More Problems With Ultimate Purpose and Heaven
Friday, September 9, 2011
Editor’s Note: This is an updated and retitled version of a previous post.
Follow up to: Do We Need an Ultimate Purpose?
In my post “Do We Need an Ultimate Purpose”, I talked about a Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig, who was offering this idea of an ultimate purpose that we can only get from God, and then used this as an explanation for why we need to believe in God. And I demonstrated how this ultimate purpose is based on a circular argument, for the ultimate purpose itself is essentially defined as the kind of purpose only God can give.
I also repeated a common refrain: the regular non-ultimate purposes that make our life not so bleak and hopeless are perfectly okay; leading us to die with a satisfied life if we work for it. Failing to believe in God does not diminish our purpose in any noticeable manner. We can be perfectly happy without God.
So we can dispense forever with the ideas that atheism / naturalism / humanism is some sort of absurd, worthless philosophy in which you ought to be depressed and kill yourself.
However, there is more to be said: some of Craig’s other arguments relating to ultimate purposes and heaven are incoherent.
And note that this is an analysis based on the philosophy alone. While I do think there is a lack of evidence for the afterlife, good reasons to not believe anything supernatural, other good reasons to not specifically believe in the soul, and specific conceptual problems with some ideas of afterlife, in this section of the essay I will be assuming the afterlife exists and is infinite, and will look to see if an immortal life really does give us more purpose and fulfillment.
Essentially, I am demonstrating that Craig’s ultimate purpose is false because it makes no sense, without regard to the idea that it also is probably based on false ideas about how the world works.
God as the Ultimate Purpose?
Craig argues that the immortality within the afterlife is one of the key two pieces of ultimate significance, the other being God. In p120 of in God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, Craig even mentions that the goal of humanity is not happiness, but “the knowledge of God”.
I question that this knowledge of God could really be conceived of as our only purpose. First we have to ask Why is the knowledge of God the goal of life? What are our motivations for knowing God? Certainly they’re not based on a simple desire to go to Heaven and/or avoid Hell, since that would be finding ultimate significance in selfishness.
But why else would we want to know God? Do we want to know God because we have a desire to know God, perhaps built into us teleologically when God designed us? Hardly, given the amount of sinning that people are said to do and the amount of people who want nothing to do with God. And even so, why would we want to do what we were designed to do, if given a choice?
It seems that any grounding for a desire to know God must be grounded not in God himself, but in us. Only we can motivate our own actions, so we must recognize knowledge of God as a good thing for us to do. This means that knowing God is rooted in our own personal satisfaction, with knowledge that knowing God will make us happier than if we didn’t.
Why would we want to go to Heaven? Because it’s supposed to be a place of infinite joy, not matched by anything else that is conceivable. And we get to avoid what may be a place of infinite suffering, which is definitely a bonus. Thus knowledge of the Christian God is perhaps the biggest win for us personally, if such a being exists.
But if so, we’re still critically rooting this within ourselves, making this the same kind of purpose we can already have, except more so. In this picture, God is an indirect means to get at what we really want (infinite joy), and we are merely shoehorned into worshipping him because no other means at getting this is available.
Thus the external motivation problem: we must be motivated to seek God for reasons external to God.
The Infinite Discounting Problem
Now don’t get me wrong — I’d be perfectly happy to live for a few thousand years or so. However, I’m not really sure I want infinite life. While existence in Heaven is incomprehensible, it seems like it would get boring after awhile.
Are there an infinite amount of things to do in Heaven? It seems like after the trillionth year or so, life might get a little bit old. Not to mention what happens when the amount of years we’ve spent alive starts to match some of my large numbers. Can you imagine living for Graham’s Number years?
But consider what an infinite life truly means. It leads to endless procrastination. Whatever you do or don’t do, there will always be time to do it later. You could get to Heaven, take a few trillion years off, and then start doing things and suffer no consequences and no lost opportunity.
This is a special case that occurs with an infinite life. Even if we lived for Graham’s Number years, there would still be an upper limit to the amount of things we can do in our life; the amount of experiences we can have. It would be absurdly high upper limit, but a limit nonetheless. If we live for an eternity this limit doesn’t exist. All people will be able to experience and do an infinite number of things, no matter how slow or fast they do things. If we live infinitely long, there doesn’t seem to be much indication that we will have any motivation to do anything.
This even carries over into our personal life in the physical world — why bother to do anything after you’ve guaranteed your salvation through faith? You have an infinite amount of time, what’s the rush? Our life is far more valuable when it is finite.
Thus the infinite discounting problem: since you lose nothing by not doing something with an infinite amount of time, all these experiences are infinitely discounted until they become worthless.
The Complacency Problem
Heaven can also be really bad for things on Earth. If Earth is merely here to allow you either choose God or reject God, as it seems Craig is saying, why do we care about anything here? Why fight to save people from death once they’ve chosen God? Why bother to end suffering here on Earth if it’s just going to be temporary? Why bother to do anything about poverty? If Earth is temporary and Heaven is perfect, why bother to improve life on Earth at all? If Craig agrees that salvation comes through faith alone, not doing good works, then where does the motivation to do good works on a temporary Earth that doesn’t last forever come from?
