Talk:Heaven

	This Religion related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Genitalia

Do people have genitals in heaven? This shit is important. --Annanoon (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

… as important as how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Bongolian (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand 24 (angels on a pin).

Who would not find 'most of the people sent to Hell' a more interesting bunch than the milk-and-honey bunch who ended up in Christian Heaven? Anna Livia (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

a heretical view on Heaven having a view of suffering of the damned in Hell

It's mine... but I would think that watching someone like Adolf Hitler suffer torment in Hell would get very old very fast. I would expect those in Hell to endure a particularly nasty torment, seeing the delights of those in Heaven. This too would get tiring but it would not end. One might be compelled to witness what is denied one while one endures an unending physical torment (burning, caustic bath, being eaten alive).Pbrower2a (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

'Hell is the absence of God' seems to be unsupported in the Bible

It's the sort of thing that reeks of post-hoc apologetics. The contentious line says that the claim isn't like anything in the Bible, and from a cursory check that seems to be true. The closest I can find is 2 Thessalonians 1:9 "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might," but even in that verse the absence of God is clearly an afterthought. I don't think RW is the place to give undue credence to religious apologetics, particularly when they're used to paper over the foulest implications of a particular faith. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this an argument specifically for eternal damnation, or specifically against "seperation of God"? I do not expect RationalWiki to know a thing about every nook and cranny of such a convoluted thought world, just enough to make its point.--Spoony (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The Biblical references to hell I can find are very, very clearly all about the punishment and the fire and the torment, and there's nothing wrong with this article pointing that out to demonstrate the broken reasoning behind 'hell is the absence of God' as a concept. If the snippet you removed claimed that the concept wasn't a part of Christian thinking then yes, that would be wrong, because it plainly is. The snippet doesn't say that, though. Pointing out how theology has been built up in a way that directly contradicts its supposedly infallible source is an old game, but a valid game - particularly given the propensity of modern evangelicals to equate whatever ass-pull theology they cook up with the Bible. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not educated on the topic. It is part of Christian thinking but "very very clearly" to say the least is about as rediculous as saying we "very very clearly" have to cut off our hands. We can get into the meanings of "eternity/aionos" and that one parable of course and whether or not it's literal, but at the end of the day it's not clear and a product of what people were taught that leads people to read it that way.--Spoony (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're not educated on a topic, then stop writing about it. Inmate XIII (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Said that because people have a bad habit of assuming they are on any topic on here. Still will talk about it. I am aware of the general discourse in that thoughtspace. The sheol/gehenna/tartarus issue, aionos, the parable, you get the idea.--Spoony (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jesus leaping lord the new testament is bloody FULL of threats of burning fire in multiple books and descriptions and DOES NOT NEED TO BE CITED! If you don't know about descriptions of fire in the NT then you don't know anything about this topic and should stop bloody reverting. Go find some other article to troll. ShabiDOO 15:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not trolling but such a response would surely satisfy one. If I'm trolling, don't respond. At the end of the day your only citation is "its everywhere in the NT source: just trust me bro" and you do not understand how complicated this topic gets. At the end of the day I'm not the one who started this edit war. Continue to be so hostile over your edit and I'll have to assume this is in bad faith. Multiple people have reverted it, I did once and explained the reasoning.--Spoony (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC) The Bible says what the Bible says (modulo translation and centuries of alterations). It's completely understandable to recognise how repellent parts of it are and have to work around those parts, something best done by recognising it as a flawed work of man and applying your best judgement regarding morality and hoping for the best. It's important to recognise the part of the structure of the Christian faith that have been built without the scaffold of the Bible at all - (everything about the rapture has been created from whole cloth, for example). Some of those inventions are attempts to rehabilitate nasty bits of the Bible and as I already said: its entirely proper to point that out when it occurs. This is one of them. Unless you try to apply the 'logic' of people who believe that only the right kind of believer can 'correctly' understand the Bible, and the rest of us can't even have it explained to us, but that is so obviously hokum we shouldn't entertain it. I still don't understand what your point is here other than 'I don't want the article to point out how this belief about hell doesn't have support in the Bible'. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

