacy. It is quite possible to reject all concepts of Hell, acknowledge the fact that change and death are inevitable and all things pass, yet still find enormous meaning and purpose in life. One need only start with a premise similar to the one you start with, that human life matters. It is the premise that I posit in my blog, that the happiness of sentient beings matters, and that suffering matters. Why? Because that is how we experience the world. That all sentient beings strive for happiness and avoid suffering is a fact as real as any discovered by science.
ReplyDeleteHow has Hitler been held accountable for his choices? Isn't that obvious? Would any sane person with a normal sense of compassion wish to emulate Hitler? That some beings do, and that those beings are looked upon as aberrant, proves the point. Sentient beings have an innate sense of justice, and an innate idea of goodness. It is born out of a combination of self-awareness and empathy.
Hell is irrelevant. God is irrelevant. Both are ideas created in the mind to express profound concepts. But the concepts exist completely independently of any literary or artistic representation of them.
I do not quarrel with the creative expressions of the mind and imagination that people embrace in order to give meaning to their lives. If the idea of Hell does so for you, I'd be an arrogant idiot to insist you must throw it aside and abandon it. However, I bristle at the notion that Hell, Heaven or God are necessary or that humanity would be the poorer without them, or that life is meaningless without the idea of an afterlife. 'Tain't so. I and many, many others find rich meaning and purpose without them, and find more than ample logic in behaving compassionately.
If I have misunderstood your position, I would welcome clarification.
In re-reading your comments, what I would say is that the traditional doctrine of hell is a simple way of articulating that life is meaningful. This does not, of course, preclude another person from acknowledging that life is meaningful, or articulating that sense of meaning in another way. We say that a car has a hood, but I can imagine someone in another culture calling it something different. On the other hand, hell is interesting because it is found pretty commonly cross-culturally (Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Traditional African Relgions, etc.) so it goes deeper than just something fundamentalist Christians believe.
DeleteBuddhism has a concept of Hell? Really? I've never heard that. Eternal damnation seems completely antithetical to what I understand about their belief system.
DeleteThere is no eternal damnation in Buddhism, but you go to hell for a very, very long time, and the well of karma being what it is, most beings are in the most infernal hells most of the time. (Buddhism is realistic that way). But at least from the standpoint of Orthodox/Catholic Christian theology, there is nothing that forbids a belief that God will save everyone, provided one also acknowledges that God does not HAVE to save everyone. (In the Greek Fathers, when one dies, one is in the presence of God for eternity. To the lover of God, this is the light of Heaven. To the hater, this is the fire of Hell. The Same Son.)
DeleteMel, I think your comments are fair. I am trying to wrestle with the issue of orientation, and the after-fact, e.g. the factual description is post commitment to an orientation. I am also trying to emphasize that the notion of hell is directly related to the notion that a particular choice in a particular life matters, whether you are a bus driver or a president. There are multiple life orientations in the world, and I don't see an easy way (or a non-partisan way) to sort them out (obviously, one can find all manner of apologists that disagree). I have settled on Augustine's faith seeking understanding formula, which is to believe what you believe, and then attempt to rationally articulate your faith and understand the logical consequences of what you believe. This creates the opportunity for dialogue, while respecting the otherness of the other.
ReplyDeleteAh. To put it simply, a person must necessarily believe that which seems true, and then will go forth and justify it. No argument there. If a woman is convinced that she has seen an angel, she will staunchly defend the reality of angels and search for reasons to justify her position. This is a truism of human nature. This is why books which claim to contain proof that Heaven is Real are so popular. People long for evidence which rationally vindicates their faith.
DeleteMy orientation, if you will, is a scientific one. I have no experience of God, angels, unicorns, ghosts or fairies. Hell and Heaven equally seem implausible to me, and given my understanding of how the world and human physiology works, the idea of a soul or an afterlife seems nonsensical. However, I must accept that other people are quite insistent that they have experienced the supernatural, that is, ghosts, fairies, Jesus, demons, Mother Mary and assorted other insubstantial phenomena. I haven't walked in their shoes, so I can't speak to what seems to me to be delusion. As long as their beliefs do not inspire them to harm others, I am content to let them be. Certainly I am not going to change their minds.
I suspect that part of our problem is that you are far more academic in your approach to philosophy than I am. It creates obstacles in communication, because you are better versed in the jargon of the field. (All disciplines have their jargon and their short-hand terms which allow them to converse efficiently about relevant concepts.) I've been away from academic philosophy for a lot of years. I'd have to Google Augustine, Kant or Leibniz to remember what their gist was. My studies are "in the world", essentially, building up an understanding of the classic issues of philosophy based on life and our understanding of reality as it is lived in the present. This makes me a bit of an outcast in the PhD community, not to be taken seriously. Never mind, I enjoy my studies immensely. But I digress.
For me, its not about justifying what I believe, it is about trying to understand what I believe more clearly. Also, to understand what is at stake in philosophy more clearly. Obviously, the only way to determine which worldview is ultimately supreme would be through total war, until only one tribe was left standing. They would be right, just ask them. I concede that those tribes who took science and technology seriously would have a clear advantage. For this reason, I am not ultimately interested in justifications, because they are quickly turned into rationales. I enjoy sparring with the truly convinced, and I feel I am doing the peace in the species some good when I can inject some doubt in their dogmatic certainties. But I have never gotten the sense from you that you are anything other than thoughtful, sincere and respectful of other viewpoints.
DeleteLet me see if I'm understanding you correctly: Imaginary numbers are useful because of their practical application in physics and mathematics; they enable us to calculate measurable phenomena. Similarly, imaginary beings and places are useful because of their practical application in understanding human behavior and psychology; they provide insights into the way people think and live in the world. Certainly this is true. No study of humanity would be complete without taking into account concepts such as God and Hell.
DeleteExactly. The truth of a tool is not found in whether it "represents" reality, but in how well it accords with the purpose for which it was created. Language is the tool which defines humanity, which creates us.
DeleteAh. Very good. We are indeed doing roughly the same thing, that is, exploring rational reasons which support our worldview or orientation. The content, the tools if you will, of those explorations are different for each of us. You are heavily invested in symbolism. I am heavily invested in science. That is a simplistic differentiation, but I think basically captures it. I find concepts of God and Hell as irrelevant to an understanding of reality and our relationship to it as the pantheism of more ancient cultures. You consider them essential. I expect we will simply have to agree to disagree on this point.
Delete