Chapter Eight: Episode 35
Evil and an Afterlife
Evil and Heaven
But let’s talk about that suffering and persecution that Jesus himself experienced -- and taught us to not fear. What about the problem of evil – like those Oak Hill murders?
Evil especially demands belief in an afterlife.
The philosopher and progenitor of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant, observed that morally good people often suffered in this life because of their very goodness. Likewise, evil people frequently prospered and were not punished.[i]
The solution, for Kant? He “postulated”[ii]the existence of an afterlife.[iii] Only in such an afterlife could the good person experience the joy they deserve.[iv] Universal reason demands that – somehow, some “where,” in some “time” – the good are rewarded.
We hypothesize, we construct, we believe that reward must come through this “thing” called, “heaven.”
But please note this: Kant argued that we should do good, not in order to gain heavenly happiness – we do it because good is right to do! Indeed, we do good despite the possibility that it might make us unhappy today. But in the afterlife realm, we will experience that happiness of which we are worthy.
And so, likewise, for punishment. Those who have escaped earthly punishment for evil will now experience divine consequences in an afterlife. Again, we’re not going to quibble about the details of various afterlife beliefs. But almost all religions are united in believing in judgment of all and justice for victims.
The upshot? We must construct a map whose edges extend beyond our mortal lives! Those extended “edges” keep us striving for the good! That map keeps us from becoming discouraged from doing the right thing. It keeps us from becoming evil ourselves to avenge unpunished wrongs.
Religions around the world have formulated their own constructions of this map through their stories, rituals, and teachings. The map is used by their followers to inspire their moral action.
These maps lift all humanity by supporting good deeds today and justice in the future.
Your Rational Choice about Resurrection
Yes, you can believe in some vague afterlife without having a religion. You can try to persevere and do the right thing, without expecting a heavenly reward.
But we all will someday face a dark wilderness of suffering and death, and its challenge to life’s meaning. Children will be murdered, a faith leader will die of cancer, good people will suffer injustice no human court can correct.
Those who don’t believe in God must use maps supplied by popular thought. . .
* hope for some vague, heavenly realm where everyone “gets in.”
* living in the moment without concern for the soul we’re building -- or destroying.
* no confidence that doing good leaves a lasting legacy.
* a life divided starkly between the “now” and a vague “hereafter” that barely enters our thoughts.
Religions’ maps are so much clearer. Their distinct and tested maps sustain us when life seems cruel and unfair. Their moral lines can guide our way through the darkest of life’s trails. They shine the light of heaven on our walk in this harsh wilderness.
What will you choose?
(To be continued August 18, Conclusion: Episode 36)
To Eight Trails readers: Does this post suggest a moment you’ve experienced and, perhaps, a photo you took? Share your reflections and photos with me by clicking “reply” to this email post. I would be delighted to include them in new posts — of course, crediting you!
[i] “Now it is clear . . . that the maxims of virtue and those of private happiness are quite heterogeneous as to their supreme practical principle, and, although they belong to one summum bonum which together they make possible, yet they are so far from coinciding that they restrict and check one another very much in the same subject. Thus the question: ‘How is the summum bonum practically possible?’ still remains an unsolved problem. . .” Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, Book 2, Chapter 2, paragraph 6
[ii] “The summum bonum, then, practically is only possible on the supposition of the immortality of the soul; consequently this immortality, being inseparably connected with the moral law, is a postulate of pure practical reason (by which I mean a theoretical proposition, not demonstrable as such, but which is an inseparable result of an unconditional a priori practical law.” Kant, Book 2, Chapter 2, paragraph 35.
[iii] “In respect, then, of the holiness which the Christian law requires, this leaves the creature nothing but a progress in infinitum, but for that very reason it justifies him in hoping for an endless duration of his existence. The worth of a character perfectly accordant with the moral law is infinite, since the only restriction on all possible happiness in the judgement of a wise and all powerful distributor of it is the absence of conformity of rational beings to their duty. But the moral law of itself does not promise any happiness, for according to our conceptions of an order of nature in general, this is not necessarily connected with obedience to the law. Now Christian morality supplies this defect (of the second indispensable element of the summum bonum) by representing the world in which rational beings devote themselves with all their soul to the moral law, as a kingdom of God, in which nature and morality are brought into a harmony foreign to each of itself, by a holy Author who makes the derived summum bonum possible. Holiness of life is prescribed to them as a rule even in this life, while the welfare proportioned to it, namely, bliss, is represented as attainable only in an eternity; because the former must always be the pattern of their conduct in every state, and progress towards it is already possible and necessary in this life; while the latter, under the name of happiness, cannot be attained at all in this world (so far as our own power is concerned), and therefore is made simply an object of hope.” Kant, Book 2, Chapter 2, paragraph 46
[iv] Kant didn’t see the afterlife as a zone of heavenly reward, but, rather, a realm of “infinite progress,” where our immortal souls keep on progressing toward a moral perfection not possible in this life. I wonder if Kant’s realm of infinite progress is much like the Mormon doctrine of heaven, where souls continue their sanctification, toward becoming like their heavenly parent.