Intro:

The Christian doctrine of hell as found recorded in the Bible (much of it from the lips of Jesus himself, sorry Bill Maher) is a punishment that cannot possibly fit any crime committed by any finite human being on this earth in their short lifetime.  Even the worst person who ever lived who amazingly managed to do the most evil ever simply does not deserve it.  Even if humans really are totally depraved equally across the board in the most Calvinistic sense possible, the punishment still would not fit that crime (not to mention that is entrapment).  They may deserve a whole lot of retribution, but there's obviously such a thing as too much.  No Christian is going to argue that punishments don't have to fit the crime and so they have to figure out how to make those ends meet somehow.

There have been numerous popular attempts to justify the unjustifiable, and I'd like to rigorously show how those attempts fail.  From mere assertions, to attacking the critic or some alternative worldview as though that makes Christianity coherent, to passing the buck in some way to humans, to giving humans some infinite quality they don't have, to appealing to some irrelevant quality that the Christian god is supposed to have, to misrepresenting the Bible, to misrepresenting the concepts presented in the Bible, and just arguing fallaciously all the way around, the doctrine is plainly indefensible.  To that end, I've used the Compendium software to argument map all of those debates and nail all that apologetic Jell-O to the wall "once and for all" (as if that were possible).

Here is the legend to understand the map nodes (click to embiggen):

Be sure and check out the supporting posts (which are referenced on the map itself in appropriate locations): "Does the Bible teach eternal suffering for the unsaved?" and "Is it easy to be saved?" 

My recommendation, given the info overload factor, is to skim through the 30 objections and find the one you specifically care about and just focus on that particular tangent.  I will let you know if you are bumping into other things.  Start at the left of the map and follow the arrows (click to biggyfie):

I will work with anyone who will constructively work with me to improve the map.  I'm sure there are Christians out there who are interested in figuring out how best to defend the doctrine and who wish to eliminate the bad arguments from their arsenal.  This is a two way street, since I could always get stuff wrong.  To help out, here are some suggested themes to contribute to:

• Please let me know of other arguments from apologists not represented here. 
• Let me know if there are better ways to put their arguments (if you think I've straw-manned anyone). 
• Let me know if there are better responses to any of the popular arguments from other non-believers.
• Let me know if there are better responses from other Christians who are against other versions of Christian beliefs. 
• Let me know of any spelling or grammatical errors I may have made. 
• Let me know if you have any organizational suggestions which might make it easier to digest. 
• Etc.

Oh...and please be specific.  Thanks.

Meanwhile, I'll be chasing down every lead that I know of on my own time.  I've pulled from my own history of arguing with Christians and hit up the wiki of course.  I will be investigating the hell views of every Christian apologist who took interest in the recent popular skeptical anthology "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" since they are likely to do so with John Loftus' next book.  Keith Parsons' chapter on "Hell: Christianity’s Most Damnable Doctrine" in the next skeptical anthology "The End of Christianity" will be released on July 26th, 2011 and I'd like to have a final version of this by around that time.  I'll be mapping whatever responses he gets to his chapter (assuming they are novel).  Many of the books in the anti-new atheists book list are searchable through Amazon and so I will be lifting their responses to the many criticisms Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have dished out.

Outro:

Possibly the best part of this is the reaction from Christians to the answers other Christians give in defense of this ridiculous doctrine.  And one doesn't necessarily get that kind of shock without lining all the excuses up next to each other.   I've only contributed one response to the argument (see the previous argument map: Could Jesus be lying about hell?) and yes, other Christians do in fact argue all the others that are found somewhere on the map.  I'm not making it up.  Sorry. 

I was also thinking we might print the final version out on bedsheets to perhaps sell at upcoming skeptical events (like Skepticon 4).  My significant other suggested that we call them "Pascal's Bedsheets."  Our marketing line will be, "Rest well, knowing hell shouldn't keep you up at night anymore."   I've never actually personally feared the fires of hell as a Christian or later as an atheist (since I was too intellectually embarrassed by the obvious wish fulfillment aspect of heaven, and the obvious petty hearsay threat of hell), but it is understandably a powerful influence in the lives of many believers and ex-believers.  It is also a large ripe target for critics of the religion to continually harp on as Christianity looses its grip on the culture.  And I think we should keep on that.