These are not inventions but doctrine that has been around since the dawn of the Religion. Origen was a Universalist, an early church father. Arnobius was also an annihilationist. With how aggressively the article is being warred on it's pretty obvious there is some emotional investment on this topic and I'm sorry to hear that.--Spoony (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Origen is as far removed from the dawn of the religion as we are from WWI. Anobius as distant from it as we are from the golden age of piracy. They were some of the architects of the extra-Biblical aspects of Christian faith, not a disproof of it. The earliest reference I can find for any 'absence of God' concept of hell, even by the loosest definition, is St. Augustine. For that actual wording, the oldest is apparently C S Lewis. The modern idea of the rapture is just weird fan-fic of the book of Revelation which is, itself, weird fan-fic of the rest of the NT. Every Christian sect likes to pretend that their version is the truest to the original faith. All of them are dead wrong, except perhaps one of the Eastern Orthodox branches (as far as I can tell they weren't as affected by political machinations as the mainline branch). Sorry, this just reeks of trying to whitewash inconvenient facts about the modern Christian faith. You're the one who objected to the original version, apparently, but also the one who objected to a more expansive rewrite that tried to address your stated concerns. It looks like consensus is against you; probably better to let it go. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What a bunch of lies--Back2theroots34 (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What I still don't see is a Biblical reference showing that the 'this isn't in the Bible' snark was wrong. Absent that, everything else is just a tone argument. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I gave you the reasons why it's "not in the bible" far up there, whatever that means. It's in the bible just as much as the rapture is, a can of worms of its own (that means "sort of but not really, you can come up with the rapture from 2 Thess. though"). Origen is from the 2nd century, and St. Augustine was far later than any, so saying he's the earliest you could find is a blatant lie to anyone who cares enough to google the names. "The sheol/gehenna/tartarus issue, aionos, the parable of the rich man and lazarus being literal or not, you get the idea." If those things do not mean anything to you, you are not equipped to be talking about this. Tone argument or not I'm sure i'd get in pretty big trouble if I accused you of having a pretty contemptful attitude about this so maybe don't treat this like some big argument to win and start pointing out big logical fallacies like trap cards.--Spoony (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for "Hell is the absence of God" from the Bible yet? Because what you wanted to remove was snark saying it wasn't in there. If you want that snippet gone in any form, find that reference. Everything is just wasting time. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should entertain the idea that the zeal of the newly-converted might be leading you astray. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Jesús leaping Krishba. It's like asking someone to find a source that Shakespeare divided every play into 5 acts or that the sky is blue. Go through any play and note the 5 acts. Look up at the sky...note that in the day time minus cliuds it is blue. Read the majority of books of the new testament and see a mention of fire and no sneaky theological weasel words or disclaimers. Zheesh. Do you own homework and pick up the damb book and read it if you are so sure this isnt the case and cite it if you find it. And no...this isn t a case of tone arguments, it's someone wanting to remove text for no good reason and multiple users rightly reverting it. There is no con troversey, just a very unreasonable troll. ShabiDOO 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright; Guess I need to cut off my hand and pluck out my eye with this reasoning. Outside this website, it is a controversy. the term "weasel word" has nothing to do with the situation. Grow up and study the subject you're arguing about. No one is trolling you and if you genuinely thought that was the case you wouldn't respond so good job feeding them numbnut.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yawn. Someone who argued for the sake of arguing. Hope this pointless stupidity is over now ShabiDOO 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If your goal is to test the patience of outsiders I hope you know you have accomplished it, have a shot of bourbon to it. Thanks for treating the whole subject with scorn, I find it to be sad.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem with these types of debates - as I see it - is they are properly debates amongst Christians. Like Harry Potter devotes arguing about some supposed hidden meaning in Harry Potter.

So there certainly is a debate in the Christian community about what the Bible says - or about what each sect thinks the bible does/should say. But that is not a debate about reality. It's a debate amongst believers about what some scientifically erroneous book says and how they can best reconcile it with their particular sect's beliefs.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 19:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Simple. If you're not a Harry Potter Fan then don't get involved. And don't claim to know better about the series than one. Ironically Christians do that all the time with Harry Potter, but it applies here too.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

