Critiquing: Is Humanity’s Justice Better Than God’s?

July 29, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Justice Comparison — Divine Punishment — Human Rehabilitation — Moral Intuitions — Substitutionary Atonement

---

Introduction

The content from Stand to Reason explores the comparison between divine justice and human justice, tackling objections related to punishment, forgiveness, and the nature of justice from a theological perspective.

Key Arguments and Logical Inconsistencies

1. Divine Justice vs. Human Justice

The argument begins by contrasting divine justice with human justice:

“Humanity’s justice attempts imperfectly to fit a punishment to the crime and aims for rehabilitation and restoration to the community versus eternal damnation.”

This sets the stage for a fundamental distinction between two conceptions of justice: human justice is seen as rehabilitation-oriented, while divine justice focuses on retribution. However, the explanation for why rehabilitation should not be a component of justice lacks substantiation. The assertion that:

“Justice means giving what is due, what someone, what is required under the circumstances.”

This definition is narrow and fails to account for broader societal views that include rehabilitation as a legitimate aim of justice, indicating a potential false dichotomy fallacy by presenting only two opposing views without acknowledging a spectrum of justice theories.

2. Role of Rehabilitation in Justice

The content claims:

“There is no requirement of justice to rehabilitate. That is a, actually this is a modern notion that has infected in many ways our political system.”

This dismissal of rehabilitation as part of justice is unsupported. Modern justice systems, emphasizing rehabilitation, aim to reduce recidivism and restore societal balance, which could be argued as a more holistic form of justice. The assertion here lacks empirical support and does not engage with the substantial body of work advocating for rehabilitative justice, marking it as an unsubstantiated claim.

3. Retributive Justice and Higher Authority

The comparison made between crimes against different levels of authority:

“We all know that the higher the authority, the greater the sin is to defy that authority.”

This analogy assumes an increase in punishment severity with the increase in authority, culminating in infinite punishment for defying God. This reasoning suffers from appeal to tradition by implying that because this hierarchical view is traditional, it is necessarily correct. Additionally, it assumes without evidence that infinite punishment is a fitting response, which is both unsubstantiated and dubious.

4. Moral Intuitions and Common Sense

The argument uses “moral intuitions” to justify the need for retributive justice:

“People put it, that guy got away with murder. He just got away with it. And that, of course, isn’t the view of grace.”

This appeal to emotion taps into common feelings of injustice when wrongdoers are not punished. However, relying solely on emotional reactions is insufficient for robust ethical justification. The content fails to address that moral intuitions are often influenced by cultural norms and might not provide an objective basis for justice.

5. The Concept of Eternal Punishment

The content defends the idea of eternal punishment for continuous rebellion:

“I don’t think anyone in hell is going to want to change. I think they’re going to remain in rebellion against God.”

This presents a black-and-white fallacy, assuming no middle ground where individuals might change posthumously. It also ignores the complex theological and philosophical debates on the nature of eternal punishment and human free will, thus oversimplifying the issue.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

1. Appeal to Tradition: Relying on the longstanding tradition of retributive justice without critically examining its validity.
2. False Dichotomy: Presenting divine justice and human justice as mutually exclusive, ignoring blended models.
3. Unsubstantiated Claims: Making assertions about the nature of justice and punishment without empirical or logical backing.
4. Appeal to Emotion: Using emotional responses to argue for retributive justice without rational justification.
5. Black-and-White Fallacy: Ignoring the possibility of repentance and change after death, thus simplifying the narrative of eternal punishment.

Obligations to Substantiate Claims

In any argument, especially one involving deeply held beliefs and ethical principles, it is crucial to substantiate claims with evidence and rational arguments. This content often fails to provide such support, making several assertions without adequate backing. For example:

• The dismissal of rehabilitation as part of justice requires evidence showing why this perspective is invalid.
• The analogy of authority and punishment needs empirical support or logical coherence to be compelling.
• The claim about continuous rebellion in hell lacks theological or philosophical substantiation.

Testing Divine Promises

If any promises of God were alleged in the content, their validity could be assessed using several methods:

1. Empirical Observation: Observing real-world outcomes that align with or contradict the promises.
2. Logical Consistency: Evaluating the internal coherence of the promises with established facts and rational principles.
3. Moral Examination: Considering the ethical implications and whether the promises align with broader moral principles.

Conclusion

The content from Stand to Reason presents a comparison between divine and human justice that is fraught with logical inconsistencies and unsubstantiated claims. It leans heavily on tradition and emotional appeals while neglecting substantial evidence and rational arguments. By failing to address the complexities of justice, punishment, and rehabilitation, the argument lacks the robustness required for a compelling ethical discussion.

---

◉ Continued Rebellion in Hell:

The Absurdity of Eternal Defiance

The notion that people will continue to rebel against God in Hell is fundamentally absurd for three primary reasons. Let’s dissect this fallacy, revealing the inherent contradictions and implausibilities in this belief.

1. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

The story of the rich man and Lazarus, found in the Gospel of Luke, presents a clear narrative that challenges the idea of perpetual rebellion in Hell. In this account, a rich man suffers torment in Hades and, seeing Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side, pleads:

“Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.”

Despite his suffering, the rich man is not depicted as continuing to rebel against God. Instead, he recognizes his plight and requests Abraham to warn his brothers, showing a concern for their well-being and a desire to prevent their suffering. This narrative directly contradicts the idea that individuals in Hell are eternally rebellious. Instead, it portrays a figure seeking mercy and expressing regret, undermining the argument that rebellion persists unabated.

2. The Ineffectiveness of Rebellion Amidst Torment

The claim that people will persist in rebellion while enduring the torturous conditions of Hell is equally implausible. Historical and contemporary examples of torture demonstrate that severe physical and mental anguish typically breaks the will to resist, leading to compliance or submission rather than sustained defiance. The very nature of torment—prolonged, intense suffering—renders the prospect of ongoing rebellion illogical.

If we accept the traditional descriptions of Hell as a place of excruciating pain and suffering, it becomes evident that the focus of the damned would likely shift from defiance to seeking relief from their agony. The idea that individuals could maintain a rebellious spirit while screaming in torment is a clear contradiction. Torture is not a fertile ground for rebellion; it quells resistance and crushes the human spirit.

3. The Revelation of God’s Existence

Koukl’s concept of rebellion in Hell presupposes a scenario where individuals continue to rebel against a God whose existence and authority they have finally encountered directly. Before facing divine judgment, humans might question or deny God’s existence. However, once in Hell, the ambiguity vanishes. The Bible itself asserts that:

“Every knee will bow.”

This suggests a universal acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty, leaving no room for continued rebellion. The rebellion Koukl refers to thrives in the ambiguity and uncertainty of mortal life, where faith and disbelief coexist. Once that uncertainty is removed through direct confrontation with the divine, continued rebellion becomes an untenable position. Why would anyone persist in defiance against an omnipotent being they now incontrovertibly know to be real?

A Fabrication Born of Convenience

Greg Koukl’s assertion of perpetual rebellion in Hell is reminiscent of his other speculative claims, such as the notion that the bodies of the damned in Hell would not burn up since the fire would then have no fuel. Such claims reveal a propensity for fabrication when it suits his narrative. By inventing convenient explanations, Koukl maintains a rigid theological stance that lacks logical coherence and contradicts scriptural narratives.

---

I warmly invite you to discuss this topic further in the comments section.