If someone would like to program an iPhone app with this map for easy on-the-go argument access, that would be awesome.

Ben

Intro:

[Please, note that updates to this map will be posted here: "(argument map) The doctrine of hell is unjust."]

So last week I was listening to Alpha & Omega Ministries' James White give his very Christian thoughts on the William Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate.  White presented a number of amazing misrepresentations of Harris' views, made huge accusations against Harris' character based on circumstantial evidence, and gave many standard "not my religion" objections to what he called Harris' "red herring" rebuttals in the debate.  This isn't just "off topic" for White, but also even if it were the topic White wants to think Harris has misrepresented various aspects of Christian doctrine (not all are covered here though). 

So this inspired me to revisit my old post, "The Dubious Doctrine of Hell" and generate a comprehensive argument map with some updated arguments (Actually, I did the vast majority of it from memory, but it parallels the content from that post and I double checked some things to make sure I remembered my talking points).

Anyway, the basic premise is that the doctrine of hell is a punishment that does not fit the crime no matter how you cut the cake.  Christians preach a just god and hence their moral paradigm and their worldview are incoherent.  Most Christians if they accepted that conclusion would not remain Christian even though technically speaking, there could still exist an extremely powerful unjust god or forfeit Biblical inerrancy or something.  I state that argument in the "popular" sense so that all the cliche' responses to it from Christians can "correct" the argument and then I can show how those "corrections" don't amount to anything more than quibbling. 

Enjoy:

Feel free to update me with more of those delightful nuances (or spelling corrections, etc.) in the comments.  There will be no "not my religion" excuses, but I'm sure there's more twists and turns to add.

I really like the longest tangent there that cuts through the majority of the map since the end summary basically gets to add up a long list of improbable, unproven, and suspiciously ad hoc excuses that it would take to make the doctrine of hell morally plausible.  Basically god's perfection and goodness amount to his omnnipotent arms being mysteriously tied behind his immaterial back.  My old post is an extremely long and thorough reaming of the doctrine from every conceivable angle I could think of at the time.  I recall being baffled at many of the things various Christians were offering up in defense and I even took an informal poll at work to find out if it was true that people would really value eternal torment over non-existence.  Sometimes it really seems like Christians will gnaw off their own philosophical foot like a wolf caught in a trap before they'll doubt their religion.  As far as Biblical arguments from evil go, the doctrine of hell is probably the biggest thorn in the side of mainstream Christian culture from a PR perspective and merits rigorous articulation to nail all that defensive apologetic Jell-O to the wall. 

Outro:

There are two "link nodes" on the map ("Does the Bible teach eternal suffering for the unsaved?" and "Is it easy to be saved?") that have been posted.  There are six links to other maps that I'll get around to posting eventually. 

Ben

Intro:

I think it's pretty clear the Bible teaches eternal torment for the unsaved and Jesus himself is the primary advocate of the doctrine.  In case anyone hasn't happened to peruse the verses, I've collected the most pertinent here.

This post is designed to supplement my forthcoming argument map on the injustice of the Christian doctrine of hell.  I couldn't fit all these verses with commentary on an argument map, so here we go...

Scripture Picture

Arguably there are a few different versions of the afterlife in the Bible especially in comparison from the Old Testament to the New Testament, but we aren’t talking about contradictions here (other than the Bible says God is good and he isn’t).  Everything in bold is "emphasis mine."

Isaiah 66:24

"And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

Daniel 12:2

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Hebrews 6:1-2

Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Jude 7

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Revelation 14:9-11

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.  And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever.  There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

Mark 3:29

But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

Mark 9:43

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.  And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.  And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'  Everyone will be salted with fire.

Matthew 25:41-46

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Luke 16:19-31

The Rich Man and Lazarus

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.  At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried.  In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.  So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.  And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'

Outro:

I'm sure there may very well be limited metaphors at work in these passages, but they must be limited as in god doesn't have to go into details of the physics of it, but you get the gist.  If you try to metaphoricalize it away, contextually it becomes gibberish.  Sure not every verse spells it out, but do they have to?  Not every connection directly relates to everlasting torment…but what other comparison would there be?  Why can’t those earthly finite connections be the limited metaphors instead?  That makes much more overall contextual sense.