That's such a moronic statement that I had to reread it multiple times. "If you aren't a fan, don't critically examine the work"? Fucking asinine dogshit. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC) Should be easy for you to find that Biblical passage about hell being the absence of god, then. Because that's what this revert about; what's actually stated in the Bible rather than what some people's interpretation of it is (no matter if its right or wrong). You don't need to be a Harry Potter fan to tell fan-fiction from the original text. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What is actually explicitly stated in the bible is neither "absence of God" nor the rewrite given. Thanks for the ad hominem statements though, calling people morons. If you critically examined it you would understand it's not that simple and if you believe it is it says more about you than the bible. I understand the website is about combating fundamentalism but it's not the only perspective.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Back2theroots34 Nice strawman and fallacy fallacy. I didn't call you a moron, and that's not how ad homs work. Maybe learn to read? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not even gonna explain how it's a strawman? Okay buddy. The most overused accusation on the internet. Never learned to read or used a day of my education.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Calling someone a moron IS an ad hominem. Read your own articles.--2600:387:C:6C36:0:0:0:5 (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@2600:387:C:6C36:0:0:0:5 and Back2theroots34 Oh boy, now I actually get to call you two morons. Note that I'm not accusing you of being morons and therefore wrong, which is the actual structure of an ad hom I'm saying you're morons because you're wrong. And here's how: "That's such a moronic statement that I had to reread it multiple times." Note I said your statement was moronic. Statement. As in the thing you said. So I literally am not arguing to the person. I'm stating that what you said was "moronic". Therefore, your assertion that I was engaging in an ad hom is in fact a strawman and a fallacy fallacy, since you are incorrectly attacking a fallacy that I did not make and are misrepresenting what I said to do so, i.e. a strawman. Please, learn to read. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This situation is amazing.-Spoony (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC) ...you know that the original version, that stated that 'hell is the absence of God' is not in the Bible, was what 2friedeggs was objecting to, right? So do you then favour that original version over its removal or the rewrite? *sigh* And calling an argument 'moronic' is not an ad hom. In fact, calling a person a 'moron' would not be either. Ad hom would be if someone used an insult to argue why someone else was wrong. Saying someone is wrong and consequently they are also insult is not, and never can be, ad hom. The implication is going the other way. Queex[[User_Talk:Queex_{chthonic murmurings}]] 19:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If that's how it started out as fine but that's not how it ended in the edit history.--Back2theroots34 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Look I'm just going to mention that the new edit is even worse than the old one which I think is his point and that I'm convinced it's a double-down from the former edit.--Spoony (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I studied philosophy in a catholic university with a heavy theology component. I have thoroughly read the bible (the NT multiple times over), notable theological works and I am very aware of major theological arguments including the asinine one that hell is eternity without God. I am no expert but I think I know enough to contribute to a small article on a wiki that doesn't even specialise in theology. The fact that you are even asking for quotes about descriptions of hell in the NT leads me to believe that you are either ignorant about the NT and much of Christian theology or are just playing stupid and arguing for the sake of arguing. Either way, to come from that position and preach to others to not write what they don't know about when you know shit (or are feigning it)...is preposterous. Knock it off. Despite it being ludicrous we even have to do it, we have cited verses discussing the fire and/or destruction of hell in the new testament. You might do us the favour of quoting a verse where it CLEARLY says that hell is "just eternity without God and the multiple descriptions of fire is just a metaphor". Please do so, or kindly taking your whining and "no fair" narrative elsewhere. I agree you didn't use an ad hominem argument. You haven't even made an argument yet. I do think you are being a disingenuous douche. That isn't an ad hominem or even an insult, just an accurate description of your behaviour today. ShabiDOO 22:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Claiming to know about the different perspectives of the Bible after studyijg at a Catholic university is like claiming to have a divine revelation after smoking meth: You're just coming down full of yourself. And your attitude seems to fit well with this sentiment. I told you to calm down twice or three times now. You are ignoring what I just literally said about the matter. I'm not arguing about the separation from God part here and I suspect you know this despite your claim. Do not make me assume bad faith.--Spoony (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Now THIS is a proper strawman fallacy (note I am properly identifying a fallacy here). Never claimed to be an expert or know all the different perspectives on the bible (please don't misrepresent what I said). I said I know enough to contribute to this article, as anyone would after taking a few university level theology classes and theology laden philosophy classes. In fact, a basic reading of the NT and a dabble in theological arguments would be enough. You're speaking almost as much nonsense as Back2theroots. I also asked you to not go around wikicopping which you have done today at multiple levels. It is a bad habit.ShabiDOO 23:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shabidoo I was the one accused of making an ad hom. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Whatever wikicopping means. Flexing your credentials like that ona. Publically editable wiki comes across as such. You still have only one perspective and my whole goal in the first place was to point out the new edits do nothing but point out what the site's zeitgeist views as worst-case-scenario.-Spoony (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yawn, interpreting "I've studied something [clearly qualifying to what limited extent] but I am not an expert" as "flexing credentials" is pretty fucking ridiculous. Are you being for real? Says more about your own insecurities than anything. Dismissing what we said as "just one perspective" or "the site's zeitgeist" is childish babble. Make an actual argument already. ShabiDOO 23:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

You call me a child yet you're lucky I'm still here to bear your scorn after dismissing everything I say. My insecurities have nothing to do with this, don't make it personal because if you want to I'll have a lot to say about you.--Spoony (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed GC, I got that one totally wrong. It is even worse in that case ShabiDOO 23:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@2friedeggs Out of all the edits I've seen so far this is the dumbest and most denominationaly biased but I hardly suspect the site really cares at this point -- care to clarify your objection to my addition of a reference to the Summa Theologica (in particular, the line Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned), with regard to a claim made in the article about what is said in the Summa Theologica? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Shabidoo! Unfortunately the source itself down nothing but prooftext to make it's assertions which any theologian worth his salt would see as a big no-no.--Spoony (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Groan: "any theologian worth his salt would see as a big no-no". Who else has had enough of this? ShabiDOO 23:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

lol--Spoony (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not even convinced it's the original Spoony, tbh. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 23:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

The saddest set of replies I've seen yet--Spoony (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@2friedeggs (ECx3)(I assume you were replying to me?) I'm not going to pretend to be an expert. I'm not familiar enough with the term prooftext to know what that reply means, and I don't know how to parse down nothing but prooftext. Does the source use a modified version of the text? Are saying that the quote misrepresents Aquinas's views? If so, I'd ask you to expand on your objection, and note that I deliberately placed the citation so as to indicate that it is only meant to justify the claim that Aquinas reports that the blessed can view the damned, and exclude that this will make them really happy, given what he goes on to say about how the blessed will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am replying to you. Prooftexting is when people take one or two verses out of letters and whole books in the bible to support a particular bit of doctrine. Something that site does in droves. St. Aquinas is not even mentioned in the citation although i'm pretty convinced this will stop no one.--Spoony (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

