I was just reading, in a blog I read regularly, someone's explaination about why she is absolutely, unutterably sure she's going to Heaven. I'm writing my response over here instead of in a comment and am not linking to her on purpose, because I have no desire at all to question or shake anyone else's faith; I just want to delve into why the whole idea seems so bizarre to me.
To start with, not only can I not imagine it, but I have no desire to be that sure. I like the idea that "The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." I can understand the idea of debating what happens after death because it's the biggest puzzle we have and so why wouldn't you want to think about it? I can understand trusting in a benevolent Creator* that if you do your best to live a good life things will all work out; I can't see wanting to spoil the grandest adventure by knowing all the details ahead of time. (Which doesn't make a ton of sense for someone who often peeks at the endings of books, but there you have it.)
*My use of the word Creator does not in any way imply belief in a literal six day creation. I suppose it would be possible to create a universe with all the clues to its history ready planted, but 1) Why bother? 2) It seems natural to assume that even if such were the case, said Creator would have placed those clues there to be followed.
Second, one facet of her reasoning was that the way to get to Heaven was to believe in Jesus because God said so.. That theorem derives logically from the postulate that the Gospels are the literal truth. Problem is, I don't see why I should accept that postulate. We don't have independent historical records of Jesus words or even of his life (though we do of some of the milieu in which he existed). If he did exist and did speak truth, there's no way to know it was captured in the Gospels - there doesn't seem to be a solid agreement on their dates, but current guesses put them all from decades to a century after Jesus's death. And then there are all the possibilities of change from early to later versions of the books, either from deliberate theological differences or errors in copying, and the even likelier chance of erros in translation.
There are a couple of other ways to look at it that don't depend on historical record. One is to believe because so many others are sure of the truth of those words - the obvious problems with that is that there are so many people equally sure of the teachings of Mohammed or Buddha or the Rabbis or the Vedas. Even among Christians there are equally fervent believers in the primacy of good works versus faith, or in both. Another is to believe because of the internal proof of truth - C.S. Lewis's point in Mere Christianity. When I read that book, I found his argument for the existence of God compelling, for Jesus specifically not so much. Since those were exactly the prejudices with which I went into the book, I concluded none of the arguments could be trusted. (Disclaimer: I actually listened to an audiobook version from the library, and a few parts were garbled. I really ought to reread the book, in fairness.)
There's also the case that one ought to believe in the teachings of Jesus because many of them coincide with the teachings of other great leaders or with the innate sense of good Lewis postulated in us. That makes sense to me, but I can do that without believing in the divinity of Jesus. Lewis's argument against that was that to believe some of his words but not others is to believe Jesus was a liar, but I disagree. If he was a mortal man, he was prone to error like the rest of us. Or his words could have been misunderstood or mistranslated (I often wonder if "I am the Son of God" was really meant to mean "I am the only son of God.").
These things I do believe: it is worth living the best life you can given the definition of "good" as you understand it; at a minimum you will know you have lived up to your own standards and done good work with the tools you were issued, and at a maximum you may please Someone Else. And if there is an afterlife run by a truly benevolent and merciful God, as some people claim, S/He will not say, "Well, you did your best but you picked the wrong set of books. I hope you like things hot!" because that would betray those very qualities.
Of course if things turn out to be run by Loki or Murphy, all bets are off. But in those cases there's no safe way to bet anyhow, so you may as well not plan for them.
I hope it's clear in all of the above that I am not trying to attack or discredit anyone else's faith, just explainng why some things don't work for me. Feel free to comment politely in either agreement or disagreement. Don't bother telling me I'm going to Hell unless you can prove that one of my points is false, and I mean a real proof with actual logic. Posted by dichroic at January 31, 2006 11:57 AM
Well, you know I agree with most of that. I was particularly glad to see someone second what I said aobut pre-placed clues. Where I get hung up on so much of theology -- no matter whose -- is the convenience of telling a story that will benefit either the community as a whole or else the individual who wants to rule the community. Case in point: Kashruth works to keep people healthy; it really does benefit the community. It is also an expensive way of life if you don't have a good job, and who is getting the money for that?
Posted by: l'empress at January 31, 2006 01:08 PMThe older I get the more the idea of a Big Daddy GOD seems just too convenient. The whole God is made in Man's image thing. Some would argue I'm rejecting faith and making things too complex just to be a smarty-pants. Like I'm too brainy to believe. Not so. Perhaps it is only my growing frustration with and abhorrance for the practitioners of faith. All the faithful who seem far more interested in running MY life than their own. Because whenever I delve into the essential tenets of almost all religions I find the message is exactly how I believe life should be lived. Care for the weak. Be good to the environment. Work for the common good. Be just in your personal and business affairs. It makes me sad and angry how badly those simple good things are twisted and used to do harm instead. If there is a God I cannot imagine why He'd want people to hate and chop people's heads off and pass laws stripping others of their rights or .... well, you know. Who needs a God like that? Only the small and the evil. As for whether there's an afterlife, I let that be. I'll concentrate on the life I have right now. ~LA
Posted by: LA at January 31, 2006 05:15 PMAs I read her journal too, I know who you're talking about, and I found it very interesting to read both sides of the argument. It probably doesn't come as any surprise to you that I agree more with her than with you, but I think you came up with a lot of valid points for your side.
Posted by: Maria at February 1, 2006 12:11 AMOk, this is really bizarre but I came here from The Blog of Pratt and I KNOW which blog you are talking about. Small world, I guess.
I am Catholic. I just can not wrap my mind around the whole "I KNOW I'm going to heaven" thing. HOW do you know? Isn't that sort of ... I dunno ... arrogant? Just say the Magic Words and you are in? I don't get it. However, this is not something I would post on the blog you mentioned, same as you did not.
Thanks for the interesting post and I am still marvelling over what a small world this really is. :)
Posted by: mary at February 1, 2006 08:24 AMWell said.
Posted by: Deb at February 1, 2006 01:01 PM