Granville Sewell on death and judgment
| August 7, 2016 | Posted by News under Religion |
Granville Sewell in Christianity for Doubters:
The odea of a judgment after death is terribly difficult for our modern minds to take seriously. But, for me, the idea that there will be no final justice – no reward for generosity, kindness, mercy, and courage, and no punishment for selfishness, betrayal, arrogance, and cruelty—is even harder to accept. That would mean that those who are confident that they will never be punished for their corruption and cruelty will be proved right, while those who believe their unselfishness and sacrifices will someday be recognized are deluding themselves.Christianity for Doubters:, p. 50
Maybe the mathematician in him sees unjust judgement as somehow wrong?
See also: Granville Sewell on resurrection as metamorphosis
Follow UD News at Twitter!
30 Responses to Granville Sewell on death and judgment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Saint Justin, second century philosopher and convert to Christianity, martyred ca. 165, in his First Apology “To the Emperor Titus Ælius Adrianus Antoninus Pius Augustus Cæsar,” which was an “address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them” — namely, in behalf of the Christians — pointed out the following, of which I was reminded by Granville’s remark:
Granville’s thoughts on judgment are classical.
As someone who doesn’t believe in an afterlife, I’ll say that one should do good for its own sake, and for the benefits it brings to the world and people around us that we care for, not because we are going to be granted some heavenly recognition.
From Dylan’s “Black Cross”:
And Phil Och’s “When I’m Gone”:
jdk,
Good points.
I would go so far as to say that our unselfishness and sacrifices are their own rewards, in a very real sense. That’s just how most of us prefer to behave [ideally; certainly we don’t always live up to that standard].
If Granville Sewell one day decided he didn’t believe that we are judged after our deaths, would that change the way he treated others? Untestable, I suppose, but I really doubt it.
The problem with Sewell’s position is that implies people only do good out of fear of the consequences or to curry favor with a being who might be persuaded to reward them. In other words, they are not doing good because they have decided it is the right thing to do, regardless of the consequences, which would be the more honorable position.
Seversky @ 4,
I’m curious about several things you have said.
I know quite a few Christians, and I have yet to hear one of them reveal (even in their most honest moments) that they only do good out of fear or because they think someone is keeping a tally. (I am told that Muslims think that way, but I don’t happen to be close to any Muslims.) Do you know people like that? I think there are other reasons why people do good things, including that it makes them feel good, out of gratitude, or from a sense of duty or responsibility.
How is it more honorable to do good in the absence of any external motivation? I.e., what standard are you using to decide what is more honorable?
Also, how do you determine whether or not a motivation (perhaps subconsciously) underlies your doing good? Are you 100% sure you aren’t doing it because it makes you feel better, e.g.?
jdk @ 2,
Dang those are depressing songs! This might make you smile: link
…and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers…
So Christianity is in agreement with the Pagans?
Hell Yes / Hell No
to EDTA:
Hmmm. I’m not much of a fan of Steve Martin, but I do give him props for rhyming risen with existentialism.
I know this probably isn’t very appealing to most here, but the Dylan song is a quite powerful, succinct statement about both religion and racism. I don’t find it depressing, but I do find it a difficult look at some tough issues. See here to listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AicfqEyOHvc
However I find the Phil Ochs song uplifting, not depressing. This is our one wonderful opportunity to be alive as a human being, and we ought to take advantage of it in all the myriad of ways that are satisfying to our human nature. Here’s a link to an Ani Difranco version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXlW2-8efYY
to Mung, et al: Here’s Dembski’s latest article about hell
http://www.thebestschools.org/.....s-of-hell/
to Mung, et al: Here’s Dembski’s latest article about hell
What are the paradoxes of a hell that is not a literal lake of fire into which unbelievers are cast to suffer eternal conscious torment?
Mung @ 6
Not in all things, of course. But Western thought was in some ways already prepared to receive Christian truth before the coming of Christ. Justin, being a philosopher before he converted to Christianity, points out to the Emperor where Christian ideas were not at all foreign to the classical thinking he was already familiar with.
If (IF!) there is no afterlife – if this is ‘it’ and there’s nothing more – then why bother to do good at all, be it “for its own sake” or for whatever other reason one may fathom? For others? For the future? For posterity? We must consider that without the existence of an eternal state then everything will turn to dust in due time and so nothing really matters. Not absolute good, absolute bad or anything in-between matters – only the “immediate” matters. Without eternity then all is temporary, transitional and forgotten. This means that in the long run all is without significance. That is a sad and shallow position. Only eternity gives true logical meaning to good (or evil).