So I needed two posts of Bible verses to spell out chunks of my next argument map.  There will be several other supplemental argument maps as well, since all of these debate link up with all the other debates...

Ben

Intro:

The Bible does not portray salvation as trite and as easy as modern pop-culture Christianity would like us to believe. Many Christians are of course under no illusions that their afterlife plan entails "a difficult life," but they don't seem to recognize the implications of that when juxtaposed to what is at stake according to their own doctrine. 

This post is a supplemental post for my argument map on the injustice of the Christian doctrine of hell (which is forthcoming in a few days).

I've always complained I've never met any "real" Christians since none of them have all the cool magic powers the early Church had.  But even those "obvious" Christians can't be too confident:

Matthew 7:21-23

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'  Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Let's not forget the religious moderates among us:

Revelation 3:16

So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

You guys should definitely stop being so not-Westboro-Baptist on us. 

And if you think this god will judge you fairly based on your own standards (I do mean you, Richard Carrier), consider:

Mark 4:24

"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. [emphasis mine]

Wow...that seems a bit unnecessarily dishonest, but whatever.  Who are we to talk back to the Christian god?  Moving on...

And if you think this god is necessarily intimately cultivating your soul..chew on this:

Matthew 25:24

"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed.

The "Master" is clearly meant to represent the Christian god in this salvation parable and that seems quite a haphazard "whatever happens happens" methodology.  That makes me feel extremely secure.   

And for you believing slackers out there:

1 Corinthians 9:24

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

No wonder it says:

Philippians 2:12

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

That sounds pretty tough.  This planet doesn't seem very geared towards generating the maximum number of saints any more than it seems set up to generate the maximum number of professional basketball players.  In case you thought only Hitler will end up in hell:

Matthew 7:14

But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. [emphasis mine]

The body count of hell has to come from somewhere, folks.  So it seems almost certain that many more Christians than not who will be reading this should have a great deal less confidence in their salvation, "realistically" speaking. 

I quote all this in order to make the Christians who say, "it's so easy, just believe" a little antsy.  Not quite feeling like an Olympic saint today?  Not so keen on 9 out of 10 people you know being royally screwed over for all eternity (or having to watch)?  Wondering why you have to play such a dangerous game without your consent that you didn't start?  Second guessing how meaningful it is to have this god's grace "on your team" when it's still pretty much dependent on you?  Thinking maybe that this god isn't such a great guy after all?  If you think everything is okay here...you seem quite mistaken to say the least.  You can quote verses that more uplifting things and yet they will not magically cancel out anything said here.

Scripture seems keen on painting a very grim picture and when apologists and evangelists would like to spin that in a way that is not really representative of the contents of their holy book, non-believers such as myself wonder where the intellectual honesty of the defenders of Christianity wandered off to.  Because this is what I see:  

It's like apologists manage to see "Buddy Jesus" despite the obvious "Jigsaw Jesus" architecture of the situation.  In the Saw horror movies, Jigsaw defends himself as not a murderer, because apparently even though his victims were put in some overtly panic inducing environment...they could have immediately seen Jigsaw's perspective, followed all the rules and saved themselves.  This is the moral equivalent of saying, "I'm not a hit man...there was a 10% chance my sniper bullet could have been blown off course by the wind."  Similarly, it seems the Christian god might try to say, "I'm not an evil god...there was a ten percent chance you could have been saved given the convoluted circumstances I let you be born in."  Jesus did seem to call the final score there in case you thought all of this might turn out all right in the end.

You decide.

Outro:

The next supplementary post to my forthcoming argument map will be, "Does the Bible teach eternal suffering for the unsaved?" since there are apparently many Christians in denial of that in some form. 

Ben

Intro:

I started and run a forum called Responsible Public Debate at the local Ethical Society in St. Louis, MO.  I invite various speakers to present their position in contrast to another.  They give their   presentation, respond to each other's points, and then we take audience questions.  Two weeks later after some fact checking, video uploading, and some argument mapping we meet again to build off of the cases laid out in the debate, evaluate the outcomes of the fact checking, and catch all those loose ends that typically tend to get lost when debates come and go.  All in all, it can be a very enriched experience tackling an issue for those who participate.  This is an exercise in civility and responsible epistemology and a learning experience on just how to make this kind of thing happen.  Ideally, I'd like to see RPD groups (or something like them) pop up all over the country at a grass roots level and become an expected staple of a healthy democratic society.  I'm also sure to promote any other forums in the area and abroad that embody similar values and give shout outs to instances of healthy cross-ideological conversations that happen in our media. 

