You’re driving 6km over the limit, get pulled over and receive a ticket for $2,500,000,000,000. You go to court. “I plead guilty, but what’s with the typo?”
“Typo?” asks the judge.
“It says I’ve been fined $2.5 trillion.”
“You have.” You start swearing & are restrained by court staff. The judge explains: by breaking one law, you broke the entire social contract (there are no degrees of breaking it). This most serious crime justifies any fine. “However, since the law is merciful (and it’s your 1st offence), you’re just getting a finite fine”.
“But,” you protest, feeling your sanity slip away, “nobody has that kind of money!”
“You should have thought of that before you broke the entire social contract. Now please pay the fine, I’ve 12 more cases today.” Since you can’t cough up, you go to a labour camp where you work to pay it off. Later, the prison brings in an actuary to help with efficiency. He checks his tables of life expectancies and is shocked that you’ll die WAY before you’re square with the law.
This cannot stand. It’s not just to let you off the hook just because your body will decompose so soon. The government starts Drastic Longevity research. They find a way to let people live for a few billion years. It doesn’t matter that they spent a lot more than your fine on the research: justice is justice. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief — you won’t be freeloading and can serve out the entire sentence!
A follower of a religion that believes in eternal punishment (eg. Islam/Christianity) hears this tale. If they want to avoid contradiction they must accept it as a wonderful example of justice. After all, you didn’t just commit a minor transgression, you sinned against the entire social contract. If anything, the law was too lenient by not fining you $Infinity.
And yet this story seems even more ridiculous than notions of eternal damnation for a finite offence! Why? Firstly we’re more used to the standard idea of eternal hellfire, so it’s almost become an empty phrase. But there’s another reason. Humans have trouble comprehending any large numbers (just try to truly imagine all the creatures that have abounded in the 3 billion year expanse of geological time). The word “infinity” is only 8 letters long. After long use it becomes a word like any other. We don’t imagine how much it truly represents. We can’t. This story on the other hand ties the punishment to a smaller, more manageable amount ($2.5 trillion just under the size of the 2009 US budget).
Hopefully the tale can provide a moral scale for eternal punishment. To figure out how unjust it is, just multiply your moral outrage from the above story by a lot.
29 comments ↓
You should print this up on flyers and leave it in all the churches among the other advertising.
Interesting you’re not suggesting I do it in mosques! What-oh-what are you saying?
You know, I was going to say “churches, mosques, synagogues and all other forms of places of worship” but I thought it unneccessary. I should have known better.
[...] This Carnival is a salute to all that. The God of Atheism would be looking around, if he had eyes, or a face for that matter, but he didn’t so he couldn’t. Sometimes he really wished to however, just so that he would just roll them at the absurdity of it all. Just the concept of eternal and infinite punishment should have been enough to show people how ridiculous their whole belief system is. In fact, it’s so absurd that mere words cannot express it, so perhaps the Tale of the Enormous Speeding Ticket might explain it to the limited human minds but of course, he already knew that this was not going to be good enough. Who is going to consider the ramification of Eternal torture when their whole religious belief is due to fear? Not the scared ones certainly. [...]
Great analogy. I love it.
Makes me think of the moment I left the faith. I was watching Gibson’s Passion of the Christ and, until I saw the torture and murder of the deity so accurately depicted I hadn’t really thought about whether I believed I deserved that punishment. I had a very clear epiphany, realizing I did not believe I deserved that kind of punishment, that therefore, no one had to take it for me and that therefore I’d been basing my life on a lie. Took a while to get over.
Anyway, i wish more people heard your analogy. It’s fantastic.
That is one of the best analogies I have ever heard. As I was leaving Christianity that was one of the points that made me realize that I was making the right choice. Thanks for this awesome post.
