Does hell exist?

[GentleReader9]

Interbane,

You are not "a turd;" I don't think so and I'll bet Penelope doesn't either. As usual, it's a straw man, or should I say a "turd man?"

You said:

The term "subjective" is enough for me. It is cookie cutter because it involves initial indoctrination...

Not at all. "Subjective" has much more to do with an individual's direct experience, personal explorations and what he or she makes of them, internally in processing, as opposed to "objective," a term implying checking outside oneself with other people about an entire framework for oganizing and validating any ideas or perceptions with theirs or with standards they agree with you about. There is much more scope for indoctrination to influence what we as a culture decide is "objective" and it is a term that claims absolute authority to which the term "subjective" does not even aspire, nor pretend. The Inquisition would not have admitted it was at all "subjective." It claimed to uphold "objective" truth about an absolute reality, applicable to everyone, regardless of how they felt or what they sensed or experienced subjectively.

...then when critical thinking is concerned, it leads 99% of the time to emotions and feelings and "I just know" rather than anything remotely objective.

Ultimately, everything leads to some endpoint of supposition. These are ususally called premises. You cannot start a logical line of argument without a given, a language to make statements with, someone who has a life, culture, history (read potential "indoctrination") to influence the framing of whatever is said or argued. A person can choose to fall for the "impression" of every single ego and declare, "But my thoughts are clearer and based more on what is true than those other people's because..." or one can notice what tends to go on, be honest and admit, "My point of view is subjective and these are the practical and personal reasons why I choose to think this way in my particular life. No one else has to, and I'm willing to entertain other ideas if people have them. But we will never know for a fact what the Truth is, and it is highly unlikely that any of us has it completely right at this point." That's what I think. I don't claim to have invented it, and I may have been indoctrinated. If so, there's a lot of flexibility for changing my mind about things inside the indoctrination. And I don't have to kill anyone over it, which I think is nice, personally. If it were objective truth, and some evil people who didn't think so had to be offed, things could get a lot more unpleasant for me. I don't want to do it. I'm just subjective like that.

[Chris OConnor]

I stand corrected. Religion is responsible for slaughtering all types of people, not just nonbelievers.

[Interbane]

Me: "The term "subjective" is enough for me. It is cookie cutter because it involves initial indoctrination..."

You slightly took that sentence out of context. The primary point was there there is no reference to anything objective for the people I'm speaking of. They cannot point to empirical evidence that supports their beliefs. Their system is based entirely on internal feelings and subjective experiences.

"The Inquisition would not have admitted it was at all "subjective." It claimed to uphold "objective" truth about an absolute reality, applicable to everyone, regardless of how they felt or what they sensed or experienced subjectively."

That is what scares me. With religion, it's capable of producing radicalists who warp the truth of things. Such thinking gives way to events like the inquisition. The torture and slaughter of so many people. The only support that is objective is a book, written by man. That is terrible support, even given it can be considered objective as Popper would see objective knowledge.

"These are ususally called premises. You cannot start a logical line of argument without a given, a language to make statements with, someone who has a life, culture, history (read potential "indoctrination") to influence the framing of whatever is said or argued."

You used the word indoctrination differently than I. There are a few different connotations, one of which has to do with imbuing a person with an ideology or belief. Another, separate, definition is simply to teach someone. The difference may be minor, but precision is critical to discussions like this, and it makes all the difference.

The endpoint of supposition... how about we only really need faith in our senses, with respect to how we percieve other people? That is about as basic and fundamental as you can get, and nearly entire worldivews can be built upon it. There isn't need for faith in your emotions or to base beliefs on your emotions to gain a highly truthful(for lack of a better phrase) perspective on reality. Further, emotions do nothing but cloud our perspectives if our goal is a belief or understanding that is highly truthful. They should have no part in the critical thinking that we use to understand the world, unless they are the topic of the critical thinking itself.

"But we will never know for a fact what the Truth is, and it is highly unlikely that any of us has it completely right at this point."

I completely agree. The most we can do is aim for the Truth as an ideal, and attempt to get as close as possible.

"If it were objective truth, and some evil people who didn't think so had to be offed.."

That's hypothetically flawed. Who would be the one to define whether or not the people in question were evil? It couldn't be an objective truth, evil is a subjective concept. But for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right. An evil person is loose on this world. Objectively defined, this person isn't even a human, but is the embodiment of evil that will lead to the end of the universe. Your subjectivity that influences you to not pull the trigger indirectly destroyed the entire universe.

