Can You Prove That Hell Isn't Real?
Of all of the negative aspects of religion, I have found none of them to be more profoundly damaging to human dignity and self-respect than the threat of Hell for non-believers. This belief had an extremely negative impact on my life when I believed it and I think it is about time humanity starts pushing back against this doctrine of fear and manipulation. Recently, I have taken to boldly making the assertion that Hell isn’t real. It didn’t take long for the objections to start rolling in:
“Can you prove that Hell isn’t real? Do you have evidence?”
“Are you really willing to stake your life on it?”
“Can you really risk not believing it is real?”
I’m going to turn all of these questions back around. It is not intellectually honest to claim something is true in the first place without evidence to back it up. Show me evidence of Hell first and then we’ll talk. I spent much of my life floating around in Churches that preach Hell, and I have yet to see something that would qualify as real evidence for its existence to any self-respecting skeptic. That it is often further claimed that a non-believer’s disbelief is actually them CHOOSING to spend an eternity in Hell further exacerbates this problem. I will not accept some cosmic or eternal responsibility for not believing in something for which there is no evidence. If a God exists and my eternal fate depends solely on me believing in him, then I would have to expect that, if he is a good and just God, he would not fault me for not believing in things for which there is no evidence.
When I am asked if I have evidence that Hell doesn’t exist, I respond that I am under no obligation to provide evidence for its non-existence. This is not the way evidence works. This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to ignorance. This is where the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of a claim. The burden of proof rests with the positive claim. In this case, the claim is that Hell exists. This is an extraordinary claim, and the burden of proof lies purely with those who would claim that Hell is real. Because there is no evidence in favor of the positive claim that Hell is real, I feel perfectly comfortable in making the positive claim that Hell isn’t real because I never had reason to assume its existence in the first place.
It is irrelevant that there are profound consequences attached to not believing. I can assert an infinite number of things which would have profound consequences, if true, but without evidence there is no reason anyone should lose any sleep over any of them. For instance, I could say that in the afterlife there is a land where all of your dreams will come true forever, and that you can go there provided you take special care to believe that unicorns are real, while living this life. If you don’t believe this, you will be forced to watch re-runs of The Andy Griffith Show for all of eternity without ceasing. No one would take this claim seriously because there is no evidence for it.
It is hard to imagine anyone getting on my case for asserting that unicorns aren’t real. This is because, “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Fundamentally, there is no difference between asserting that Hell is a real consequence for not believing in God and that being forced to watch an eternal Andy Griffith marathon is a real consequence for not believing in unicorns (other than that, I would say, my example isn’t as mean-spirited).
I dismiss Hell freely and without concern because there is no evidence for it. In absence of such evidence I am left with the obvious conclusion that it arose as a method of invoking the cruelest kind of fear in order to manipulate people of good faith into accepting harsh doctrines which have empowered institutions of religion with enormous amounts of wealth and power for centuries. I refuse to be manipulated by such emotional violence.
I am truly sorry, and have great compassion for those who are obligated to accept such doctrines based on their faith commitments. It saddens me deeply that so many people must believe that such cruelty awaits their loved ones who don’t believe such nonsense. There is freedom from this mental oppression. That is the good news. I will spread the good news that Hell isn’t real because life is so much better when it is lived without that kind of fear.
I have found happiness and personal fulfillment through the relationships I have with my friends and family, through the exploration of science and our ever-increasing knowledge of the universe, through art, literature, nature, and music. This is something that all people can experience. But many have been severely emotionally damaged by their belief in, and fear of Hell. I want to help those people. Our lives are worth living before death. We should not compromise our lives because someone thousands of years ago said we would burn forever if we don’t listen to what he had to say.
Discussion
Loading comment form...
« My Story - Why I Am A Recovering Fundamentalist
The Skeptic (EP) »
great points!
I do believe in God and the God I know is not based on fear.
this stuff is so oppressive & ruins peoples lives aside from silly teachings which are ridiculous!
Donna,
Thanks for taking the time to watch! It is so encouraging to hear a person of faith who can say that!
I envy your freedom.
Love it! I do believe there is a higher power at work, that every spec of energy in existence (that humans know of or not) has a purpose. This notion of hell is an extremely powerful political tool that is all too good, pun intended, at manipulation.
Whilst I agree with your skepticism about the existence of Hell, in the interests of peer review I have to point out that your analogy is flawed.
Firstly, and this is only a minor point, unicorns are a bad example, as it turns out they actually are a real phenomenon (a developmental disorder of certain horned animals), as this book exhaustively documents: http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Unicorns-Chris-Lavers/dp/0060874155
Secondly, and this is more serious, you have misunderstood the nature of the burden of proof. You seem to have confused the concept of the legal burden of proof (in which the burden of proof does indeed rest solely on positive claims for ethical reasons) with the philosophical concept, which does not fall merely on positive claims, but on ANY assertion that is being made (there is no such thing as a “default” position in philosophy, where the whole point is to question ALL assumptions).
So whilst you are correct that the burden of proof does indeed lie on someone who asserts the existence of Hell, and that all the skeptic needs to do in that case is show that their arguments for its existence are inadequate, if you THEN want to go on and make the positive claim that Hell DOESN’T exist, the burden of proof then shifts to you.
Which is, of course, quite unnecessary anyway, as you pointed out earlier in your article – we have independent, good reasons to believe that it would be immoral to punish humans for failing to believe something unbelievable (and we can present many logical arguments to prove this claim).
For more on the proveability of negative claims, I thoroughly recommend this article by atheist philosopher Steven Hales:
http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
and this interesting discussion here, with lots of perspectives:
http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/678/does-a-negative-claimant-have-a-burden-of-proof
Best wishes,
Deist
You may also find this resource helpful if you are arguing with someone about Hell:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heaven-hell/
It might also be worth noting that there is (apparently) some Biblical evidence against the existence of Hell (at least according to the standards of people who consider Bible quotes to be authoritative evidence):
http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#2.