I really like this analogy! Great posting!! (good thing that I don’t drive
)
Actually, its a bit of a straw man.In Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican theology (about 63% of all Christians) you are not *sent* to Hell/eternal punishment, you *choose* it. The basic idea is that (to use something close to your analogy) you get small fines all the time because you won’t change and won’t pay them off and then, on the court date, you are so afraid that you won’t go before the judge.
Similarly, in Calvinist theology (about another 4% of all Christians) this is also fallacious.In their theology you are assigned before birth to reward or punishment and, well, that’s that. Lutherans (about 3% of all Christians) also believe that punishment is chosen by a refusal to accept salvation and that you, essentially,go to Hell because you never bothered to get the free ticket to heaven.
In other words, the theology of at least about 70% of all Christians is nothing like your little story.
This was not meant to be an analogy on Christianity per se but any religious belief with an eternal hell (including Islam etc). In terms of actual “sophisticated” Christian theology I would have to agree with Dawkins — it’s so far removed from what most people actually believe as to be virtually irrelevant.
Are you saying that I will be tormented in hell and I will have the opportunity to go to God and ask to be let in but I will be too embarrassed to do this for all eternity? As will 100% of people in hell? This makes a mockery of the concept of choice.
Finally even in this case the post-death scenario (where I think it’s good that I’m being punished eternally) is still completely different to the morality of earth (where in this story I am outraged by my fine even though I admit I was doing wrong)
Deepthought, as a former ‘washed in the blood’ christian, I have to say you’ve missed the point. He wasn’t making any comment about the mode of salvation (which you addressed) but about the initial ‘crime’ that make it necessary.
Sure, there are a lot of stupid ideas about salvation and the lack thereof, but the initial ‘crime’ is the littlest white lie, or speaking sharp to your mum, or whatever the first ‘bad’ thing you ever did was. Accepting the bogus payment for a non-existent debt is what you were addressing.
Nice analogy.
Where it breaks down is that it’s at least theoretically possible (at least in theory *G*) to avoid speeding. I don’t believe that it’s even theoretically possible to never look at a woman (or man) with lust, thereby committing adultery and damning oneself for all eternity.
I think a more accurate analogy would be to require people to drive at, but not above, the speed limit, and then have the deity point out that the limitations, both practical and theoretical, of our measuring technology are such that it is impossible not to exceed the speed limit occasionally.
Thus the very act of driving inevitably results in a speeding conviction, just as living inevitably leads to damnation — unless, of course, one sacrifices reason and dignity, gets down on one’s knees, and begs.
So this analogy is false, but accurate? How does that work? And as someone who spends a lot of time talking about religious belief with a wide range of people i can say that A) most semi-devout people (defined by sociologist Andrew Greeley as ‘people who attend religious services once a month or more, on average’) have a very ‘sophisticated’ understanding of theologyand the devout (‘once a week or more on average’) are quite sophisticated in their conceptualization of such things. Considering that Dawkins refuses to do even cursory reading in theology, its not surprising he gets this wrong.
The basic argument is that facing reality is difficult for humans under the best of circumstances and that the goal of religious life is not just to avoid error, but to build the necessary strength of character and maturity of emotions to accept your own failures, correct your own faults, and admit your mistakes. Sin is, in the end, a rejection of objective (moral) reality; indulging in sin is, therefor, to live a life of rejecting reality. The traditional Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/etc. concept of ‘final judgment’ is to literally face all of your errors directly and see all of the consequences of your actions with perfect clarity. People with a long list of errors and a lack of emotional maturity (and courage) may well refuse to face this and chose, instead, Hell (which is the absence of God’s presence for eternity – and the torments of Hell are this absence)
This may not fit your ideas of hell developed from Tex avery cartoons and ‘The Black Hole’ but it is, actually, what most Christians believe. Oh, and most Christians don’t think that if they make it to heaven they are ghost-like spirits with wings and harps, either.
Flonkbob,
Well, the majority of Christians (the vast majority) believe in degrees of sin. iIn other words, a little white lie to your mother is a sin because it is a failure of character and a denial of reality but it is not a one-way permanent ticket to Hell. These venial sins are the most common and, while a burden are not condemnatory. Mortal sins such as murder, incest, etc. are, but even they can be overcome through true rejection of them, positive remorse (i.e., not just wallowing in guilt, but changing your life), repentance, etc. The idea that any tiny little sin is a once-and-for-all condemnation is totally unknown to 80%+ of Christians, minimum!
Deep Thought,
I’m afraid I have to disagree with you, at least as far as 13 years in the Catholic church and another 18 in a Protestant denomination have any standing. Not to mention reading the bible through at least seven times that I can remember. What you’re saying does not in any way reflect christian dogma. I don’t know of one single Christian who does not, in fact, think that the most venial sin will send you to hell if you don’t repent and accept Jeebus.
They don’t see it as a ‘failure of character’ nor do they have any ideas about changing themselves for the better. They depend entirely on god to do that, and feel terribly guilty when they fall short (as they have to), counting the failures as their fault, and the successes as being due to divine intervention.
Further, I would vigorously contest your assertions in the previous reply that most Christians have a ‘sophisticated’ understanding of theology. It’s just not the case. Sure, the text books may make that claim, and have some very clear distinctions of belief…but most religious people don’t much trust theologians. They trust their local pastor, they trust the pope (if Catholic) and that’s it. What the theologians say is only important to, perhaps, 15% of the people of ‘faith’ that I know and have known.
Deepthought,
I don’t see how my analogy is false: it is an analogy on what I see as the actual mechanics and implications of an eternal hell, not on the theological arguments that denominations may have done around these implications.
Also I’m not sure what you think Dawkins gets wrong, can you clarify?
In terms of the sophistication of the average believer it would be very hard to measure — anyone’s personal anecdotal evidence is obviously skewed. I’m thinking most people’s theological understanding is not sophisticated because it seems implausible given how dense and obfuscated some of the arguments are. Just like if someone said the average person is well versed in Continental philosophy, I’d raise many an eyebrow.
And in terms of the actual theology, if I died now would I be in a situation where I would be in hell for eternity without being able to do anything about it? If so then that IS the equivalent to being given an infinite fine for a finite offense.
You might say that when I see all my sins after I die I will consider my damnation just (is this what you’re arguing?). But that was my point: WHEN this was applied to the earthly realm (as in the case of the speeding fine) everyone considers the situation unjust. So divine justice then goes against the normal human ideas of morality that we experience day to day.
Flonkbob,
You are making the error of believing that your experience = everyone’s experience. If I can find a person who agrees with me and thinks you are wrong, do I win? Your ignorance of the teachings of Christianity does not mean they don’t exist anymore than someone denying a round earth makes the planet flat.
Michael,
Let me be more clear – your analogy is an excellent description of what *you* think, but has little, if any, bearing on what either the major Christian denominations believe and teach nor what the majority of Christians believe.
Like you, in some ways, Dawkins presents analogies of/arguments against religions that don’t really exist; when called on this his answer is some variation of ‘I can’t be bothered to learn anything about the belief systems I am attempting to refute’.
As for the sophistication of the average devout person, the core ideas of degrees of sin, nature of sin, and the nature of salvation aren’t really that difficult. In my experience the average 12 year old can grasp the idea of natural law in about 10 minutes, the concept of self-condemnation in 5.
Uh, no – you don’t quite get it. Let me try this;
Do you have any experiences in your past that embarrass you? That you are ashamed of? I know people that haven’t spoken to siblings in 12 years out of shame. The idea is that judgment is facing all of those experiences, including the ones you didn’t think were shameful because your sense of justice was atrophied (a la Socrate’s arguments of vice in Gorgias) fully and completely; the harm of every lie, the pain you caused with adultery, etc. The concept is that the sorts of people who habitually lie, cheat, and steal are the sorts that can’t face that reality, either.
Deepthought said “You are making the error of believing that your experience = everyone’s experience. ”
No, I’m using the experience of the hundreds of people I have known, loved and lived with; along with all the teaching and documents of the christian church. You are the one, sadly, who seems to think that his *reading* about things is more valid than reality.
And claiming that my disagreement with you equates to ‘ignorance of christianity’ proves more clearly than anything else said thus far that you are here to grind a particular axe…and I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion. So am I. I base mine on decades of experience, not books. While I love books, learning, and knowledge, I also know that they sometimes fall short, or suffer from the narrowness of a particular viewpoint.
Flonkbob said:
“While I love books, learning, and knowledge, I also know that they sometimes fall short, or suffer from the narrowness of a particular viewpoint.”
Books like the Bible, for instance?
Alan said:
“Books like the Bible, for instance?”
Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing!
You have hit the bullseye. And the Koran. And the Book of Mormon (and Pearl of Great Price) and any other book of mythology trying to explain all human existence through the filter of a Sky Fairy.
Flonkbob,
Oddly enough, I don’t live in a tower somewhere. I teach in churches, and belong to organizations, and talk to people when I travel for business (a great deal). When people find out that I am a theologian, I actually get a great many ‘hey, I was taught this in CCD/Sunday school/etc. but is it right?’ and, about 4 times in 5, its some variation of ‘I was taught that venial sins are minor sins that don’t cause us to face Hell by themselves, but I saw this televangelist and…’ or ‘I thought Christ’s death was about *saving* us from Hell, not sending us to it?’.
You are right, I do have an axe to grind – this little analogy is based upon the idea that Judeo-Christian thought teaches a concept that it really doesn’t. Even if everyone you know believes that it doesn’t make it so.
Deepthought, just one more extended question. You said:
The idea is that judgment is facing all of those experiences…fully and completely
What is the mechanism for this shame lasting for eternity? And are you saying those in Hell are too ashamed to ask for reprieve?
Deepthought said: “Even if everyone you know believes that it doesn’t make it so. ”
Likewise, for you.
And the basic question still belies all the theological ‘angel dancing’ arguments and comes down to the alleged existence of a god in the first place. So, while you’re certainly entitled to grind your axes, I’m entitled to disagree based on my years of experience, and further to point out the stunning lack of evidence for your base premise.
Flonkbob,
You seem to have forgotten a basic fact – Catholics have a definitive definition of what they teach – there is no argument on the core concepts of dogma and soctrine because it is *published* by a central authority.When I say “The Catholic Church teaches x” you can go to the Magisterium and *look it up*. Same with Lutheran Synods, The ecclesial congresses of many Protestant groups, the Patriarchate of the Orthodox, the leadership of the Mormon temple, the Ayatollahs of the various sects of Islam, etc.
There is my evidence – 2,000+ years of writings. From Athanasius to St. Thomas Aquinas; from St. Augustine of Hippo to His Holiness Benedict XVI.
Heck, the painting of Hieronymous Bosch explicitly mention this as the teachings of Catholicism! (see his triptych ‘The Last Judgment’ painted around 1506 where people are throwing themselves into Hell in shame before the glory of God).
‘Lack of evidence’? Did you learn nothing in CCD?
Michael,
The mechanism is referred to as the ‘Beatific Vision’ – an awareness imparted by God to each person. It is done because no impure thing can exist within the pure. Indeed, the concept of Purgatory is understood as the experience of going through this revelation of past failings, the discomfort (moral and intellectual) it causes and emerging on the other sidehaving amended your character. This experience is described as being ‘like fire’ and it is this pain (at least partially of shame) that causes people to distance themselves from God, i.e., send themselves into Hell.
Flonkbob,
Whoa, dude! The existence of God has *nothing* to do with what is being discussed here! No, really. Michael is positing ‘certain religions describe sin and Hell as x’ and I am disagreeing with him. If I were an atheist scholar of religion, I would still disagree with him! Indeed, let me point out that I am not a Calvinist, yet I will still assert that this is not the Calvinistic understanding of damnation.