'That site', as I've already pointed out, is hosting a fucking translation of St. Aquinas's text. Not 'prooftexting'. The actual translation, which understandably does not mention the author's name on every page. Christ velocipedal. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It's literally the 1920 English translation of the original text. But as that translation was put together by Catholics, apparently it's unreliable. Absurd inter-denominational griping. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 23:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not a part of any denomination. If it was a protestant or an Eastern Orthodox one I would just have been dismayed. You know what they say about assuming.--Spoony (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Both of you, seriously, stop with the whining, the dismissing and the rhetoric. Make an actual argument already! Reply to our requests for counter-examples/evidence/bible-verses or knock it the fuck off.

You know what you're doing, just don't break your back while doing it.--Spoony (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ShabiDOO 23:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @2friedeggs I think I'm understanding; you are saying that the website I cited, New Advent, is prone to, effectively, cherrypicking, yes? My thinking is that text taken directly from the Summa Theologica constitutes good evidence of what is said therein. I thought the line "Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned" was a direct quote from the Summa (and, by extension, from Aquinas), and that (in context) this could uncontroversially be taken as saying that the saints in heaven are able to see the suffering of the damned in hell. Given the later statement that "the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy" and not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked (as such), I thought citing that line of the Summa as a source for the whole statement was a bit of a stretch. If your objection is just that New Advent is not reliable as a source of text from the Summa, I would gladly seek out an alternative source of the text, to ensure that I am quoting from a reliable presentation and not one that might have been manipulated. If you also object that this quote, if accurate, is itself still unrepresentative for the portion of the claim I am using it to support, please do say so explicitly, as your most recent reply leads me to think that this is not your objection. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked for another source. The one you found is the 1920 translation, unaltered (at least for that section) from the pdf I found somewhere else. The entire objection is drivel. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Aquinas himself is cherrypicking. If you read the source bearing in mind what I said you would understand this--Spoony (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter one jot if he is. We're stating what he said and sourcing it, without taking a position on his accuracy. What is wrong with you? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, now that you said it.--Spoony (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I declare the entire above a bullshitty waste of time. To engage anymore in any of this is to contribute to more bulshitty time wasting. I highly encourage you all to allow spoon to have the last pointless word and put this behind us. ShabiDOO 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you and Serene literally the same person playing some good-cop bad-cop routine?--Spoony (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just going to restate my point that this entire argument started from "separation from God" to "St Aquinas said this" when my entire point was how nuanced the whole topic is in the first place from the moment the second century hit a point happily ignored with glee by the people who participated in this discussion the most enthusiastically. There were no sources for me to cite the same way I wouldn't (necessarily) need to cite a source when claiming cigarettes cause cancer. But then you say, got an enthusiastic person who really wants to hammer his point across, more specifically what he was taught as his doctrinally-biased university and that is what won out and it being taken as fact. This whole argument was nothing but clowning as a result. Maybe it's what I get for arguing theology on a site like this but at the end of the day it still bothers me.--Spoony (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You can find sources that cigarettes cause cancer. It's not on other people to find sources for you. Although if you don't really have any suggestions for how to improve the article, this discussion has run its course. (Well, the discussion has run its course long ago but that's beside the point.) Plutocow (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

My point was that no one asks for ciggy sources for obvious reasons. The article is worse off than before because it veered the opposite direction of the point I was trying to make from the very start. It ran it's course long before it did so though.--Spoony (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@2friedeggs I am a different person from Shabi. I do have a sockpuppet, though. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"That no proof exists for the existence of a soul, let alone heaven" About that...

The idea that there is no proof that the soul or heaven exists is not evidence against it. It just means that it has not been proven yet at best or that it is unfalsifiable at worst. But even unfalsifiable things are not definitively false. They are just rejected by the scientific community because they do more harm than good to scientific thinking. Also, saying that the fact that there is no proof of something outside of the material world is evidence against that assertion is an appeal to ignorance. 149.19.32.102 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You are greatly implying that the lack of evidence of any given concept results in that concept somehow attaining more validity. For a great amount of pseudo-science, there exists no direct proof that it is false, despite the fact that there exists no proof that it is true, yet, do we still consider Quantum mysticism to be a vaild study? This is very much how religion still persists to this day, despite science -directly or indirectly- showing little proof for its truthfulness, and in most instances, even refuting it entirely. There will likely never exist any proof for the soul or heaven, however, there does not exist proof that fully proves it does not exist. You are displaying the "god of the gaps" concept in this instance.Wisconcom (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no proof that an invisible hippo is dancing on the moon right now. That doesn't mean that it definitely isn't the case. The existence of invisible dancing moon hippos is rejected by the scientific community because of their harmful scientific thinking. No proof of invisible dancing hippos on the moon, IS NOT PROOF THEY DON'T EXIST. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS YOU NECK BEARD ATHEISTS!!! ShabiDOO 16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Heaven and falsifiability

That's kind of the entire point? Heaven is a matter of faith, not evidence. Carthage (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, hence...why a lot of people, for obviously good reason, are wary of buying fantastical nonsense and justifying it by "faith" rather than any mechanism through which it could be proven or disproven. Sensible approach imho. ShabiDOO 16:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Does it really matter though? Science isn't in the business of making normative judgments, that's what religion and philosophy is for. I don't think science and religion are at conflict, and I'd rather be an intellectually honest theist than an intellectually dishonest jackass. For someone who believes in Heaven, anyone who criticizes them for believing in it is just going to come off as a pretentious douchebag. Carthage (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

A person who accepts the existence of heaven on the grounds of faith, rather than evidence, is eminently criticizable on epistemic grounds (in particular, on the grounds that their beliefs are not appropriately sensitive to evidence). That is a philosophical critique. Separately, while it's perhaps true that people mostly don't take kindly to having their belief in heaven criticized, it's also true that they don't take kindly to being called dishonest jackasses, and none of this is really relevant to the truth or warrant of their beliefs. On the other hand, it's true that "X is unfalsifiable, therefore X is false" is not a very compelling argument (consider mathematical statements), even if "X is unfalsifiable, therefore X is not a scientific claim" is. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's the thing. Heaven is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one. To criticize it as being "not scientific" is to criticize a hippo for not being a giraffe. Carthage (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that "the concept of heaven is unfalsifiable", by itself, is not a good argument against the existence of heaven. On its surface, I do not think this claim is even relevant; "the concept of heaven" is not the same as "heaven" (for instance, I can grasp the concept of heaven and share the concept of heaven with others, but I am not in a position to grasp or to share heaven itself). But taking this as expressing the same thing as " 'that heaven exists' is an unfalsifiable proposition", this still isn't an argument against the existence of heaven without at least one additional premise. (Strictly, I think the best one could do here is construct an argument to the effect that one should not believe in heaven, even if it does exist.)

I do, however, think that heaven is a matter of evidence, and that faith provides no exemption from considering the evidence. If the evidence, taken altogether, suggests that heaven does not exist, then believing in heaven anyway on the basis of faith is irrational, and open to criticism as such. In sum, I agree that "the concept of heaven is unfalsifiable" is misplaced within the article, but I do not entirely agree with your argument to that conclusion.

Actually, I also think that 3 ("the concept is wrapped up in religious propaganda") and 4 ("there are numerous conflicting accounts of what it is") are lousy arguments against the existence of heaven, and that the other arguments in that section require substantial expansion to be made compelling. Also, the "For" section is quite uncharitable, 2 therein is irrelevant, and 3 depreciates the case against heaven by neglecting the weight of evidence in favor of categorical proof. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 19:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter if it's "irrational" if it has a positive psychological effect? I do not begrudge the believer for believing in a better world, or hoping to reunite with their deceased loved ones or whatnot. I don't think rationality is the peak of human experience, nor should it be. If, likewise, religion reinforces social cohesion and contributes to, say, contributing to the community, be it acts of charity or otherwise, I don't think that's something to criticize as such. Religion has its place in society, and science has another. Science is about what is, religion is about what should be. Call it non-overlapping magisteria if you must. Carthage (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course it matters. That my having a certain belief gives me some psychological benefit is not a very good warrant for that belief. In some cases this is quite clear; I would seem to be doing something wrong if I believed that climate change is unreal because I got some positive psychological effect from that belief (which is not so implausible, given the apparently grim picture painted by climate science), nor would I be much better off if this belief promoted some social benefit. Likewise, if it brought me great comfort to believe that the world is inherently fair, and that everybody gets just what they deserve, would that be a good justification for my belief? Certainly, there are matters wherein it does not seem very important to determine what is true; knowing exactly how many grains of silt are stuck to the bottom of my shoe would not be a praiseworthy achievement. But even here, it would be bizarre if I claimed, without evidence, that the number were exactly 23,146 (say), and gaining some gratification from this would do little, if anything, to alleviate that. Here it would be appropriate to suspend judgment, and to put off forever investigating the matter, but not to pronounce some definitive answer without warrant.

The existence of heaven is a much more substantial issue that the dirtiness of my shoes. If heaven exists, that is a matter of great importance to, well, everybody, and likewise if it does not. This seems to be a case where everybody should have some interest in getting things right. To neglect our evidence, and to refuse to use our capacity for reason, would not seem appropriate to the gravity of the issue. It would certainly be a sorry state of affairs if the evidence pointed to the non-existence of heaven and people were incapable of being charitable without believing in heaven. But it is not the case that people are so incapable, and reasons can be given for charity that are not contingent on heaven's existence (which, anyway, requires a supplementary premise to introduce any motivational force). If people really were wholly unresponsive to these reasons, this would say something about people, not about heaven. The notion that people must believe contrary to reason to live well is, to my mind, rather cynical, and in condemning people to epistemic vice cuts them off from what is better, namely to be both ethically and epistemically virtuous. The noble liar presupposes that the noble cannot be achieved without the lie, and this is already to put themself in a position of epistemic privilege (since the liar must already know what is noble, and supposes that others cannot come to know it themselves, hence the lie). As a related point, a common critique of NOMA is that it assigns to religion areas of inquiry where (secular) philosophy has something to say, and the philosopher certainly is concerned with justification.

Frankly, I would not much respect a person, or group of people, who chose to systematically deceive themselves in order to accrue some benefit, either psychological or social. Likewise, if some powerful being brought about happy feeling (say) among people by systematically deceiving them, such a being would be more appropriately called devil than god. And I see little difference between a being that does so directly and one which fosters people with the capacity to reason and a plenitude of evidence pointing to falsehoods; such is merely another kind of deception.

I would like to go into more detail, but I remember finer points as I write, so I quickly use up time and lose my organization. I'll end here by asking if it isn't the case, that you already care whether my reply to your question is reasonable? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 22:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If you use faith as a valid reason to justify believing something, that when looked at from an objective distance is absurd (like heaven) then, not so far fetched when you do the same with things like believing that: "God commands us to murder homosexuals we come across", that albinos should be hunted down as witches and hacked up, that Kim Yung Il is a deity who is worthy of reigning over the world or that magic hippos are dancing on the moon right now. It's easy to take faith seriously when it confirms whatever beliefs one's parents insisted were true or something that appeals to you that has no evidence backing up. It's another thing, when that thing taken on faith is disturbing to you or works against your ideas/interests.

Philosophy and religion are two different things. They are in conflict with one another in some ways and not in others. Philosophy is a field of asking questions and the very mechanics of asking questions. Religion is a set of man made ideas/stories/lies which back up a set of power structures which sustain cultural influence, economic incentive and power and the sustainment of ludicrous and dangerous ideas. They are not in conflict in the philosophical field of theology and to some extent answering a few questions. They are radically in conflict when it comes to fields like: the philosophy of science, most ethical theories, most theories of knowledge and all rationalist/empirical approaches.

Believing in something because it makes you feel good, is dubious. If I believe that a magic invisible goat that talks me into doing terrible things to people exist because it makes me feel good and comforts me, I am sure you would object to the premise that this person is justified in not just believing in this goat, but basing their ideas/actions on it.

My mother passed away last year, and the idea that she would spend billions and billions of years, and then billions more (and so on with no end) in some ghostly world is not just ridiculous but disturbing. It's grotesque to me. I'm glad this is almost certainly not the case. The footprints and values she has left in others is far more valuable to me then some idea invented by people in Palestine a few thousand years ago, for whom a plough was an absolute marvel of technology, invented by a God for whom Christians can both simultaneously call loving, and yet spent most of the new testament terrorising his people and encouraging them to slaughter one another for no clear reason. ShabiDOO 00:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If you use faith as a valid reason to justify believing something, that when looked at from an objective distance is absurd (like heaven) then, not so far fetched when you do the same with things like believing that: "God commands us to murder homosexuals we come across", that albinos should be hunted down as witches and hacked up, that Kim Yung Il is a deity who is worthy of reigning over the world or that magic hippos are dancing on the moon right now.

That's a slippery slope fallacy, just because it could happen doesn't mean it will happen. There are also other implicit assumptions in there beyond faith as a relevant factor that inform these conclusions. This is a weak objection to faith alone theologies.

It's easy to take faith seriously when it confirms whatever beliefs one's parents insisted were true or something that appeals to you that has no evidence backing up. It's another thing, when that thing taken on faith is disturbing to you or works against your ideas/interests.

Hence why I said intellectually honest theism. The acknowledgement that no evidence backs up a belief in Heaven but that one chooses to believe in it anyways is not comparable to fundamentalist assertions that Heaven is real and you can prove it.

Philosophy and religion are two different things. They are in conflict with one another in some ways and not in others. Philosophy is a field of asking questions and the very mechanics of asking questions. Religion is a set of man made ideas/stories/lies which back up a set of power structures which sustain cultural influence, economic incentive and power and the sustainment of ludicrous and dangerous ideas.

Are they not two sides of the same coin? A lot of philosophies are used to justify power much in the same way that religion is. Societies do not operate in a vacuum, things can be used for both good and ill. They are tools. I pointed out on the anarchism talk page that a lot of the foundational theory underpinning liberalism is based off of racist, ahistorical Eurocentric assumptions (ie "lies"), but these same foundational theories are what gave us the concept of human rights. A lot of early science likewise was coached in religious language by genuine believers. Religion is a societal lens, no more, no less.

They are not in conflict in the philosophical field of theology and to some extent answering a few questions. They are radically in conflict when it comes to fields like: the philosophy of science, most ethical theories, most theories of knowledge and all rationalist/empirical approaches.

