From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 6:41 PM
To: Brian Holtz; James Holding
Subject: Best argument for justness of hell?

What is the best (i.e. standard, or least bad) argument Christians
give for the justness of the infinite and eternal punishment of
hell?  When pushed on this issue, many Christian apologists
seem to backpedal by saying that hell does not involve actual
torment but rather mere regret and the company of other infidels.
Others make the ludicrous argument that infidels "choose" an
eternity of torment, as if giving someone advance notice
of an unjust punishment can somehow make it just.

The Catholic Encyclopedia's long article on hell devotes only
two sentences to defending the justness of infinite punishment:

  [S]in is an offence against the infinite authority of God,
  and the sinner is in some way aware of this, though but
  imperfectly. Accordingly there is in sin an approximation
  to infinite malice which deserves an eternal punishment.

It's not made clear what "infinite malice" might be, and why
a mere "approximation" to it might warrant punishment that
is *precisely* (as opposed to "approximately") infinite.

Is this the best Christians can do?

I asked Christian apologist James Holding about this, but
the argument he offered was just as weak:

------------- Email sent to James Holding -------------

> > In case it's not obvious, the point of the
> > question is to get you to explicitly say why [hell]
> > is not unfair.
>
> Your Anselm will tell you this; nevertheless I have
> distilled his classic argument:
>
> http://www.tektonics.org/atonedefense.html

I don't see the issue of the justness of hell substantively
addressed in your essay.  You outline the beginning of an argument:

  1. God is infinitely good.
  2. All sin and evil are therefore, morally, an infinite
     distance from God.
  3. Any who commit sin/evil, therefore, are an infinite
     distance from God's standard of goodness. There is
     an infinite gulf between God and the sinner.
  4. Our finiteness means that we are unable, ourselves,
     to pay for/atone for our sins, for we cannot cover by
     any means that infinite distance with finite human works.

I was expecting you to then state that only infinite punishment
is appropriate for this infinite distance, and proceed to give
justifications for these statements. But instead, the rest of
the article is not about the justness of the infinite price,
but rather about the doctrine that Jesus' self-sacrifice paid
this price.

This leaves an argument that hardly needs rebutting. You make
the startling claim that a life with only 1 sin is somehow an
"infinite distance" on some moral dimension from 100% sinlessness.
Unfortunately, you give no justification for this curious claim
that on the spectrum of sinfulness, one endpoint is somehow
"infinitely" far from every other possible point.  While it is
obviously true that any amount of sin is qualitatively different
from the complete absence of sin, it is by no means obvious
(and in fact quite counter-intuitive) that any amount of sin
is in effect an infinite amount, and that all amounts of sin
are thus equivalent.  Your argument thus provides no rebuttal
to the prima facie absurdity that a single white lie in an
otherwise sinless life could warrant an eternity of torment.

If there is a better argument for the justness of hell, please
refer me to it. I can't find one anywhere on your web site.

--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net