Relating to this is the question “are heaven and hell required to defend the goodness of God in the face of evil and suffering?” The theodicy’s I am going to look at are those of Augustine and Irenaeus.
The Augustinian theodicy represents the traditional Christian response to the problem of evil and includes both philosophical and biblical strands. Augustine defined evil as “the privation of good” and evil represent the going wrong of something that is inherently good. For Augustine, God did not create, nor is responsible for evil. God made human beings and angels with free will. Some of the angels “fell” which explains the origin of Satan, and the snake in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve then chose freely to disobey God which caused disharmony in the natural world. This is known as the “original sin”. Augustine believed that is was humans who were responsible for both moral evil and natural evil. We are responsible for moral evil due to the result of our own free decisions. Natural evil has come about from the fallen state of nature brought about by the disharmony after the fall. Augustine thought then that, “all evil is either sin or the punishment for sin”, and therefore it isn’t wrong that we suffer because it is humans that are morally culpable. God is justified in allowing suffering to exist, yet he shows grace by sending Jesus Christ to offer salvation to those who respond with repentance. At the end of history, Augustine believed there will be judgement and those who reject Gods salvation will go to eternal torment in hell, whereas those who accept Christ will enter eternal life in heaven. This shows moral balance; sin is justly punished leaving Gods perfect creation for the righteous.
There are however criticisms of this theodicy including the fact that we cannot know for sure whether Adam and Eve ever actually existed. If they didn’t, the basis of this theodicy is incorrect and the theory falls apart. Another criticism is why should children and animals suffer horrendous cruelty as the consequences of somebody else’s decisions? I think this theodicy is a weak foundation for the concepts of heaven and hell. Augustine tries to use heaven and hell to justify the goodness of God by saying that people will go to hell if they reject his salvation in Jesus Christ but if this is so what good would there be in sending people to eternal punishment? This doesn’t display a good or forgiving God because what good would come from hell?
The second theodicy is Irenaeus’ theodicy. Irenaeus believed that the purpose of humans is soul-making and that our ultimate goal in the future is to achieve perfection. This theodicy claims that suffering is all to do with development and from it we learn positive values. Like Augustine, Irenaeus believed human beings are responsible for moral evil. God gave us free will so we are led to making our own decisions; some of which are the wrong decisions and have consequences. However one of the main differences between these theodicies is that Irenaeus did not believe human beings are responsible for natural evil; God is. The world is the way it is because that is how God made it. If a perfect world had been created how would we learn from our mistakes or known right from wrong? God made the world imperfect on purpose so that we can learn from it and develop into the likeness of God. Irenaeus also believed, unlike Augustine, that everyone will eventually go to heaven. For Irenaeus, people would spend time in purgatory to finish their soul- making journey, and when ready would go to heaven.
Immediately, many criticisms spring to mind with this idea. Firstly, if we all end up in heaven anyway then where is the incentive to act morally, and what is our moral obligation as human beings? Why does God put us through these “tests” when he could have just made us virtuous to being with? I think the main limitation of this theodicy however is that many people believe there is far too much evil in the world, for example, animal suffering took place even before human beings existed. God requires us to make a free choice about loving him, but sometimes the evil he puts us through far exceeds the amount needed. The idea of heaven in this theodicy is crucial as everybody ultimately ends up there. Irenaeus did not believe people went to hell if they rejected Christ as it just meant they had not finished their journey and needed to complete it in purgatory. This theodicy seems at odds with the idea of free will. If free will was really respected we would not all end up in heaven as their maybe people who choose not to go. This theodicy is a more convincing foundation for heaven than Augustine’s however and displays the goodness of God more evidently
For John Hick, in his writings “Death and Eternal Life” the complete contrast of heaven and hell is not compatible with human good and evil. How can you classify someone evil enough to go to hell, or righteous enough to go to heaven? Hick supports the Ireanean theodicy but disagrees with Augustine by claiming that the unending torment of hell couldn’t serve any positive purpose as it never ends, everyone therefore will enter heaven at some time as this does serve a positive purpose.
Jerry Walls says in conclusion to the problem of evil that “some evils are so horrendous that nothing can redeem them, Some evils are intrinsically so bad that to allow them could never be morally justified” and that “heaven is our only hope of resolving these evils and of providing an adequate theodicy”. He also says of God’s goodness that “a good God would not create us with the kind of aspirations we have and then leave those aspirations unsatisfied. If immortality is possible…then it should be judged probable, if God is good.” Walls here is arguing that for this theodicy to work, heaven is required to defend God’s goodness, because of the evil he allows to happen in the world. Heaven is required for the theodicy to work.
There are philosophical arguments for the concepts of heaven and hell, Kant being one of the most well known advocates. Kant believed that imperatives are what one should do, which holds true for all, categorical imperatives are moral laws. According to Kant, immortality is a postulate of the moral life. Goodness and happiness must coincide at some point after death to achieve our ultimate goal- the Summum Bonum, which probably refers to heaven. For Kant, what is important is the moral education of a person’s action; we are bound to do duty for duties sake, but the manner in which a person acts is more important than the goal achieved.