You say that religion is fundamentally in conflict with rationalism and empiricism, when in fact a large portion of Islamic theology is fundamentally rationalist in its approach. In fact there's been a huge debate in Islamic philosophy between the rationalists and the literalists that rage to this day. Clearly rationalism isn't in conflict with large parts of Islamic philosophy then. The kalam argument is a reasoned argument; it comes from the rationalist school of Islamic philosophy, for instance. When it comes to the "philosophy of science" I beg to differ here too. A common argument used by, say, Islamic defenders of science is that God gave us reason to explore His world. To them there was no conflict between science and religion, as science pertained to the material aspects of His creation, and religion to the spiritual.

Believing in something because it makes you feel good, is dubious. If I believe that a magic invisible goat that talks me into doing terrible things to people exist because it makes me feel good and comforts me, I am sure you would object to the premise that this person is justified in not just believing in this goat, but basing their ideas/actions on it.

That's a strawman of my argument. I said that religion has "positive psychological effects" on the believers and helps to reinforce social ties. This is not something to be seriously disputed.

My mother passed away last year, and the idea that she would spend billions and billions of years, and then billions more (and so on with no end) in some ghostly world is not just ridiculous but disturbing. It's grotesque to me. I'm glad this is almost certainly not the case.

That's your personal judgement. Again, this isn't a scientific analysis. This may very well be a convincing emotional appeal, but it's not scientific. Carthage (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You maintain that religion has "positive psychological effects". Do you feel that faith in Hell has these positive effects?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not the gotcha you think it is. Religion can have both positive and negative effects. I explained this above:

"A lot of philosophies are used to justify power much in the same way that religion is. Societies do not operate in a vacuum, things can be used for both good and ill. They are tools."

I don't want to repeat myself over and over again. But to engage in your question from the perspective of a devil's advocate... I suppose it can be a vindictive sort of comfort to believe that, say, the perpetrator of an unsolved murder is bound for hell by the kinsfolk of the victim. In such a case a belief in Hell can have positive psychological effects. Carthage (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you could argue that. But one could easily imagine that your friends and relatives are being tortured for eternity (which is a really long time) if they folowed the wrong religion. In this case your faith would be causing you active psychological harm. You previously asked "Does it matter if it's "irrational" if it has a positive psychological effect?" The question now becomes "Does it matter if it's "irrational" and it has a negative psychological effect?"Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 05:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

No, my argument is not a slippery slope at all. If you think so, I'd recommend you learn more about fallacies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I am not saying that accepting something on faith with one mild example is reason to avoid it because it could also justify an extreme example. I am saying that claiming anything is the case, on faith, is absurd, be it a mild statement or an extreme one. That is NOT a slippery slope. I would be careful of claiming something is a fallacy when you do not understand that fallacy.

NO philosophy and religion are not the same side of a coin. You fundamentally misunderstand philosophy if you think so. One single branch, of many branches share similarities and a couple other branches of philosophy deal with similar questions. That is hardly saying it is two sides of the same coin. That would be like saying science and music are two sides of the same coin, just because in one branch of both fields they deal with a similar topic (harmonics for example) and a minority of their topics and approaches and goals are similar. I would invite you to learn more about philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

I don't consider being intellectually honest, on a topic that is intellectually bankrupt (theology) meaningful. I have as much reason to take someone who is intellectually honest about their belief that there are monsters living in the centre of the earth, based on "faith" as seriously. Why would I? Why would I with theology, quibbling over questions on an imaginary being in the sky, dreamt up by nomads in the desert millennia ago, a story backed up by zero evidence, zero falsifiable premises and virtually everything on faith (including the absurdity of heaven).

I am quite familiar with the Quran and Hadiths, and they are so full of blatantly impossible statements (biological, historical, physical, scientific) and immoral rules (in almost all moral systems so many claims are completely ghastly imorral) it boggles my mind how anyone can seriously link rationalism with Islamic, Christian or Judaic theology. Are you saying this without joking? ShabiDOO 00:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll deal with the rest later, but for now: "NO philosophy and religion are not the same side of a coin. You fundamentally misunderstand philosophy if you think so."

Did you not see where I specified as to how they both can serve as justifications for power? If you can't comprehend an argument as basic as "power uses ideology (philosophical or religious) to justify itself" then you can't lecture me on "not understanding philosophy". Carthage (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also you clearly aren't as knowledgeable about Islam as you think if you seriously believe rationalism isn't a fundamental aspect of certain schools of Islamic thought. Philosophy Now provides a good summary of the history of rationalism in Islamic thought: [1] Carthage (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia also covers the interplay of rationalism and theology in the Middle Ages: "After Aristotle's death, Western rationalistic thought was generally characterized by its application to theology, such as in the works of Augustine, the Islamic philosopher Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd), and Jewish philosopher and theologian Maimonides. The Waldensians sect also incorporated rationalism into their movement." - [2] Carthage (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@CarthageYou didn't respond to my comments about the emotional damage caused by religiously-inspired faith in Hell so I assume you accept the point. I would actually argue that the damage caused by faith in Hell is substantially greater than any putative benefit gained by any faith in Heaven. Because, in many versions of Christianity, Heaven is pretty vaguely defined as just a "good place" while Hell may be described in minutely painful detail. The fear of Hell apparently keeps some people awake at night.

