Do these common criticisms of an eternal afterlife have merit?
Besides the matter of evidence for its existence and who goes there the two most common criticisms of the idea of an eternal afterlife thats amazing and perfect in every conceivable way (Heaven) are the issues of eventual boredom and personal continuity (retaining your human personality and remaining you even after a very long time). In the next two paragraphs Ill detail why I think these arguments are wrong.
Assuming a basic deistic framework for the sake of making this discussion easier Heaven is a perfect supernatural realm of peace, happiness, fulfillment etc governed by an all powerful, all loving and all knowing deity that made all of existence (including the afterlife) from nothing and intangible souls that retain their living personalities and exist forever also from nothing. With all of this in mind it would be absolutely trivial for God to make it so people in Heaven (or whatever you want to call it) never got bored and retained their personalities and what makes them them even as their minds and bodies are improved and time went on. If people got bored (for long at least) and miserable or became different people completely divorced from who they were on Earth it wouldnt be perfect and naturally wouldnt be Heaven. Mental continuity and individual identity are essential parts of personhood so I dont see why they wouldnt be retained indefinitely. I believe it was C.S. Lewis that said in Heaven you become fully human and reach the self actualization you yearned for your entire mortal life and its perfectly designed for your habitation like a glove for a hand.
Some may consider this a cop out but we shouldnt expect a supernatural realm to be governed by the same rules that dictate our physical universe as long as its logically possible. Its like saying a hypothetical wizards magic powers arent possible given our understanding of science. Its magic so by definition it isnt explainable using conventional means. Imagine an insect expressing incredulity at the idea of skyscrapers, algebra, quantum physics and supercomputers or someone asking if there would be enough room for everyone in Heaven. The answer to the usual questions is within the very premise itself even if we as mortal beings living in the real world cant fully comprehend it.
Does this counter argument sound reasonable or is there something Im missing?
Assuming a basic deistic framework for the sake of making this discussion easier Heaven is a perfect supernatural realm of peace, happiness, fulfillment etc governed by an all powerful, all loving and all knowing deity that made all of existence (including the afterlife) from nothing and intangible souls that retain their living personalities and exist forever also from nothing. With all of this in mind it would be absolutely trivial for God to make it so people in Heaven (or whatever you want to call it) never got bored and retained their personalities and what makes them them even as their minds and bodies are improved and time went on. If people got bored (for long at least) and miserable or became different people completely divorced from who they were on Earth it wouldnt be perfect and naturally wouldnt be Heaven. Mental continuity and individual identity are essential parts of personhood so I dont see why they wouldnt be retained indefinitely. I believe it was C.S. Lewis that said in Heaven you become fully human and reach the self actualization you yearned for your entire mortal life and its perfectly designed for your habitation like a glove for a hand.
Some may consider this a cop out but we shouldnt expect a supernatural realm to be governed by the same rules that dictate our physical universe as long as its logically possible. Its like saying a hypothetical wizards magic powers arent possible given our understanding of science. Its magic so by definition it isnt explainable using conventional means. Imagine an insect expressing incredulity at the idea of skyscrapers, algebra, quantum physics and supercomputers or someone asking if there would be enough room for everyone in Heaven. The answer to the usual questions is within the very premise itself even if we as mortal beings living in the real world cant fully comprehend it.
Does this counter argument sound reasonable or is there something Im missing?
Comments (2)
The problem with this is that reasoning has absolutely no value, no importance in all of this. This contradicts the very activity of
- doing theology: if reasoning has absolutely no value, whats the point of working on doing theology?
- and human intelligence: isnt reasoning a Gods gift? So, whats the point of treating it as having absolutely no value? Even if we consider that Gods plan was to give us a limited intelligence, then the question is: why? Why did God decide to give us such a limited intelligence? Why didnt he make us Gods as well, equal to him?
In short, the ultimate flaw in the problem of theodicy, as well as in the reasoning you described, is that it doesnt take seriously human intelligence. Why should we believe in a God who doesnt take seriously our intelligence, either by escaping into his unreachable superiority or by creating us with such a limited intelligence, if compared to his supposed one?
Boredom? Impossible! Unless...repetition is inevitable (eternal recurrence).
Furthermore, we can drink from the Lethe. Haven't we all? :wink: The effect is neither complete nor permanent. :snicker: