On Eternal Happiness

[lemondiesel]

Inspired by another thread.

Many religious beliefs feature the concept of eternal happiness in some form, such as the belief in an afterlife paradise. It has been suggested that because this idea has come about, we should live our lives as pious people in case it is true and we may miss out if we live any other way. That approach prompts the question: what is there to come after death? Good question. Between here and there, a more pressing question: what is there to come before death?

Believing that an eternity of happiness awaits you after death is a dangerous thing to do without first considering the possible consequences. While it is not certain, a number of negative results await careless believers such as: suicide, complacency, and self-destructive compassion. Suicide simply to shorten the wait. Complacency as knowing what awaits you, it might become less of a priority to arrange for true happiness during life. Self-destructive compassion in actively sacrificing ones entire life in the service of a god that may not exist, facing down misery every day and never knowing happiness for yourself (faithful that it awaits you later). I do not mean to discount the possibility of positive or neutral results by mentioning only some negative ones.

If God is omniscient, then every sin we undertake and every lapse of faith by every intelligent being in the universe is pre-known to it, so it makes no sense to both create us AND punish us unless that God is cruel and sadistic. If you wrote a computer program that did what you intended and then destroyed your computer because it did what you told it to do, you would not be acting reasonably. Yet, often religion tells us that God is kind, loving, or forgiving. Therefore, according to some religions, God cannot punish us for anything. And according to those that would not agree, God is cruel and sadistic (and why should I follow such a figure?).

The evident truth is that no matter what you think of the concept of eternal happiness, you have to bench it. If you live your life in a gamble hoping for everything to be given to you after your death, won’t that delay you from giving yourself the things you want in life? And if your gamble falls through, you’ve given up your life and gained nothing just as surely as if I’ve lived rejecting God and if there turns out to be a happiness, then maybe I won’t get to share in it. The question seems to be: do we devote ourselves to living satisfying lives for ourselves or do we devote ourselves to maybe having happy afterlives?

The most common answer will probably be a little bit of both, giving some time to God and some time to yourselves. You might be engaging in rituals such as prayer that may even be putting aspects of your fate into the hands of something that potentially isn’t even there. So you see, you might be giving more than just your time to this idea. You can have faith, but the very definition of faith acknowledges that it’s something of a gamble. This is what you are doing with time you could be using on real solutions and pursuits.

This idea itself – eternal happiness – is sketchy. In a state of happiness that does not allow the occasional despair, how is one to appreciate happiness? If one has no opportunity to appreciate it, what good is any reward? This is one thing above the other things said about a possible afterlife that gives me great doubt in the concept. This idea that we can move to a place where we never have to face misery again sounds most like the kind of consoling comment I might give to a grieving widow, and perhaps that’s where it came from. Maybe that’s all it ever was.

If paradise and God are real things, my belief in them is inevitable. Ultimately, if I cannot find within myself the same faith that believers possess, I will greet them in paradise. The worst punishment I can imagine actually suffering is having to listen to the faithful say ‘I told you so’ for an eternity.

Being reminded I wasn’t perfect? I can live with that.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The evident truth is that no matter what you think of the concept of eternal happiness, you have to bench it. If you live your life in a gamble hoping for everything to be given to you after your death, won’t that delay you from giving yourself the things you want in life? And if your gamble falls through, you’ve given up your life and gained nothing just as surely as if I’ve lived rejecting God and if there turns out to be a happiness, then maybe I won’t get to share in it. The question seems to be: do we devote ourselves to living satisfying lives for ourselves or do we devote ourselves to maybe having happy afterlives?

This is based on a big misunderstanding. God only wants what is good for us, and the rules He gives us are for our own benefit, in this life and the next. God knows that true fulfillment and happiness for men comes from knowing Him and believing in Him. This is one reason why most of us take our faith so seriously - we have come to learn first hand that our true purpose and our happiness and peace, in this life and hopefully in the next, are based on having a good relationship with God.

 

[lemondiesel]

This is based on a big misunderstanding. God only wants what is good for us, and the rules He gives us are for our own benefit, in this life and the next. God knows that true fulfillment and happiness for men comes from knowing Him and believing in Him. This is one reason why most of us take our faith so seriously - we have come to learn first hand that our true purpose and our happiness and peace, in this life and hopefully in the next, are based on having a good relationship with God.

You describe a fairly central belief in religion in the benevolence of God. And yet it seems that for nearly every benevolent god there is a malevolent god (or godlet, or something ascribed godly power but called something less for the sake of protecting benevolent god’s ego). I ask the question: which one is more likely to contact us in some way? The benevolent god who already knows what is inevitable, or the malevolent god who either isn’t aware that he cannot alter the inevitable, or has that knowledge and still a desire to try anyway?

The answer starts to seem more certain when we realize that a God who has everything does not need our reverence. It has infinitely more power than any of us, and yet demands our attention? What do we have that God envies? I detect more wretchedness than greatness in these ideas. God allegedly created everything exactly as he wanted it, and all of time to unfold in just the way he planned. Why then would he make himself known to us? Why would anything supernatural make itself known? That which makes itself known to us must have the motive of changing the unfolding divine plan. What other answer can there be?

The inspiration for the thinking of the OP was probably fairly easy to recognize: Pascal. He put pen to the main idea of divine understanding as it still seems to be commonly communicated: the idea that God moves ones heart and gives one a relationship with the divine. It’s emotional, like love, which can drive men crazy enough to kill other men. Yeah, that sounds like piousness, too.