I find this type of argument to be particularly persuasive because it relies upon premises that your opponent himself likely accepts, which is for my money much more likely to be productive than abstract arguments about the burden of proof!
Best Wishes,
Deist
” Of all of the negative aspects of religion, I have found none of them to be more profoundly damaging to human dignity and self-respect than the threat of Hell for non-believers ” ——- In my opinion this statement is very polemic. Nobody having even basic knowledge about the religion they are speaking, would say something like that. A Non Believer will, most likely, not come direct to heaven. But that everybody not believing will be put forever to hell is just plain kindergarten understanding of it.
Like most other people, no matter which religion, not believers would come after dead into the state of so called Purgatory. This state most have to go through, only those of pure heart go directly to heaven. Purgatory is always meant as a temporary status of the soul, “a condition of existence”, afterwards heaven is waiting. Unfortunately lots of people do not know the difference between Purgatory and Hell, as both are being symbolized by fire and suffering. Going to hell is something one individually decides by himself/herself through ones actions and more important through the intention behind the actions. Only someone who is fully aware of his/her evil actions, someone who on free will continues doing them, someone who puts himself above others, accepting or even enjoying to see others suffer, being able to help but on free will refusing to do so, someone who until his/her last breath on earth doesn´t feel sorry for what he/she has done, only those people go strict to hell, as they have chosen to do so. Every sinner has the chance, and not only one, to make a change in his/her life. Even someone who committed horrific crimes on others, who tortured, raped and murdered is not going directly to hell. He/she is on the best way there but as long one is alive, one can change.
Example: Someone who committed as a young person a terrible mistake, lets say driving drunk a full loaded truck on the highway and producing a terrible mass crash which costs 15 people´s lifes and cripples an other 20 permanent, destroys families, dreams, existences etc. but the drunk young man who was responsible survives with just a few scratches. After getting the punishment by law, lets say 5 years prison, and serving those 5 years. this person is by our standards, what is the law, rehabilitated. If this person is so self centered, that he/she really believes that and just continues living with the steady thought ” I got my punishment, now we start at 0 again ” goes to the next bar and drives drunk home afterwards, is on the best way to hell. If this person on the other hand, after serving his/her time decides to at least try everything in his/her possibilities to give something back to society, never again drives and drinks, maybe works voluntary for some non profit organization going from junior high to junior high telling the soon to be driving licence owners his story, suffering every time from new when the memories and pictures appear in his/her head, never being able to make things undone, but trying everything to at least influence the future in some positive way, let those kids know how fast a drunk fun drive can turn into a nightmare, how ur life will change afterwards, even if you survive without any corporal consequences, this person is on the best way to heaven. He/she might still take some outtime in the purgatory, depending on his/her other life choices and reflections of it, but this person is not damned for hell.
On the other hand, let´s take a 75 years old priest, who, during the past 40 years, abused monthly at least one little boy, using his authority, position, trust factor and especially the camouflage ” to be one of God´s tools “, someone who knew, that he is damaging young trustful souls, someone who then dared to lead the Sunday Worship, wearing the symbols of the church, representing the church, preaching to the people, reading from the bible, preparing the communion, using the same hands, the same evil fingers he just was using to force himself on a helpless child, the same fingers he then was using to share the bread and wine around, to make a cross on your for head. This person had so many years to stop doing what he was doing, to fight the demon inside. Even if this person might have abused some kids as he was not able to fight back the evil desire, this does not mean that he was supposed to continue doing it, enjoying it, picking out new victims, getting less and less scruple less. Accepting that living the evil is more joy and satisfaction, that ruining others, destroying their dreams, abusing their trust, accepting that all this is less worth than fulfilling his own desire.And accepting and living this was a personal free decision. He could have searched for help, go to a psychotherapist, ask his superior to be put into a position which excludes intense contact with children. He could have joined some mission in the 3rd world, bringing some light to those who only know a life in darkness. He could have even decided to never have the evil win over him again by letting himself being ( chemically ) castrated. Everything would have been better than living for decades the life he did-
Ok there would be much more to say, in summary one can really say, that whoever says that the fact of ” not believing ” is enough to send on straight to hell, is a uneducated halfwit. Someone stating that disqualifies him/herself directly from the start as a competent conversation partner.
Have a good weekend …..
Samson
okay samson, you made it clear u believe in hell, but based upon your theory any loving parent would kill their child before the age of 12 (since they call 12, the age of accountability, as in before that age, their is no way they can be sentenced to hell), or even better, all the aborted babies go straight to heaven since they didnt have time to make mistakes, they are actually at an advantage? twisted logic to me. I struggled with this my whole life, been brought up in the church and all it has ever done is make me feel horrible, fearful, and wish i hadn been born. Not just for myself, but my friends and family who dont believe. Thankfully ive made headway and done lots of researching, and yes even the bible is shady on this concept. I believe the concept of two ways to go in the afterlife is absurd, yet I will admit, and all people hoepfully, that it is clear that good and evil exist, and eveil (sin or whatever u wanna call it) has direct consequences, but isnt that enough? God has to burn people forever to get the message across? The bible says his mercies last forever, but his judgements last for a moment. What the church teaches is… His mercies last for a lifetime, and his judgements are eternal. I still believe in God, and I read my Bible (constanbtly remebering it WAS written by man, mistranslated over the years) and Im down for believing in a punishment of some sort.. but eternal hellfire? that does those poeple no good, and while were all in heaven for eternity and thinking about our loved ones lost in hell? you call that good? Theres no way hes going to wipe away ANY tears from my eyes, if a single person has to endure such torture for all eternity.