Question 4 Based on the traditional view of eternal damnation, everyone is judged upon his or her death. The judgment one receives is based on the choices they make throughout their life. If they make the right choices, they will be rewarded with entrance into Heaven to live alongside God. If they make the wrong choices, however, they are damned to Hell to suffer eternally. The problem with this view of eternal damnation is that the determining factors are seemingly unfair. Without enough epistemic facts, one is forced to choose between various different religions and beliefs, some of which revolve around God, some of which don’t. Even deciding not to make a choice is making a choice – a choice not to believe in God. This traditional view creates two problems: (1) that God delivers unjust punishments to those who choose to sin, regardless of how little evidence they have about what choices they should make, and (2) that God may be unloving of his subjects. Seeking to defend the traditional view of eternal damnation, Murray evaluates two models of hell that Christians commonly endorse, which he calls the penalty model and the natural consequence model. As he analyzes objections to each model, Murray concludes that the best defense for the traditional view of eternal damnation is a combination of the two, a hybrid model. The penalty model presents an idea that all humans who are guilty of sin must pay a penalty, and so are punished with spiritual death. However, since Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, those who accept him do not have to pay the penalty. The natural consequences model presents an idea that on Earth, all humans are given libertarian freedom. The decisions that one makes throughout their life will dictate whether they’re a self-lover or a God-lover, which in turn dictates their after-life. The hybrid model takes a combination of these two ideas. All sinners must pay a penalty, but Christ’s death pays the penalty for those who accept him. Those who do not accept Christ naturally become self-lovers and are forced to pay the penalty upon death. Murray believes that this solves the problems presented by the traditional view of eternal damnation. It provides an aspect of freedom to individuals – the freedom to choose whether or not they accept Jesus Christ – which then correlates to the result of them becoming a God-lover or a self-lover and their ultimate fate upon death. If one makes the incorrect choice and does not accept Christ, they will naturally become a self-lover and face the penalty. The result of this penalty is what makes the aspect of freedom in choice meaningful. By not providing solid proof of his existence, God is allowing all humans to exercise a real, meaningful freedom of choice. The traditional problem of evil focuses on the moral and natural evil in the world that God fails to prevent. Lewis, however, argues that there is another problem of evil that is often neglected. Divine evil, as Lewis refers to it, is the problem that God perpetrates evil. By condemning people to Hell for eternity, God is punishing his subjects with an infinite amount of pain and suffering which could not possibly be equivalent to any amount or type of finite sins the person could have committed throughout his life on Earth. According to the scriptures, this is a common occurrence as most people are sent to Hell. With this in mind, God appears to be a divine dictator of infinite evil, not a loving father of his subjects. In response to Murray’s defense of the traditional view of Hell, Lewis would probably provide several points discussed in his writing regarding freedom. First, Lewis discusses the theological tradition. Under these traditions, God offers salvation to all, but does not provide the capability to accept salvation with an open heart and mind to all humans. Secondly, many may not ever have the opportunity to accept salvation. The conditions of the environment that one is born into and resides in throughout their life plays a crucial role in the development of their belief system. With these two points in mind, the allowance of free will is negligible based on what could be a lack of opportunity for some, or deterrent influences for others. Subsequently, Lewis argues that the importance of free will relies on the presumption that incompatibilist freedom – which requires the absence of determinism – is the most superior state. But who’s to say that the world wouldn’t be better if God set it up in a way that eventually everyone would accept salvation? He argues that it is irrational to believe that incompatibilist freedom is worth the eternal torment that many experience as its result. Even for those who do believe that incompatibilist freedom is the best possible state for the world, it still begs the question as to why God couldn’t make himself more apparent. The transparency issue with God’s existence can be very influential in leading people to become self-lovers. In this case, Lewis proves that even with Murray’s hybrid view, God seems to be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, Lewis’s argument emphasizes the lack of evidence provided for God’s existence, a problem that Murray never truly addressed in the first place.
Question 5 Omniscience, to be all knowing, and omnipotence, to be all-powerful, are two properties that God is said to necessarily possess. Blumenfeld, however, believes that these two properties are incompatible, that it is not possible for even God to possess both properties. His claim is based on concept empiricism, the idea that in order to fully comprehend certain concepts, one must experience them. Take for example, the taste of strawberries. If one were to never have eaten strawberries, it would be incredibly difficult to explain the taste for them. In fact, it is impossible for one to explain the taste of a strawberry to someone who has never tasted one in such a way that will allow him or her to grasp the complete concept of what a strawberry tastes like. Blumenfeld refers to this type of knowledge as experiential knowledge, or “qualia”. He believes that in order to gain this type of knowledge, one just experience it first hand.
When one experiences something for the first time, it is rational for them to feel that they gained some new sort of knowledge, something that they had never “known” before. Therefore, this type of knowledge it must exist. Other concepts that require experience for complete comprehension are similarly internal mechanisms that entail a certain personal, subjective experience, such as emotion. If God is omnipotent, he must not be able to feel certain emotions such as fear, anguish, or despair. To feel fear, one must truly believe that they are in danger. Since God is all-powerful, it is impossible for him to genuinely feel that he is in danger. He cannot simply have fear explained to him, he cannot experience fear vicariously through others, and he cannot simply imagine the experience or “trick” himself into feeling fear. Therefore, it must be impossible for him to feel fear. Upon evaluation, anguish and despair yield similar results.
Should Blumenfeld’s argument succeed, the traditional concept of God as an omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect being must be false. Should experiential knowledge be required for one to truly grasp certain concepts, all of which are required to be omniscient, omniscience and moral perfection would also be incompatible. If God were morally perfect, he would never experience such emotions as envy and lust, in which case he must not be omniscient on the basis that a morally perfect God would not have experiential knowledge of emotions since he could not possibly have experienced them. In this case, God cannot be omniscient and morally perfect. If God were omniscient, this quality would solve the problem of evil since it would no longer be inconsistent with his nature.