Debunking the "Hell in a Hand Basket" Theory

[acemanhattan]

Why an absence of God ≠ Hell in a hand basket.

This isn't deep philosophy by any means, it is just a response that has been formulating in my head to some recent conversations I have been having with very ordinary and friendly theists, probably much like many of you.

I've come across a view that stems from the assumed existential state of morality in a universe without God that I am sure some of you are familiar with, and you may feel this way. It is similar to the typical argument from morality and it goes something like this:

(1) If God does not exist then absolute moral values do not exist
(2) If absolute moral values do not exist then the world will become one big murderous den of iniquity
(3) I don't want to be murdered or worse!! Do you?!
(4) with God in the picture we don't have to!!
Therefore God is in the picture!

Clearly this argument isn't valid the way the theist presents it, and if there are legitimate questions of soundness in regards to William Lane Craig's more sophisticated version, then there are questions of soundness with this one. None the less it is such a commonly followed and seductive string of illogic for so many theists that I thought a response was in order.

The first observation is that if the theist is really imagining a purely material universe where God does not exist, they are not only required to remove God from the equation, but are also required to do away with any notion of Satan. If there is no divinely inspired good in the universe then there is equally and necessarily no divinely inspired evil. The only reason that the theist would characterize human nature in such a way that would make all forms of debauchery, vileness, and debasement the necessary consequent of a universe without God, is if they don't acknowledge that the reason humans are thought to have an overwhelming impulse towards depravity is directly a result of doctrines about evil which say we are born slaves to a sinful nature.

The second observation is that once we have a more appropriate view of the material universe, uninfluenced by God or Satan, one can rightfully say there is no reason that creatures in that universe would have a greater tendency to commit acts of “evil†then they would acts of “goodâ€. And in fact, arguments from biological evolution, and natural selection would show that creatures whose tendency is towards “evil†are not favored by the natural selection process.

So in light of the absence of doctrines that would ascribe depravity to mankind, and in light of absence of biological evidence that creatures have a greater propensity towards “evil†than they do “goodâ€, it is safe to say that absence of God ≠ Hell in a hand basket.

 

[childeye]

Why an absence of God ≠ Hell in a hand basket.

This isn't deep philosophy by any means, it is just a response that has been formulating in my head to some recent conversations I have been having with very ordinary and friendly theists, probably much like many of you.

I've come across a view that stems from the assumed existential state of morality in a universe without God that I am sure some of you are familiar with, and you may feel this way. It is similar to the typical argument from morality and it goes something like this:

(1) If God does not exist then absolute moral values do not exist
(2) If absolute moral values do not exist then the world will become one big murderous den of iniquity
(3) I don't want to be murdered or worse!! Do you?!
(4) with God in the picture we don't have to!!
Therefore God is in the picture!

Clearly this argument isn't valid the way the theist presents it, and if there are legitimate questions of soundness in regards to William Lane Craig's more sophisticated version, then there are questions of soundness with this one. None the less it is such a commonly followed and seductive string of illogic for so many theists that I thought a response was in order.

The first observation is that if the theist is really imagining a purely material universe where God does not exist, they are not only required to remove God from the equation, but are also required to do away with any notion of Satan. If there is no divinely inspired good in the universe then there is equally and necessarily no divinely inspired evil. The only reason that the theist would characterize human nature in such a way that would make all forms of debauchery, vileness, and debasement the necessary consequent of a universe without God, is if they don't acknowledge that the reason humans are thought to have an overwhelming impulse towards depravity is directly a result of doctrines about evil which say we are born slaves to a sinful nature.

The second observation is that once we have a more appropriate view of the material universe, uninfluenced by God or Satan, one can rightfully say there is no reason that creatures in that universe would have a greater tendency to commit acts of “evil†then they would acts of “goodâ€. And in fact, arguments from biological evolution, and natural selection would show that creatures whose tendency is towards “evil†are not favored by the natural selection process.

So in light of the absence of doctrines that would ascribe depravity to mankind, and in light of absence of biological evidence that creatures have a greater propensity towards “evil†than they do “goodâ€, it is safe to say that absence of God ≠ Hell in a hand basket.

I fail to distinguish whether your reasoning comes to any viable conclusion because you have lost your way in assertions applied as fact or definitions have been misapplied.

Since God is Love there would be no morality withour Him. That seems simple enough. Ascribing depravity to men can only be relative to the presence or absence of Love. Meanwhile I don't see what Hell has to do with it since hell is a widely misunderstood and therefore misused term.

 

[acemanhattan]

I fail to distinguish whether your reasoning comes to any viable conclusion because you have lost your way in assertions applied as fact or definitions have been misapplied.

Since God is Love there would be no morality withour Him. That seems simple enough. Ascribing depravity to men can only be relative to the presence or absence of Love. Meanwhile I don't see what Hell has to do with it since hell is a widely misunderstood and therefore misused term.

In this instance "hell" serves to illustrate a world that was completely depraved. I used the term "den of iniquity" as well to lend further clarification to what the envisioned outcome is.

And as for the "God is love, there would be no morality without him" bit, I have no comment in regards to that, it is as you put it "an assertion applied as fact".

 

[childeye]

In this instance "hell" serves to illustrate a world that was completely depraved. I used the term "den of iniquity" as well to lend further clarification to what the envisioned outcome is.

And as for the "God is love, there would be no morality without him" bit, I have no comment in regards to that, it is as you put it "an assertion applied as fact".

But I didn't say it is an assertion as you assert. It is the most universally recognized definition of God in all the world. Let's not lose sight by insisting we call white black. There is a such thing as right and wrong and therefore there is a den of iniquity.

 

[acemanhattan]

But I didn't say it is an assertion as you assert. It is the most universally recognized definition of God in all the world. Let's not lose sight by insisting we call white black. There is a such thing as right and wrong and therefore there is a den of iniquity.

I don't think that the fact that "God is love" (avoiding any derailment of the thread by not arguing further right now) has any implications on my argument.

You say that in some way you aren't able to distinguish whether or not the argument comes to a viable conclusion, I'd like to offer clarity, but I can't really work with "I don't get it" or "I don't agree".

Remember my argument is simply that if one postulates no God, it does not follow that the world would suddenly become inhospitably dangerous because of any condition or impulse of humanity.

 

[childeye]

I don't think that the fact that "God is love" (avoiding any derailment of the thread by not arguing further right now) has any implications on my argument.

You say that in some way you aren't able to distinguish whether or not the argument comes to a viable conclusion, I'd like to offer clarity, but I can't really work with "I don't get it" or "I don't agree".

Remember my argument is simply that if one postulates no God, it does not follow that the world would suddenly become inhospitably dangerous because of any condition or impulse of humanity.

Okay, I find your response to be reasonable to the effect that perhaps I misunderstand you. I of course would ask your pardon if that is the case.

I could take from your response that you are saying that even though one does not acknowledge God that does not mean Love does not exist in them, which I would agree with. That is to say God's faithfulness is not defeated because of man's unfaithfulness.

However, I could also take from it that since one does not believe in God as Love, they will not become evil and this is not quite accurate. The acknowledging of Love as the attribute of God in man is something that can be lost which does cause a man to become evil. This is the spiritual war we are in. It is well known that sin comes from pride and pride comes from vanity. Vanity is the product of not acknowledging God as that which is the goodness that makes all sentient beings morally capable.