But getting back to my earlier point to which you have also not responded. You asked "Does it matter if it's "irrational" if it has a positive psychological effect?". This raises the question of "Matter to whom?". It would certainly matter to me if my beliefs could be shown to be irrational, but realistically, it doesn't actually "matter" to me if someone else is wrong: unless their wrongness causes them to pass laws which reduce my freedom. Given that you wrote, "I'd rather be an intellectually honest theist than an intellectually dishonest jackass." I suppose that it matters to you that your beliefs are rational or at least "intellectually honest" and I guess that you would agree that irrational religiously-generated laws would be a bad idea.

Which brings us to the question of whether it should matter to some hypothetical third person whether or not their ideas were rational as long as these ideas gave them some sort of solace. Something similar to Marx's position that "religion is an opium for the people". But it's really a bit patronizing for us to suggesting that it matters to us that our beliefs are based on solid reasoning while simultaneously saying that it doesn't matter if more religiously-motivated people have less well-founded ideas. If I have misconstrued your arguments no doubt you will explain where.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

No that's pretty much what I believe about religion in a nutshell. I was gonna respond to your counterpoint but I got sidetracked. Yeah I agree that belief in Hell can cause great psychological damage, perhaps greater than whatever positive a "putative belief in Heaven" can engender. My personal assessment is that religion itself is morality-neutral, despite what anti-theists and theists say. It's a tool that can be wielded for good or ill. John Brown's abolitionism was motivated in large part by his religious beliefs, just as DAESH today is motivated by their religious beliefs. Carthage (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Also from a personal perspective I agree with Marx's take that religion is the opiate of the people. I'm an atheist because nothing I've come across is convincing enough evidence-wise to convert to, but I personally find atheism itself to be deeply spiritually unsatisfying. I can personally empathize with people who are religious to find solace in it, despite the fact I'm not religious myself. Carthage (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Then we largely in agreement on these particular points. I would take some issue with you for your criticism of atheism not being spiritually satisfying; not because it's incorrect but because supplying spiritual satisfaction is not its objective. To paraphrase your earlier comment: to criticize it for "not being spiritually satisfying" is to criticize a hippo for not being a giraffe.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Theology does mimic, and sometimes uses, rational arguments. Summa Theologica is philosophical [I guess] (though more like a religious butchering of Aristotle) and uses the tools of rational arguments for the most part (though sometimes, quite not). But using some rational arguments and then consistently misusing those tools to suit ones ideology/end-goals, based on axioms one simply accepts, because one simply needs or wills that axiom to be true...is not in itself rational. Summe, and every theological work in any religion I have ever read (including Islamic ones), blatantly and obviously is guilty of the above. Their craft is using some of the otherwise rational tools in the rational tool kit, selectively, on absurd and intellectually fruitless pursuits. Have you never read the manifestos of terrorists groups? They also use some rational tools with some genuinely rational arguments, then some rational "seeming" arguments (or using rational seeming language) and a lot of chicanery to suit their goals. This is only "rational" so far as how objectively they deal with the question and the way they approach those questions and reasonably and consistently they use their rational tools. Is their goal to arrive at the logical conclusion of an objective question, or find a way to arrive at a conclusion they always wanted to arrive at, on a question already rooted in absurdity or lunacy? If three different theologians from three different religions honestly used their tools in such a way, they would not almost always end up with arguments that suit their own religious ideology/goals/beliefs, and not, usually, result in three different conclusions which conveniently differ along the lines of their different religions or original ideologies. I do not consider the misuse or ridiculous use of rational tools, rational. ShabiDOO 21:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

And yes I did misread your statement on the "coin". That is my bad. I would still disagree with your statement. As one seems to relentlessly do that, the other, in some branches, by some philosophers. Many modern philosophers, including continental/post-modernists would in fact do the opposite. 21:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)^{— Unsigned, by: Shabidoo / talk / contribs}

Fair enough. Apology accepted btw. I think as for the manifestos of terrorist groups, well terrorist groups are inherently political entities. Any political group is going to want to convince you of its positions. The Founding Fathers of the American Revolution were terrorists, and they released manifestos too (Common Sense by Thomas Paine for instance). The purpose of an argument is to convince you of the position the arguer takes, or convince the audience. I don't see rationality as an end-all-be-all, but rather a tool that can be (and will be) used as a justifier for power and ideology. Even science isn't free from the influence of irrational power-play, although it takes pains to limit the noise-to-signal ratio that power-play produces as a result. In other words, by a classic definition of rationality I don't see these examples as misuse of rationality per se, since rationality in a classical context is just reasoned argumentation, and not necessarily scientific skepticism. Carthage (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)