Nope. Life is significant while it’s here. Human nature desires to do good in ways in respect to those around us (although this desire is imperfect and countered at times by other times.) One of the great truths of the Eastern religions is that all is transitory, and that exhibiting one’s nature as best one can in each and every moment is our spiritual task. Things matter not because they are connected to some eternal condition or reward, but because they matter now, and now is all we will ever have.
And yes, we do do things for others, and in some cases for the future, because our acts support and help perpetuate a world that we want others to have when their opportunity to be alive comes around.
Those are some of my beliefs. Nothing sad or shallow about it.
Jorge,
I think most of us realize at a fairly young age that not “doing good” in some fashion leads to an unhappy life. There’s a reason for doing good, based solely on self-interest.
That there is an actual afterlife after this temporal life is supported by far more empirical evidence than Darwinian evolution is supported by.
Moreover, there is far more evidence for a ‘eternal’ heavenly dimension and a ‘eternal’ hellish dimension than there is evidence for the ‘random’ multiverse (which was made up by atheists to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of the universe). Namely, two of our most well supported theories in science, special and general relativity respecively, give us compelling evidence for two very different ‘timeless eternities’ above this temporal reality.
Besides the stark contrast between ‘up and down’ witnessed between special and general relativity, entropy, which is the primary reason why our material bodies grow old and die, is found to be tightly associated with gravity, and entropy is also found to be greatest at blackholes
since jdk said that “now is all we will ever have”, he may be interested in learning about “The Now” of philosophers, which Einstein himself had a run in with. “The Now” which has now been confirmed by advances in quantum mechanics.
As well, besides quantum mechanics giving primary consideration to the conscious observer, in general and special relativity, each observer is also given a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements.
And these ‘centrality concerns’, from both quantum mechanics and relativity respectively, give the resurrection of Christ more impetus for telling us exactly why the universe exists in the exact form that it exist in:
Moreover, contrary to jdk’s waxing poetic about Eastern religions, the fact of the matter is that Eastern religions have an overwhelming preponderance of negative, even hellish, Near Death Experiences when compared to Judeo-Christian cultures.
Verse
One bright note to the overwhelming preponderance of negative Near Death Experiences in Eastern cultures, it seems China, although it was a hellhole for Christians for decades under Communist rulers who purposely tried to obliterate all religions including Christianity from China, is soon to become the country with the most Christians in it in the world:
Here is a video that gives a short history of Christianity in China:
Dave wrote,
I find the phrase “based solely on self-interest” too narrow. I’ve been thinking about this, and I remember that I always liked Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, which I think is consistent with an comparative physiological and behavioral approach to understanding humans as animals.
We have some very self-interested physiological/survival needs such as food but we also have overlays of socially important emotions as well as “higher” intellectual and spiritual (in the non-metaphysical sense) needs. Maslow’s main point was that, to the degree possible given one’s surroundings, humans want to self actualize their potential by developing themselves throughout the whole hierarchy of needs.
I also like what I was told once that Aristotle said: the purpose of life is to exercise the soul (I also take this in the non-metaphysical sense.)
For instance, whence came my deep and committed desire to teach high school students for 40 years, when I could have done many things, most of which would have paid me much more? I think this career met many needs for me, including making a contributions to others, utilizing and developing many social, emotional, communicative, and intellectual skills, etc.
Another framework is Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Right now we are teaching my grandchildren, just as part of their upbringing, that it is important to be honest and earn people’s trust so that they feel they can let you do new things on your own. In this case, we are making an appeal to a fairly narrow self-interest. But people, all to various degrees, actualize a hierarchy of moral understanding also, so that many mature people have reasons for being good that are much broader than just self-interest, such as benefitting others out of love, compassion, and empathy for them as fellow human beings, or as being a consequence of adhering to values such as honesty, taking responsibility for one’s actions, etc.
Ultimately, many moral philosophies teach that doing the right thing irrespective of whether it benefits oneself or not, and without attachment to whether things work out as intended or not (as many factors other than actions are the causes of consequences) is the highest moral stance one can take.