If we were to follow the Heaven logic all the way, we would become complacent here on Earth. We would have no reason to make the world a better place, for as Craig says, all our works would be merely temporary and completely overshadowed by the power of God and the eternality of Heaven.
Yet, besides simply being hopeless this also is a contradiction. We notice that we are not complacent: many people, Heaven-bound and otherwise, feel a strong desire to make the world a better place. A lot of Christians feel compelled to end injustice, alleviate poverty, and ameliorate desease. But why? Not only will it not matter once we get to Heaven, but God could do all these things in one metaphorical snap of a finger. The fact that we keep moving on to make Earth a better place means that Earth has its own merit. Perhaps seeking eternal life is not the ultimate purpose, but one purpose among many.
It could be argued that people who are making the world a better place are doing God’s work. But this itself sets Christianity up for numerous philosophical objections. If God merely set up Earth as a place for us to accept or reject him, the idea that Earth also needs to be fixed by humanity seems odd at best. Why not wait until we get to Heaven?
Furthermore, if curing suffering of others is done to make them more likely to accept God, that’s even worse. First, it means God is manipulating circumstances to affect people’s judgement, perhaps a violation of free will. Second, it means that God created the suffering in the first place merely to be cured later all in a grand attempt to get people to worship him, which seems immoral by human standards in the extreme. This makes God fails by any human standard of immorality, as we see in The Great Problem of Evil, Part I.
For now, it also means the complacency problem: There is no need to improve Earth if we will end up in a perfect Heaven.
The Will to Live Problem
We notice one last contradiction with the desire to go to Heaven and how we act on Earth. We notice we have a strong will to live. We don’t commit suicide. We wear helmets, harnesses, and seat belts. We run from murderers and robbers. We most consistently work to avoid death. The vast majority of the religious and nonreligious all have an equal will to live.
But why? If Heaven is perfect and life on Earth sucks, why aren’t people jumping ship to Heaven? A will to live in this case is a will to live out life on Earth as much as possible — to delay entrance to Heaven as long as possible. How do you reconcile the fact that Heaven is a paradise that everyone should want to get to with the fact that people try as hard as they can to prolong their entrance to Heaven? Why aren’t people living recklessly to attempt to get to Heaven as fast as possible?
My point in this is not to say that Christian theology recommends suicide. Instead, I point out this fact to indicate that there is good reason to be living on Earth. Like in the “Complacency Problem”, the “Will to Live Problem” shows that people want to be on Earth for some reason.
They feel fulfilled here without needing to immediately jump to Heaven. But why?
Liked this Essay?
- You can get more Greatplay.net by looking at these categories: All, Naturalism.
- Or perhaps you'd be interested in a complete table of contents of all essays?
- You could also subscribing to the RSS feed, or use the sidebar to subscribe for email updates!
- Or you could follow me on Twitter or like me on Facebook
- If you feel particularly participatory, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to leave a comment.
“I’d be perfectly happy to live for a few thousand years or so. However, I’m not really sure I want infinite life”
I often think about this, on the rare occassions when I’m not cooking up meaningless metaphors, or embracing agnosticism towards solipsism, as it’s a non-falsifiable belief. Given a healthy body, or whatever it is angels have, would you ever will your own death?
I am reminded of some trashy sci-fi I read, where there are very few Methuselah, humans who’ve lived over 300, in part because most are not psychological able to cope.
“They feel fulfilled here without needing to immediately jump to Heaven. But why?”
They can, though it may be called an escape to the possible, argue that they are humble, they don’t feel certain that they will not be judged unworthy of heaven.
Alternatively they may argue they don’t want to waste/have a more profound respect of, God’s Gift of Life.
Peter I believe you are missing the point of ultimate purpose. That said, I think you are missing it, because William Lane Craig is missing it. How could he be missing his own idea? I am fairly certain that it is not his idea, but an adaptation of Paul Tillich’s theory of God and Faith. Tillich is probably the most prominent theologian of our time, his work proceeds Craig’s by almost half a century, and doing a little research I see Craig cites and references Tillich. The idea of “ultimate purpose” in God is a adaptation to Tillich’s theory of faith as “ultimate concern.”
Tillich states that fundamental to the human condition is living in a reality that is completely finite, while containing within the mind a conception of the infinite. We yearn to in some way be connected to that infinite. Ultimate concern can be about anything. If you are a scientist, you place ultimate concern in Truth, knowledge is your God. If you are a patriot, ultimate concern is in the continuation of the state, the nation is your God. If you are a humanist, ultimate concern is in the continuation of the human species. There are many many forms of ultimate concern. None of them demands a heaven or a deity. To Tillich “God” is not a isolated thing, but a characteristic of everything. It is the characteristic of depth. Peter you cite Craig as arguing “We can be perfectly happy without God.” I understand from your definition of God what this implies and why it is wrong (which based on that definition it is wrong) but replace God the word God with depth, with engaging in some sphere (the social, the professional, the natural) and being able to see what you are doing as having the utmost importance. That is depth, to Tillich that is God.