DeepThought
Looks like we’re both quite stubborn people so I’ll call it quits with this post in the interest of timesaving (you’re of course welcome to post as many responses as you like since I don’t really police the comments).
My analogy was actually not specifically about what Christian theology teaches — it was about what the Christian worldview implies. There is a difference, eg. it’s possible the Bible might say “black” and theology might dance around it to conclude “white”. I genuinely don’t see how the theological clarifications change the *actual* situation. With your description of the Beatific Vision, God still creates a human mind that will condemn itself to eternal torment for a non-eternal imperfection. The math still does not weigh up. Even though in the sophisticated theological version God is one step removed from directly imposing Hell, functionally I consider the process is the same.
Obviously you’ll disagree as I expect any religious person to disagree — if they agreed they would be well on their way to becoming an atheist themselves!
And the sophisticated version of hell does not square well with things like:
-phrases like “God will send you to hell”, which I’ve heard dozens of times — of course I spelled out just one phrase but I’ve heard lots of statements that imply a hell that is imposed
-artworks like the Bosch you mention — in a time where most were illiterate I find it very hard to look at the figures from that perspective and see anything but hell as the “simplistic” concept of being imposed from above.
-similarly in Dante the people are most certainly being tormented directly. Of course his work doesn’t follow orthodox teaching but my analogy was about the actual situation (which includes the popular imagination)
-finally in the Bible itself (Luke 16), the man in hell certainly looks to me like he’s having hell imposed on himself (he even begs for the briefest of respites) — and though Catholic theology is sure to have an explanation the passage itself is so crystal clear to me that I can only conclude that any theological explanation of it in any other way renders theology itself false.
Finally you criticised Dawkins for not knowing much about theology — certainly you don’t need to investigate an entire system before you can conclude it false. As a toy example, consider a system with 100,000 propositions, the first 2 of which contradict each other. I would not look at the other 99,998. And as a Catholic you certainly reject Islam and the other religions using the same spirit of bounded rationality — which is a perfectly good strategy for a person. Anyone who has reason to not believe in God’s existence is certainly justified in concluding that all of theology must be bunk without looking at any of it. Unless you think all the theological tomes of the world should be scoured “just in case” the atheist position can be refuted.
Thanks for all the disagreement, I haven’t had much actual argument on my blog yet!
The only evidence that you have that the “Christian worldview” that you present is true is your own assertion. I, at least, can point to thousands of years of writings to show thatyes, indeed, the vast majority of Chrisitans believe x, while others believe y. Here is an analogy for you
you: “In baseball the strike zone is is wider than the plate and from the knees to the shoulders”
me: “well, by definition the strike zone is from the batter’s knee to halfway between his belt and shoulders high and as wide as the plate”
you: “Well, no one ever plays it that way!”
And my complaints of Dawkins are similar – through his books he erects straw man after straw man of the ‘ridiculous things Christians believe’ where I know of no religion that teaches the things he is refuting.
As to your points, sdoes the phrase ‘Pow! To the moon!’ mean that the speaker doesn’t believe in gravity? So illiterate people are incapable of complex thought and understanding? Surely a blow to, say, the Great Khan and his Golden Horde that were better strategists than the well-educated generals of China (not to mention the quite-sophisticated Celtic culture where the scholar-priests rejected the written word).
Have you *read* Dante? Try Inferno, Circle 3, Canto 6 and Circle 1, Canto 4. Sure he had all sorts of torments thrown in – mainly against his political and romantic rivals, as well as some prominent figures. This is akin to pointing to the Colbert Report to determine “real” Catholic belief!
And that is quite the gambit – ‘if you disagree with my interpretation, all theology is false!’. Clever. Very open-minded.
How good is your Greek? Why do I ask? Well, you read that passage in the original before you decided how clear it was, right?
[...] no stranger to godless parables, the wonderful Job 24:12 made me think of this [...]
Leave a Comment