Avoidance of hell

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Counter apologetics: I can't make myself beieve.)
(various copyediting, wikif.; rem {stub} since not really a stub)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stub}}
+
The '''avoidance of hell''' is a commonly cited reason for believing in [[God]].
"If you don't believe in God, you'll go to [[hell]] after you die."
+
  
The threat of hellfire is most effective against those who already believe in heaven and hell, such as theists who are angry with [[God]].  Its common use against nonbelievers is puzzling - because to threaten someone with something that they don't believe in is utterly ineffective.
+
==Apologetics==
  
==Counter apologetics==
+
[[Hell]] is a horrific place where [[soul]]s are tortured for all eternity. Obviously, no one would want to be consigned there when they [[die]]. If you don't believe in (our conception of) God, you will go to hell. So you better believe in God (accept [[Jesus]] as your personal [[savior]], join our [[church]], etc.). (See also [[Pascal's Wager]].)
  
The threat of eternal damnation and torment is an ever-popular argument of [[fundamentalist]]s and [[presuppositionalist]]s.  It is simply an [[argumentum ad baculum]], even though the person making the argument does not claim to be the one to carry it out.
+
==Counter-apologetics==
  
An effective counter apologetic would be to ask for proof of hell, or to threaten them with another religion's hell, and point out the similarity.
+
The threat of eternal damnation and torment is an ever-popular argument of [[fundamentalist]]s and [[presuppositionalist]]s.  It is simply an [[argumentum ad baculum]] (argument from force), even though the person making the argument does not claim to be the one to carry it out.
The threat of hell differs from [[Pascal's wager]] in several key respects:
+
* Pascal's wager is an intellectual argument. The threat of hell is purely [[Appeal to emotion|emotional]].
+
* With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's wager treats this as an unknown.
+
  
This argument has the same flaw as many others: even if one were convinced by it, how does one go about forcing oneself to believe in God?
+
Obviously, the threat of hellfire is most effective against those who already believe in [[heaven]] and hell, such as [[theist]]s who are angry with [[God]].  Its common use against nonbelievers is puzzling, because to threaten someone with something that they don't believe in is utterly ineffective.
 +
 
 +
Effective counter arguments include:
 +
# Asking for proof that hell exists in the first place.
 +
# Pointing to another religion's concept of hell and explaining that the apologist's argument can be applied equally well to themselves as regards this other religion.
 +
# Pointing out that one cannot force oneself to believe in God even if one is scared by the possibility of going to hell.
 +
 
 +
==Comparison with Pascal's Wager==
 +
 
 +
The simple threat of hell differs from [[Pascal's Wager]] in several key respects:
 +
* Pascal's Wager is an intellectual, philosophical argument. The threat of hell is most commonly raised as a purely [[Appeal to emotion|emotional appeal]].
 +
* With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's Wager treats this as an unknown.
  
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Arguments]]
 
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
 
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Revision as of 18:18, 26 August 2007

The avoidance of hell is a commonly cited reason for believing in God.

Apologetics

Hell is a horrific place where souls are tortured for all eternity. Obviously, no one would want to be consigned there when they die. If you don't believe in (our conception of) God, you will go to hell. So you better believe in God (accept Jesus as your personal savior, join our church, etc.). (See also Pascal's Wager.)

Counter-apologetics

The threat of eternal damnation and torment is an ever-popular argument of fundamentalists and presuppositionalists. It is simply an argumentum ad baculum (argument from force), even though the person making the argument does not claim to be the one to carry it out.

Obviously, the threat of hellfire is most effective against those who already believe in heaven and hell, such as theists who are angry with God. Its common use against nonbelievers is puzzling, because to threaten someone with something that they don't believe in is utterly ineffective.

Effective counter arguments include:

  1. Asking for proof that hell exists in the first place.
  2. Pointing to another religion's concept of hell and explaining that the apologist's argument can be applied equally well to themselves as regards this other religion.
  3. Pointing out that one cannot force oneself to believe in God even if one is scared by the possibility of going to hell.

Comparison with Pascal's Wager

The simple threat of hell differs from Pascal's Wager in several key respects:

  • Pascal's Wager is an intellectual, philosophical argument. The threat of hell is most commonly raised as a purely emotional appeal.
  • With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's Wager treats this as an unknown.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox