Comments due by 11:59pm Saturday, November 23, 2013.
You have read Thomas Talbott's essay "No Hell" for class. Here I want you to critically evaluate the two lines of reasoning he offers to show that appeals to human freedom do not work as a defense of eternal hell. The first line of reasoning refers to the limits of possible freedom. The second line of reasoning refers to the limits of permissible freedom.
What do you make of those lines of reasoning? Does Talbott present a plausible case against a doctrine of eternal hell? Why or why not?
Press each other here. Demand reasons. And as always, be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from one another.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Two Arguments for Christian Universalism
Comments Due: 11:59pm on Tuesday, November 19th, 2013.
Here are two things that I'd like you to think about regarding this topic of eternal hell, universalism, and the Christian concept of God.
First: Christian philosopher Stephen T. Davis (Claremont McKenna College) considers the following to be one of the five best arguments for universalism that he can think of:
"How can the Blessed experience joy in heaven if friends and loved ones are in hell? Obviously (so universalists will argue), they can't. People can only know joy and happiness in heaven if everyone else is or eventually will be there too. If the Blessed are to experience joy in heaven, as Christian tradition says they are, universalism must be true."
(Note that Tom Talbott, the Christian philosopher you will be reading shortly, seems to offer a similar line of reasoning in the essay you will read. He also more explicitly offers that reasoning here: http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/basic.shtml.)
Now, Davis is no universalist. (Talbott is.) But regarding the above line of reasoning he writes:
"How can the Blessed be joyous if friends and loved ones are in hell? I do not know an adequate answer to this question. I expect that if I knew enough about heaven I would know the answer, but I know little about heaven. The problem is perhaps less acute for me than for those seperationists who believe hell is a place of permanent torture. If I am right, the Blessed need not worry that loved ones are in agony and are allowed to hope that God's love can even yet achieve a reconciliation. But there is still the question how, say, a wife can experience joy and happiness in heaven while her beloved husband is in hell. And that is the question I am unable to answer satisfactorily. It would seem to be unjust for God to allow the wrong choices of the damned--i.e., their rejection of God--to ruin the joy of the Blessed, who have chosen to love God. But how God brings it about that the Blessed experience the joy of the presence of God despite the absence of others, I do not know."
How might you respond to this particular universalist line of reasoning? Do you find it compelling? If so, why? If not, can you do better than Davis here? Consider what others say and be sure to respond to each other.
Second: This essay has been up since I was in grad school. The essay is entitled "Universalism and the Bible" and it is written by Keith DeRose (a Christian philosopher at Yale who, incidentally, did his undergraduate studies at Calvin College, a Christian college in Grand Rapids, MI).
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
Give the essay a close read. Jot some things down while you read. Take notes. Pause to reflect. And then respond here. Did DeRose make some compelling points? If so, what are they? Where, if anywhere, did his case seem weakest? What are the objections you might press? Does he have any good replies to those objections available to him? How do DeRose's views fit into the Walls/Talbott exchange? (You will be reading the Talbott essay here shortly.)
Be sure to interact with each other! Take advantage of this good opportunity to engage in sustained critical reflection with others. Press each other. Don't be satisfied with mere assertions.
Here are two things that I'd like you to think about regarding this topic of eternal hell, universalism, and the Christian concept of God.
First: Christian philosopher Stephen T. Davis (Claremont McKenna College) considers the following to be one of the five best arguments for universalism that he can think of:
"How can the Blessed experience joy in heaven if friends and loved ones are in hell? Obviously (so universalists will argue), they can't. People can only know joy and happiness in heaven if everyone else is or eventually will be there too. If the Blessed are to experience joy in heaven, as Christian tradition says they are, universalism must be true."
(Note that Tom Talbott, the Christian philosopher you will be reading shortly, seems to offer a similar line of reasoning in the essay you will read. He also more explicitly offers that reasoning here: http://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/basic.shtml.)
Now, Davis is no universalist. (Talbott is.) But regarding the above line of reasoning he writes:
"How can the Blessed be joyous if friends and loved ones are in hell? I do not know an adequate answer to this question. I expect that if I knew enough about heaven I would know the answer, but I know little about heaven. The problem is perhaps less acute for me than for those seperationists who believe hell is a place of permanent torture. If I am right, the Blessed need not worry that loved ones are in agony and are allowed to hope that God's love can even yet achieve a reconciliation. But there is still the question how, say, a wife can experience joy and happiness in heaven while her beloved husband is in hell. And that is the question I am unable to answer satisfactorily. It would seem to be unjust for God to allow the wrong choices of the damned--i.e., their rejection of God--to ruin the joy of the Blessed, who have chosen to love God. But how God brings it about that the Blessed experience the joy of the presence of God despite the absence of others, I do not know."
How might you respond to this particular universalist line of reasoning? Do you find it compelling? If so, why? If not, can you do better than Davis here? Consider what others say and be sure to respond to each other.
Second: This essay has been up since I was in grad school. The essay is entitled "Universalism and the Bible" and it is written by Keith DeRose (a Christian philosopher at Yale who, incidentally, did his undergraduate studies at Calvin College, a Christian college in Grand Rapids, MI).
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/univ.htm
Give the essay a close read. Jot some things down while you read. Take notes. Pause to reflect. And then respond here. Did DeRose make some compelling points? If so, what are they? Where, if anywhere, did his case seem weakest? What are the objections you might press? Does he have any good replies to those objections available to him? How do DeRose's views fit into the Walls/Talbott exchange? (You will be reading the Talbott essay here shortly.)
Be sure to interact with each other! Take advantage of this good opportunity to engage in sustained critical reflection with others. Press each other. Don't be satisfied with mere assertions.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Jerry Walls on Hell
Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday November 10, 2013.
On Blackboard you will find Jerry Walls' article "Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God". Read that essay closely.
After reading that essay, please watch this very brief video with Jerry Walls.
What do you make of the moves that Walls makes in the essay? Do you find them plausible? Why or why not? Furthermore, what do you make of the distinction Walls makes in the brief video? How does that distinction function in Walls' view on hell?
Engage each other in good conversation. Be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from each other!
On Blackboard you will find Jerry Walls' article "Eternal Hell and the Christian Concept of God". Read that essay closely.
After reading that essay, please watch this very brief video with Jerry Walls.
What do you make of the moves that Walls makes in the essay? Do you find them plausible? Why or why not? Furthermore, what do you make of the distinction Walls makes in the brief video? How does that distinction function in Walls' view on hell?
Engage each other in good conversation. Be gracious, charitable, and humble. Learn from each other!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)