Critiquing: #039 — Will animals go to heaven?… and other questions on new creation

June 30, 2020 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Heaven and Earth — New Creation — Biblical Interpretation — Resurrection — Free Will

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The content is generally accurate, reflecting mainstream Christian theological perspectives. However, it lacks acknowledgment of the diversity of interpretations within Christian theology, which could lead to a more nuanced understanding of the topics discussed.
Degree of Coherence	B-	The discussion is mostly coherent, but some parts could be more logically structured. For example, transitions between topics could be smoother, and some arguments could benefit from a clearer presentation of premises and conclusions.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	Minor logical inconsistencies and assumptions are present, but no major fallacies. Some statements rely on assumptions that are not universally accepted, which can weaken the overall argument.
Degree of Evidence	C	The episode relies heavily on theological interpretations with limited empirical evidence. While theological discourse often depends on scriptural interpretation, incorporating historical and archaeological evidence could strengthen the arguments.
Degree of Testability	D+	The claims made are mostly theological and not easily testable by empirical means. The speculative nature of discussions about the afterlife and new creation makes it difficult to apply scientific methods of verification.
Rational Confidence	C-	Confidence is moderate, but heavily reliant on faith-based assertions rather than strictly logical evidence. The arguments presented would benefit from a more robust integration of philosophical reasoning alongside theological claims.

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Accuracy Concerns

“The whole point of the Bible, Old Testament and New, is that the God who made the world wants to bring Heaven and Earth together and to come and live with us in that new creation.”

While this reflects a common interpretation, it does not acknowledge the diversity of theological perspectives regarding the relationship between Heaven and Earth. For example, some theological traditions emphasize the transcendence of Heaven over its integration with Earth, suggesting a need for more balanced representation of differing viewpoints.

2. Evidence and Testability

“So I want to say, God will make a new creation in which the present creation and everything that is beautiful and powerful and lovely and glorious in our present world will be transformed and enhanced and celebrated in new ways that at the moment we can only just begin to glimpse.”

This assertion, while hopeful and inspirational, lacks empirical evidence and is not testable, relying entirely on theological beliefs. The speculative nature of such statements means they cannot be validated or falsified through observation or experimentation, limiting their applicability in a broader, interdisciplinary context.

3. Coherence Issues

“And in John 14, Jesus talks about many dwelling places. And that’s a way of saying, it’s going to be okay. I will look after you. You may not, we don’t have language at the moment to talk about how he will look after us.”

The transition from discussing Jesus’ words to broader theological implications could be more clearly articulated to enhance logical flow. More explicit connections between scriptural references and theological conclusions would improve the coherence of the argument, making it easier for listeners to follow and understand the points being made.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument 1: Resurrection and New Creation

1. Premise 1: God created the world and desires to bring Heaven and Earth together.
2. Premise 2: The New Testament describes a future where Heaven and Earth are unified.
3. Premise 3: Jesus’ resurrection is a model of the new creation.
4. Premise 4: Believers will experience a transformed and enhanced reality in the new creation.
5. Conclusion: Therefore, the new creation will be a union of Heaven and Earth, featuring transformed beings and realities.

Counter-Argument: This argument assumes a specific interpretation of biblical texts, which may not be universally accepted. Alternative theological perspectives suggest that the resurrection and new creation could be symbolic rather than literal. Additionally, empirical evidence for such future events is non-existent, making the argument speculative and reliant on faith. For instance, some scholars argue that biblical descriptions of the new creation are metaphorical, intended to convey spiritual truths rather than predict literal future events. The lack of archaeological or historical evidence supporting the physical resurrection of all believers further complicates the argument, making it difficult to validate outside of a faith-based context.

Argument 2: Intermediate State After Death

1. Premise 1: The Bible speaks of an intermediate state between death and the final resurrection.
2. Premise 2: Paul’s letters suggest being “with Christ” after death.
3. Premise 3: Traditional views of Heaven often misinterpret biblical eschatology.
4. Conclusion: Therefore, after death, believers enter an intermediate state with Christ, awaiting the final resurrection.

Counter-Argument: The concept of an intermediate state is debated among theologians, with some interpreting scriptural references differently. The lack of detailed descriptions in the Bible leads to various interpretations. Moreover, near-death experiences and personal testimonies, though intriguing, do not provide concrete evidence of this intermediate state. Critics argue that such experiences are subjective and influenced by cultural and psychological factors. Additionally, the ambiguity of Paul’s writings on this topic leaves room for diverse interpretations, with some theologians suggesting that the “intermediate state” is a later theological development rather than a core biblical teaching. Without clear scriptural consensus or empirical evidence, the notion of an intermediate state remains speculative.

Argument 3: Free Will in the New Creation

1. Premise 1: True love requires free will.
2. Premise 2: In the new creation, love and relationships will be perfected.
3. Premise 3: Therefore, free will must exist in the new creation.
4. Conclusion: In the new creation, free will allows for true love and creativity without the propensity for sin.

Counter-Argument: This argument presupposes that free will and the absence of sin can coexist perfectly, which is a contentious point. Critics argue that the concept of free will inherently includes the possibility of choosing wrongly. Without empirical evidence, this remains a theological assertion rather than a demonstrable fact. Furthermore, philosophical debates on the nature of free will challenge the simplicity of this argument. For example, compatibilists argue that true freedom is compatible with determinism, while libertarians maintain that free will requires genuine indeterminacy. Theological assertions about free will in the new creation must address these complex philosophical issues to provide a more robust defense. The potential for moral growth and development in a sinless state also raises questions about the nature of free will and human flourishing in the new creation.

◉ Addressing Unsubstantiated Claims: The Lack of Tangible Evidence for an Afterlife

The Appeal of Unsubstantiated Claims to the Credulous

The afterlife has long been a cornerstone of many religious beliefs, promising a continuation of existence beyond the physical life we know. Despite the profound impact this concept has on believers, there is a conspicuous absence of tangible evidence supporting the existence of an afterlife. Instead, what we encounter are largely unsubstantiated claims that find their strength not in empirical validation but in their emotional resonance with the faithful.

One of the most compelling aspects of religious doctrine is its ability to attract the credulous—those who are inclined to believe without requiring concrete evidence. This inclination often stems from a deep-seated emotional need, which religious narratives skillfully address. The promise of eternal life, reunion with loved ones, and an escape from the finality of death are powerful incentives that speak to the human desire for meaning and comfort in the face of mortality.

Religions have historically thrived by offering answers to the existential questions that science and empirical inquiry have yet to conclusively address. The lack of tangible evidence for an afterlife is thus compensated by the strength of testimonial evidence, the authority of religious texts, and the charisma of spiritual leaders. These elements combine to create a compelling narrative that resonates deeply with those seeking solace and certainty in a seemingly indifferent universe.

The absence of empirical evidence does not necessarily diminish the personal significance or comfort derived from these beliefs. However, it raises important questions about the nature of belief and the criteria by which we accept claims as true. In the realm of religious faith, subjective experience often takes precedence over objective verification. This subjective experience is shaped by cultural, psychological, and social factors that predispose individuals to accept religious claims that align with their pre-existing emotional and cognitive frameworks.

Moreover, the community aspect of religious practice reinforces these beliefs. Participating in a faith community provides a sense of belonging and support, which further entrenches the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims. The shared rituals, stories, and symbols create a collective reality that feels just as tangible and real as any empirical evidence might.

While the lack of tangible evidence for an afterlife may be seen as a critical flaw from a scientific or skeptical viewpoint, it is this very lack that underscores the unique power of religion to address the emotional and existential needs of humanity. The credulous, those whose belief is not contingent upon empirical proof, find in religion a sanctuary from the uncertainties of life and the fear of death. In this way, religious faith continues to attract and sustain its followers, offering a narrative that, while unsubstantiated, is profoundly meaningful and emotionally fulfilling.

Emotional Resonance and the Substantiation of Religious Claims

Emotional resonance plays a significant role in the appeal of religious beliefs, yet it contributes little to the legitimate substantiation of these claims. Emotional resonance is essentially the capacity of a narrative or belief system to align with and fulfill the emotional needs and psychological desires of individuals. While this alignment can provide profound personal comfort and a sense of purpose, it does not constitute evidence in the scientific or empirical sense.

Legitimate substantiation of a claim typically requires objective evidence that can be observed, measured, and verified by independent parties. This process ensures that the claim is based on reliable data rather than subjective feelings or experiences. Emotional resonance, however, is inherently subjective; what resonates deeply with one person might not have the same impact on another. This subjectivity makes emotional resonance a poor substitute for the kind of objective evidence needed to substantiate claims about the afterlife or other religious tenets.

Additionally, emotional satisfaction derived from religious beliefs can sometimes lead to confirmation bias, where individuals favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and dismiss information that contradicts them. This bias can further entrench unsubstantiated claims, making it even more challenging to separate emotional fulfillment from factual accuracy.

In conclusion, while emotional resonance can enhance the appeal and personal significance of religious beliefs, it does not provide the rigorous evidence necessary for legitimate substantiation. The distinction between emotional fulfillment and empirical validation is crucial for understanding the limits of what emotional resonance can offer in the context of religious claims.

---

We warmly welcome you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your insights and perspectives are valuable to us, and we look forward to a lively and respectful exchange of ideas.