To what extent is belief in hell necessary in resolving problems raised by the existence of God

To what extent is belief in hell necessary in resolving problems raised by the existence of God

Belief in the afterlife is necessary for two main reasons. The first is that it resolves the seemingly absent conception of divine justice in the world and the second is that through this divine justice, free will is established. In essence, divine justice is only meaningful if carried out. If we choose to reject God, then justice demands God rejects them. A Christian expects that their long-lasting faith will be rewarded in “his father’s [God’s] house”, and that Hitler, for example, will be punished in hell. Moreover, the problem of evil in general would be resolved with the belief of an afterlife. Suffering is justified if all is truly good in heaven.

An afterlife in hell is necessary to conserve free will. “God predestines no one to go to hell, for this to happen, a wilful turning away from God is necessary and persistence in it till the end”. Swinburne argues for much the same principle. That life after death is needed for free will, demanding the possibility to be able to choose corruption, or else it “would be like a jilted lover pestering the beloved on and on, not recognising her right to say a final no”. Free will demands this “final right”. Hell is also in place to ensure that humans perform their duties and act morally.  Hans Kung is also a supporter of the view that life after death promotes moral living; people bettering their finite lives to achieve a better infinite outcome. However, as he was referencing his support of reincarnation, Swinburne would argue that 'If there is always a second chance there is no risk’. However, hell seems to act as a threat throughout the Bible, shocking followers with tales of perpetual physical pain into not committing sin- whereas heaven is often described as something spiritually pleasurable. Hell would therefore been a bigger incentive to follow God for those who have limited understanding of spirituality i.e the poor and uneducated. Marx also picked up on this, hell is a social mechanism to keep the masses in check; an “opium” administered by those in power to retain their authority. In this way, hell as an afterlife has become, not the answer to the problem of free will and lack of justice on earth, but a Marxist construct to prevent free will and impose order. Moreover, the argument that the afterlife dictates moral living is disproven by the humanist movement, who maintain no belief in the afterlife or divine creator and have a moral code. Morality is not dependent on a belief in the afterlife.

Despite this, hell is a comforting thought for knowing that the wicked would be punished eternally. Jimmy Saville, for example, has escaped from the law and caused suffering to hundreds of people. Divine justice should prove more just, not only for the sake of it but for the consolation of the whole nation- “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”.

However, although an afterlife in hell can be considered incompatible with the concept of an omnibenevolent God. Hick states that Hell is “scientifically fantastic, morally revolting and self-contradictory”- and that is exactly what it seems. An eternity in “the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” seems horrendously unfair and surely not a fate a creator would want on his children whom he “does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance”. Perhaps he is bound by his nature, that, in part of the Euthyphro dilemma, God is bound by a goodness that comes from a source above him? This questions him omnipotence, being a slave to the quality of goodness which makes him forsake his creation. Aquinas counters that an infinite God can only punish finite sins infinitely. This again, although explaining the necessity of such an evil, is portraying God’s omnipotence as redundant- if he is all-powerful surely, as Descartes says, he can do the logically impossible and provide finite sins for finite beings?

Belief in hell is incompatible with an omnibenevolent God, is a self-contradictory mode of divine justice and seems an archaic construction and fable. Hell should be considered a symbol for the personal losses of lack of belief in God ensues, and not a solution to the moral questions we have on earth. Belief in hell is not a prerequisite for morality on earth, adopting and accepting hell as a divine punishment seems lazy, and hell acting as the answer for free will is limited. Free will is a mockery if there are only two choices laid out before us.