The argument map (click to rebiggen):

The issue is about including a clause in anti-bullying legislation that goes out of its way to define specific categories of victim groups.  The clause reads:

Does this help or hinder?

My answer:  It probably helps. 

Eleven states that have enumeration in their laws have fewer reported cases of bullying.  As even the research points out, correlation is not causation, but the logic behind why enumeration helps seems more solid than the logic against it.  Enumeration empowers teachers to be able to speak up and say that something like "being gay" is okay in some authoritative sense where otherwise they might fear losing their job for being some gay activist.  It is legal in Missouri to fire someone for being gay or to kick them out of their apartment and so have a specific legal clause that ensures this category is protected means that teachers can freely do their job.  It also enables students who have a minority status to feel more secure when perhaps the local prejudices of the school they attend might otherwise seem set against them by default.  Even if more tolerant and understanding school districts happen to be the ones most likely to adopt enumerated policies (in other words, the enumeration didn't exactly cause the benefit), this doesn't seem like an argument against the positive case for enumeration.  Its seems more like an argument for a change in attitude on behalf of the states and school boards to get in step with the idea behind the legislation which would further contribute to that end. 

I await to see the evidence that shows that enumeration somehow lop-sides the focus on protecting certain kinds of victims over others that have not been spelled out.  It is not like we are introducing teachers to the concepts of ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.  They were there all along and I don't think calling attention to them is somehow mental sabotage or blinders towards other more vague kinds of bullying as much as it is legal structure to protect all parties involved, enabling them to do what should be done.  Most of us have probably been bullied at some point in the past as one of our debaters pointed out (I think I can count the number of times on one hand for me), but some of us were bullied much more frequently than others and for basically the same set of obvious reasons.  Some of the broadest sides of the barn need to be spelled out and the Safe Schools Act can simply add an open-ended clause in addition.  The punishments for bullying, as I understand it, are no more harsh for any other kind, so this doesn't appear to be a "thought crimes" issue.  Certainly more study could be done on the issue to tease out every angle which could be addressed to further inhibit bullying in schools. 

I'd like to again thank Kerry Messer from the Missouri Family Network and Morgan Keenan from PROMO for participating in our forum.  The video of their debate can be found here.

Ben

Intro:

Look out Alvin Plantinga and affiliates.  Your reign of sophistry is over (*giggles*).  I promised to go back to this, and I meant it.  I do eventually get back to things when I'm ready for it (or when I'm not really busy, you know, not being online). 

When evaluating whether or not the Christian hypothesis that a good God exists is legitimate, there are many approaches.  There are evidential arguments from evil, Biblical arguments from evil, doctrinal arguments from evil, and the ever elusive logical argument from evil which has to be airtight.  Christians and intellectually honest atheists (and whomever else is interested in a solid argument) should be concerned with these five questions (and maybe others) when evaluating my argument map:

 A:  Is my definition of God good enough for this argument?

B:  Is my definition of moral perfection good enough for this argument?

C:  Have I sufficiently established that at least "one drop" of evil or greater exists?

D:  Have I committed any logical fallacies in my reasoning?

E:  Have I boxed in all possible objections (even unknown ones) in a perfectly logical way?

It should also be noted that this is an ontological and logical argument from evil that necessarily incorporates the concept of divine simplicity as well. 

Notice that all objections are labeled with numbers and letters and it would be greatly appreciated if any interested parties would label their responses or objections appropriately based on the established system.  Notation may slide around a bit as the argument map becomes more elaborate and new objections and responses are plugged in.  Please point out my spelling errors or if I mess up the numbering system (or if you have a better idea for a numbering system, please present it).

Enjoy (click on the image to embiggen): 

        

Archive:

        

Outro:

I will be reposting revisions right here!

If successful, I hope to prove that the entire enterprise of investigating and/or defending any theodicy of any kind is a philosophical fool's errand. 

Ben