Kant argued that morality requires heaven and hell for the following reasons. If rational actions are in a persons best interests and morality is rational, then moral actions must be in a persons best interests. Throughout the world we see many morally good people suffer whilst immoral people enjoy success. There must therefore be somewhere after death, where moral behaviour is rewarded because, as Kant says, “immortality is a postulate of the moral life”. In describing Kant, Walls says “Ironically, the hope of heaven cannot have a place in moral motivation even though immortality must be postulated to make sense of morality. Indeed this view maybe more than ironic; it maybe incoherent”. What Walls is saying is that Kant’s theory doesn’t really make sense as it contradicts itself because what Kant is saying is that you must strive for immortality because it is a postulate of the moral life, but the hope of heaven shouldn’t be your motivation for acting morally.
I think that this argument is weakened by this contradiction but the overall idea of the moral argument is a popular idea because many people at some point in there lives wonder why certain people enjoy success whilst others can act far more honourably and be seen to get nothing for it.
John Locke believes that morality makes good sense in society as morality benefits society. Locke says of the concepts of heaven and hell that will be “cast a slight upon the short pleasures and pains of this present state and give attractions and encouragements to virtue…upon this foundation only morality stands firm and may defy all competition”. For Locke, if morality is to be established, it needs the specific concepts of heaven and hell, as well as God.
However whilst Locke and Kant say that belief in heaven and hell lead people to act morally and allow morality to be understood rationally, Marx and Freud would say otherwise. They believe that heaven and hell are simply illusory concepts that lead to controlling people which is immoral.
For Freud, heaven and hell are just irrational concepts that people believe because psychologically heaven provides humans with feelings of meaning, purpose and significance. The idea of God and indeed heaven and hell are an objectification of human ideals, wishes and needs. Freud believes that one problem with believing these concepts is that it may limit personal growth but does offer a sense of dignity and diminishes the fear of death. Freud is not saying that heaven and hell do not exist, but that it is more likely we believe in them for wish-fulfilment.
Marx believes that once religion is set in the minds of a few people in a community, it will soon exert control over the whole community. Marx famously quoted that religion is “the opium of the people” by making the true exploitation of the working class by the ruling class invisible. Religion in general was seen to be ideological by Marx in three ways; that it promotes the idea that socio-economic hierarchy is unchangeable, it explains social inequalities in supernatural terms (i.e. It is a sign that certain people have been chosen by God), and thirdly that it can even present suffering and poverty to be normal and people should just wait patiently for divine intervention
The conclusion drawn here is that a belief in heaven and hell can in fact be dangerous, and a modern day example of this is religious terrorism, as some people believe God is willing them to commit terrorist acts, and they then consider themselves religious martyrs. Perhaps Marx and Freud actually help us to see the “irrationality” of the concepts of heaven and hell and give a very different perspective of them which in ways may be a very convincing argument against them.
Wittgenstein believes that language is an important factor of belief in heaven and hell. He saw philosophical problems as coming not from the real world but from language itself. He believed that language is a series of games, each with their own rules. In relation to heaven and hell, Wittgenstein believed that you could not truly understand the concepts unless you were “in the game”. As most people do not even realize they are playing the game, they cannot understand the concepts because they don’t understand what the language they are using really means. For example, heaven and hell make sense within the Christian community language game but don’t make sense out of this context. This may explain why perhaps the language of heaven and hell could be meaningful for the religious believer but non-intelligible to the atheist.
Continuing on the subject of language, D.Z Phillips believes that the perception of eternal life has been misunderstood. Phillips argues that when Christ talks of “eternal life” he is talking about a new way of living rather than literally meaning life after death. Another example of possible misinterpretation of the Bible is when Jesus spoke about “Gehenna” (hell), and the punishment for those who rejected his message. Rather than speaking of a literal place called hell where sinners go after death, he was talking about the rubbish dump Jerusalem would become if everyone ignored his message. However if the Bible has been misinterpreted and immortality is not about life after death, why should we bother to live a religious life? This links back to Kant’s moral argument, and begs the question what is a humans moral obligation if there isn’t actually anywhere for us to go after death to be rewarded?
In conclusion, I believe that there are undoubtedly philosophical foundations for heaven and hell as concepts within our language but their existence as literal places is much more difficult to determine. As Wittgenstein said, the places of heaven and hell make sense within the Christian community language game but out of this context the ideas do not make sense. Never the less, belief in heaven and hell could be beneficial to society as the hope of heaven and fear of punishment could lead people to act morally. Philosophy doesn’t add anymore evidence for the existence of heaven and hell but does make us question their nature.
Jerry L. Walls, “Hell: The logic of eternal damnation”
Jerry L. Walls “Hell: The logic of eternal damnation”
Jerry L. Walls “Heaven: The logic of eternal joy”