Perhaps I would have to write a thesis to prove what I am about to say, but I must ask the reader here to have faith in me and take me on my words not my evidence. You can do the research yourself if you want. The field of theology can be split into two factions. Those who seriously engage with the study of faith, religion, and God, not as elements of Christianity, but necessary facets of human life. Such academics are truly academics, and their theories and arguments define a faith, God, and religion, that exists beyond Christianity. The other faction is a group of individuals who believe that theology is the promotion of Christianity, not the academic study of God and faith itself. Mr. Craig is from the latter group. In my opinion the academic work of these individuals is academic in name alone. I am sure that is why the book you cited, “God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist”, uses Craig. Member of the former faction would not debate atheists, to the contrary, Tillich argues that atheist are some of the most sincerely religious people in our modern world, more so than many Christians whose faith has become idolatrous.
Peter this is why I suggested some books for you to read. I find myself repeating the words of a man I met in a heated debate about psychoanalysis. It is perfectly fine if you want to disagree with a field of study. But it is your obligation to seek out the most current and refined elements of that field, not attack outdated theory. Every field has its trials throughout its development, every field (atheists too) has its embarrassments, and without a doubt every field of thought has been abused by some individual or group for political gain. Do not use the worst a reality has to offer to define it. Again, this is why I find definitions much more important than you, especially when dealing with matters of such strong connotation. Craig’s argument is circular logic, it is bad. But it is not theology. It is not God. it is not ultimate concern. You are burning a straw-man.
@Tom
Your comment is enchanting.
I am genuinely moved by it.
All I would add is that this particular strawman isn’t one of P.Hurford’s construction and has been paraded around far too long. Perhaps some strawmen are better burndt.
I agree Joseph,
Part of my response is unfair to Peter. I also misread him at one point, I meant to cite
“Craig even mentions that the goal of humanity is not happiness, but ‘the knowledge of God’”
not
“We can be perfectly happy without God”
But that is besides the point. The last paragraph of my response is less about anything in his essay and more a continued personal endeavor to push an idea on him.
“Peter this is why I suggested some books for you to read”
Maybe I am not the intended target, but if you provide a link I’d be willing to look
@joseph:
I made the edits you outlined in additional comments. I’m still thinking through a way to allow commenters to edit their own comments.
I could imagine myself wanting to do so in a few thousand years. I’d at least want the option open.
~
They are specifically The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn and Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich. You can find them, and many more books people have told me about, on my reading list.
@Tom:
Wonderful and insightful, as always.
I wasn’t aware of this, but sure. You’re surprisingly well read. I agree with Joseph that I was aiming to shatter Craig’s idea, which is fairly common in popular (but not so good) evangelism.
~
Then I would obviously believe in this notion of utmost importance called God, though we might as well just call it “utmost importance” so we don’t confuse ourselves.
This is very different from the idea that we need specifically infinite life and a relationship with the Christian deity to have purpose, so I think it’s a completely different notion than the narrow one I took to defeat. Perhaps you agree with me here.
~
I strongly agree with this and find you said it very eloquently. But you paint what I was trying to do with too broad a brush. I’m not against Tillich’s or your notion of “ultimate purpose” but specifically Craig’s notion of “ultimate purpose”.
~
I agree with it in principle: ultimate values are important and a necessary component of life. But I think calling these values “God” is unnecessarily confusing, because many Christians I interact with definitely don’t have this sense in mind when they say God.
Instead they have the personal, literal, actually-existing deity that hears your prayers, affects the world, wants you to do this and not that, and will send you to either a literal, physical heaven or hell when you die. This entity is categorically different than something like “compassion” or “truth”, to the point where it is necessary to argue definitions here and make a distinction between the two.
And you know how much I don’t think it necessary to argue definitions.
Hahhah what do you mean surprisingly well read!! I read like I’m afraid I will forget how.
Also the idea I was trying to push is not the one of ultimate importance, but the importance of definitions in some situations!
I know you were attacking Craig’s idea, and perhaps that is needed if it really is a prevalent idea, but what I was saying is I feel Craig represents an increasingly marginalized position… or at least I hope so.
@ Joseph
If you are interested in Faith, God, and that stuff, I would recommend The Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich.
In terms of just novel ideas, I would suggest Bruno Latour ‘We Have Never Been Modern’ or Thomas Kuhn ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’
I’ve never heard you mention that before; I’ll have to add it to the list.
@Tom & P.Hurford
Thankyou.
I’ve been reading “Physicalism” by Daniel Stojlnar, and “Is God a Moral monster” by P.Copan.
I’ve had it up to here with Metaphysicians and Apoligists.
Could it be that under your definition, Tom, that P.Hurford’s “Ultimate Purpose/God” is too help rid us of poor apologetics and help us think in a way that more thoroughly aids and endorses understanding our world, free from superstition?
Here here! I approve on both accounts!
Though my ultimate purpose is probably even more ultimate than that: I want to help as many people as I possibly can in ways that are as significant as possible.