Playing with words works both ways, and it's a world all it's own. Taking sentences out of context(which I do sometimes unintentionally), creating concepts that are false, yet too slippery to be debated against or refuted. Using a word ever so slightly out of context as to be almost undetectable, to prove a fallacious point. I'm not pointing the finger, I do these things too, again unintentionally. It is the power of belief bias that helps us shift the truth of concepts in certain directions, even against what is true, most times without us conciously realizing this false shift. I have faith that my perceptions of other humans is true. All else follows suit and is able to be altered. I think that's the only way to battle belief bias and hold a truthful perspective on reality. My current beliefs are much more complicated, of course, but the only anchor I rely on is what I've said above.

[GentleReader9]

I think that on the most important things at issue, Interbane, you and I would actually be in agreement if we could figure out how to explain enough things to each other.

What I am really hoping you will understand and agree with is that everyone's culture, experience, background and basic humanity makes their notion of truth necessarily subjective and somewhat limited, regardless of if they choose to use religious, scientific, historic, artistic, psychological or other frameworks for understanding. In my view the most honest and responsible approach we can take is in declaring how we mean (in terms of the above approaches or whatever we are using) and what we mean (what kinds of the above factors of culture, history, experience, etc.) influence our perspective. I think I get more out of doing this without deciding ahead of time that one way or one set of influences is better or best. It works out (in my experience) with more learning for me and for others the more respect and the fewer assumptions that are involved. That respectful suspension of complete belief, as I choose to think of it, is not far from your much loved "skepticism;" it's a matter of tone, perhaps and places others' thoughts beside mine rather than ranking them, as much as I can.

I do see that many religions, especially Christian religions since the Middle Ages, have tried to violently enforce their beliefs upon others, whether they are fellow-Christians or not. What I would like to call to your attention is the fact that people, also in Europe but elsewhere have done equally heinous things for entirely non-religious reasons (Pol Pot, the Nazis, Stalin, various right-wing regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala -- this list could go on and start much earlier with more diverse ideologies). At this time, the greatest source of torture and repression in the world is not the act of religious ideologues attempting to convert people, nor do I believe that was ever the true goal of the Inquistion or witch-hunting. The torture for which our government is responsible in Guantanamo Bay, being taught in the former school of the Americas which is now called Fort Benning in Georgia and which continues at U.S. taxpayer expense to train torturers from Third World countries -- these people have no religion. This is about power and control, with money as only one form that power and control can take. They use the notion that there are evil people we have to hurt and kill to justify it.

This is true and happening now. Our government, a supposed democratic republic is perpetrating it. How, in the face of that, can anyone, especially anyone American, who thinks he has ethics accuse Penelope, of all people, of unconsciously having the kind of belief that is dangerous in the world today? I question the focus. I question the sense of proportion. I don't question the motive, because I believe you are sincere and this is something you haven't placed together, side by side to look at. When you do, what does it look like to you?

[Lawrence]

This story has been around the internet for a while but some of you may not have seen it. Best wishes,

HELL EXPLAINED BY CHEMISTRY STUDENT
> The following is an actual question given on a
University of Washington chemistry mid term.
> The answer by one student was so 'profound' that
the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of
course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
>
> Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off
heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
>
> Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs
using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is
compressed) or some variant.
>
> One student, however, wrote the following:
>
> First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is
changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely
assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls
are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the
different religions that exist in the world today.
>
> Most of these religions state that if you are not
a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than
one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one
religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death
rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell
because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
>
> This gives two possibilities:
> 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the
rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell
will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
> 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the
increase of souls in Hell,then the temperature and pressure will drop until
Hell freezes over.
> So which is it?
>
> If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa
during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep
with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night,
then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is
therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence
of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh
my God.'
>
> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.
>

[Interbane]

Gentle: "What I am really hoping you will understand and agree with is that everyone's culture, experience, background and basic humanity makes their notion of truth necessarily subjective and somewhat limited, regardless of if they choose to use religious, scientific, historic, artistic, psychological or other frameworks for understanding."

I understand that, and am unhappy that people accept that. Being comfortable with that mindset leads to unwillingness to accept others ideas, and believing too strongly in different worldviews. If I appear the contrary, I challenge you, give me a down to earth, deeply and well thought out explanation of your beliefs, and I'll consider them. The problem is from what I've seen in these forums so far, there is no deep thinking. Either beliefs can't be explained, or the attempted explanation gets waterlogged in poetic hodgepodge. I've seen no coherent explanation or even partial explanation of spirituality, God, or more to the point of this thread, Hell.