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI
jdk,
Very nice post. I should clarify that relating to my #14, I certainly do accept that there are reasons beyond our narrow self-interest for doing good. I was hoping to convince Jorge that mere self-interest however does provide a rationale for some good works at least, without any thought of a reward in an afterlife.
Yes, and you are right, as my story about teaching my grandchildren about honesty was meant to illustrate.
Actually, the issue sort of depends on how far you want to stretch the meaning of self-interest, because in the long run I think it is in my self interest, in part for the satisfaction of my sense of self worth, to fully actualize my potential. It is definitely in my self-interest to act in a way that helps build a healthy community around me, as that gives me a place to be safe and healthy in.
I certainly agree, obviously, that all of this is true and meaningful without any reference at all to an afterlife.
@DaveS # 3
‘If Granville Sewell one day decided he didn’t believe that we are judged after our deaths, would that change the way he treated others? Untestable, I suppose, but I really doubt it. – DaveS
If that is a righteous disparagement, in your own eyes, but is objectively false, both, it seems to me, completely gratuitous, it is you and your world-view that are culpable.
But here’s the thing : We shall not be judged on what we know, our ‘faith qua credence’/knowledge, our analytical intelligence, but on what we want to be true, what we take the most beautiful, desirable end for which we were made by God, the faculty of our unitive intelligence ; but which, as a consequence of our free will, we can reject, sinking into ever greater sinfulness – it doesn’t have to dramatic and transparent to the public eye.
Axel: There are actually studies that show that people who do not believe they are ‘persons’. i.e. a soul, are a little bit more anti-social (psychopathic) than people who do believe they are ‘persons’, i.e. a soul:
also of note:
Axel,
It certainly wasn’t intended to be a disparagement. More the opposite, really. In my experience, Christians who deconvert still treat others well, despite (perhaps) no longer believing in an afterlife.
Yes, it’s strange how, at least in my younger days, we were all deeply imbued with Christian cultural values, or at worst an awareness of them. The ‘salt’, ‘mustard seed’, etc.
BA, it shows how impressionable many people are at bottom, without a reasonably firm belief in an objective moral order – despite their normally routine adherence to the prevailing value-system, doesn’t it ?
Did you ever read online on the topic of political ponerology (study of evil), by the retired, Polish psychiatrist ? Very interesting.
Axel,
Strange?
In any case, my point is that most people choose to “do good” regardless of whether they believe they will be judged (and hence either rewarded or punished) in an afterlife. We already have incentives to “do good” in this life.
I seem to be too late to edit the above post. I should have written the name of the psychiatrist : Andrzej Lobaczewski.
‘In any case, my point is that most people choose to “do good” regardless of whether they believe they will be judged (and hence either rewarded or punished) in an afterlife. We already have incentives to “do good” in this life.’
You seem unaware of the countervailing tendencies to selfishness and evil, inherent in man’s ‘fallen’ condition, to which atheism is prey – less so, agnosticism, which can more often be a prelude to an eminent religious integrity.
The ingrained Christian values (or otherwise) of our parents, (however formally ‘all over the shop’ they might be), notably of compassion and kindness, seem to me to largely determine our own Christian love, our own de facto values of compassion and decency.
There is nothing in our nature that survives adulthood, to prompt us to ‘do good’, regardless, whether formal believers or not. That is the big mistake atheists and and agnostics never grow out of, failing Christian conversion.
I know from my own experience as an agnostic, when a young adult, that in our anger with adults’ poor witness in our all our limited experience, we blame God.
Growing up means realising that, now, as adults, we too are part of the problem, and our naively harsh judgment of others, sees us sink deeper and deeper in the mire, ourselves.
Mine was an extreme case, though. You don’t sound bitter at the loss of a strong childhood faith, so I don’t doubt you are much kinder than I was ; which admittedly would not be difficult, as it happens.
Axel,
I’m certainly aware that people can be selfish and often harm each other (although I obviously don’t believe we are “fallen”). However we have created systems which discourage excessive selfishness and “evil”. As a result, in my estimation, it’s clearly not in my best interest to attempt to cheat these systems. Certainly commiting a serious crime would be contrary to my best interests, and in fact, even minor ethical shortcuts often have a price, in my experience.
Really? You don’t believe so? I find exactly the opposite.
It is true that I have never been through the experience of losing my faith, although I’m not sure I’m kinder than anyone in particular.
As to adults being part of the problem, I think I get what you are saying, although I probably have a less pessimistic view of human nature than you do.