"Our government, a supposed democratic republic is perpetrating it. How, in the face of that, can anyone, especially anyone American, who thinks he has ethics accuse Penelope, of all people, of unconsciously having the kind of belief that is dangerous in the world today?"

Do you think there is zero religious motivation in Bush's regime?

"At this time, the greatest source of torture and repression in the world is not the act of religious ideologues attempting to convert people, nor do I believe that was ever the true goal of the Inquistion or witch-hunting."

Conversion efforts would most likely very rarely be a cause of death, I agree. Why kill potential cattle? It is also most likely not a goal. It is the side effect of the mentality it instills in people. Absolute beliefs, and the idea that it isn't as bad to kill someone who believes differently than you. Heretics, blasphemers, evil atheists, philosophers.

In today's world, we rarely see such a direct link as was evident during the Inquisition, but we can greater humanitarian efforts and separation of church and state for that. Below is some literature showing indirect, but still linked, evidence of religion influencing mass slaughter.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

[GentleReader9]

Hi, Interbane,

Sigh. Hell exists; I was wrong. Hell is when I find a list of examples like the one you just posted all poised and waiting for me to go through each one and explain to you ideas like: the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the surrounding countries is not primarily religious, but territorial, and was created after WWII along with the creation of Israel, previous to which such animosity was so much less as to be negligible in comparison to what it is now...sorry if that sounds rude.

Such a project is tempting, even at 6:25 pm after a day which began at 5:20 am, but I'm not going to do it. Instead, I admire and acknowledge the merits of your list. Religion has contributed to world suffering: I give you that.

I want to focus on the one thing I think is really important: "the Bush Regime," as you call it, is not responsible for the U.S. export of torture, much as I wish I could blame it on them and their sucky religion. It has existed since at least the late Viet Nam War Era and probably before that, but that's the history I am most aware of since I was only born in 1961. If I really wanted to incur your utter scorn I could go on to add that as a Libra I like things to be nice and to avoid icky topics like Hell and torture as much as the next person....(wait, I just did put that in; I really am tired)...so I haven't researched all the parts before I was born.

My point is, the "Hell" I think we should be paying attention to is not a literal geographic place, a particular system of belief, or anything so "superstitious or supernatural." So people throughout history have used whatever symbols, words, metaphors, analogies, parables they can in order to speak of moral, ethical, subtle principles that have no material bodies -- and?

The fact remains that choices we make can cause excruciating and unbelieveable suffering for ourselves and others that outlives our bodies and the ability of the mind to look at it calmly, intelligently enough to untangle the chains that tie us in the burning embers. I believe we have a primary responsibility to look at our part in anything major that is going on right now that resembles that creation of a Hell not founded in justifiable fact or moral principle, first and foremost, instead of quibbling over ancient and rarified issues of text and interpretation versus silly material literalism, skeptical or credulous.

Truthfully, do you think it is an honest and sufficient and responsible reply to my raising that issue about U.S. export of torture as the present "evil" equivalent of the Inquisition, with an off-the-cuff remark about George W. Bush's supposed religion? If so, I think that is remarkable in an intelligent skeptic like yourself. I have changed my initial answer that there is no Hell. There is something very much like Hell and it was here before George Bush, has little to do with spiritual principles, and can use any ideology whether religous or not to harvest victims.

[Interbane]

"Truthfully, do you think it is an honest and sufficient and responsible reply to my raising that issue about U.S. export of torture as the present "evil" equivalent of the Inquisition, with an off-the-cuff remark about George W. Bush's supposed religion?"

It was a question, not a remark. Religious influence in world suffering can be seen everywhere. Those influences are far more deeply ingrained in society than you'd think. I'm a bit tired myself and can't list any decent ones... perhaps one is the religous idea that we are inherently flawed, responsible for our actions. Our moral character is set in stone. Criminals are imprisoned based on this, and the real problem is ignored. That has strong religious influence. I'll pull out the book I read it in tomorrow if you'd like, I believe the wording was different.

Don't go through the list I posted, I copy / pasted it from somewhere else on a whim. All I was getting at was the religion contributes to world suffering. Religion is a contagious meme, thus carrying that meme is similar to carrying a disease, since it both contributes to suffering and is contagious. Hoping that others are able to understand this meme is analogous to hoping that others come in contact with the disease. This is my perspective, originally aimed at Penelope's remark. Since then, I've still seen nothing to convince me otherwise. I have an open mind and open ears...

Back to this thread, would you agree that there are different connotations to Hell? One being the Hell of religion, another being the hell that humans create for themselves?

PS. If you read National Enquirer, you'll see a compelling, well researched article on how Bush has actually tortured people himself!