I’ll accept the premise that an emotion can be as valuable as a deduction, but I think the religious have to accept the fact that whatever they think they know about divine motivation must necessarily embrace doubt. Unreasonable feelings and beliefs may be divinely inspired, but they may also be merely delusions. Faith makes the difference.

If this is what makes a person happy, I say good for them. This should continue to be their truth if that is the case. My main point is merely to remain diligent and focused in the present life and not in some gamble on the future.

 

[awatkins69]

Hi Lemondiesel. You’ve written a very thoughtful post, and I can very much appreciate the thinking you put into it. I don’t have much time to write right now, but just a two quick remarks.

First off, with the idea that eternal happiness is dubious, you should note that within the Catholic tradition there is a very long long strand of “virtue ethics”. What that means is that, to us, people have prior states which affect the present states, because they have inculcated certain habits within their souls. And of course, we consider eternal happiness to be the “beatific vision”, eternal bliss. When someone dies, they are either in the state of being a pure soul, or they go to purgatory, where they are purified. What this means, in essence, is that when they die they have either inculcated the virtue and grace necessary to appreciate the beatific vision (and to never sin, because their habits “cause” them to act in such a way), or they go to purgatory, where they are made ready for heaven and ready to appreciate eternal (and infinite) bliss.

Secondly, according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, “grace perfects nature; it does not destroy it.” Someone who is happy by grace is not miserable in this life. On the contrary, they are flourishing human beings. In all of the Catholic philosophical canon, like the Summa Theologica, the “natural” virtues of Aristotle are given just as much place as the “theological” virtues.

Also, somewhat related, consider this argument for theism (it’s not my own).

(1). No life centered on love of someone who never exists is a flourishing life.
(2). Some people lead a flourishing life centered on love of God.
(3). Therefore, it is false that God never exists.
(4). God either always exists or never exists.
(5). God always exists.

I find it quite plausible. With premise (1), we should note that truth is the perfection of the intellect. Knowledge and wisdom are virtues, and are necessary for a flourishing life. I think love does require someone who can at least be the object of that love. People who love cartoons are usually not considered to be flourishing for instance.

One may object that one can flourish by dedicating their entire lives to atheism. First off, just empirically, I don’t see that happening. Most of the atheists I know who have dedicated their whole lives to atheism have some big problems, though I won’t draw general conclusions. On the other hand, priests, religious, etc. live flourishing lives all of the time.

If it is the case that there is at least one person dedicated entirely to God who flourishes, the argument is sound. To deny this argument, you must deny that there is *any *reasonability or happiness for any theist dedicated entirely to God. That’s something very hard for me to accept. Just look at the saints. On the other hand, I’m not saying atheists can’t have a flourishing temporal life based on natural virtue. But I can accept that it’s not possible to flourish based solely and totally on a merely negative attitude, a non-belief in something, such as atheism/agnosticism.

I guess those remarks were not so quick.

 

[lemondiesel]

awatkins69, thank you for the post. I am working through it now.

I just wanted to ask a further question for this thread.

Can true happiness ever last? Won’t it lead to eventually taking things for granted?

 

[danserr]

Hi lemondiesel,
You’ve certainly given a lot of food for thought in your post, I’ll mention my thoughts on some (certainly not all) of them. I think though, that my most important thought would be to suggest as a possible book to read NT Wright’s Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven and the Resurrection. It’s one of my favorite books period, covers some of the stuff you’ve mentioned, and is very accessible.

That being said, some other thoughts follow. Here are what I understand to be some of your main ideas.

1). Negative things that flow from belief in an afterlife (suicide, apathy about happiness in this life, apathy about this life, misery in serving a God that might not exist). Should we devote our lives to satisfying ourselves? (or give some time to God and ourselves)
2). The nature of eternal happiness. How can we be happy without misery, how could we appreciate the happiness? Can true happiness last, wont’ we take it for granted.
3). doubts about God’s nature- Why create us? Why punish us? Does he need us/ Our worship?
4)… Given these problems it is more plausible to act as if God does not exist. (A sort of pascal’s wager for atheism)

4). The problem with number 4. (to start at the end), is that you only consider some of the potential downsides of belief in an after-life, but you need to also consider the downsides of denying it. For instance, if there is not God and immortality, then man’s life is absurd. Man alone of all creatures looks into the universe and sees his own death, man alone looks out on the universe and asks why? To live happily man needs meaning, purpose, value and immortality, but without God and immortality then life has no ultimate meaning, we have no purpose, there is not value or immortality. Can we life happily with this viewpoint? I cannot and I don’t think anyone else can either. This is what some people call “The Absurdity of Life without God.” reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5389 Taking this into account as well, we are back at pascal’s wager.

On the other hand, if God does exist, then life has ultimate meaning, purpose, value, immortality. Wright’s book gives some historical evidence for the Resurrection and then suggests what it implies for our beliefs on the afterlife. And why not belief in God? In his words, there is nothing to lose and eternity to gain. Even if I granted your points about the downsides of belief in an afterlife, it would still be true that those downsides are only finite, while the happiness you gamble over would eternal. I would say it would still make sense to chose the chance of eternal happiness based on this.

1). As for 1, I see your point, but on the whole think it is answerable. I don’t think suicide out of eagerness for the next world is much of a concern. First, Christianity is clear that suicide is a grave sin and imperils one’s chances of the next world. Second, suicide is typically an act of despair and rejection of the present world, but not in anyway done in hope for the future world. An interesting thought. I heard a lecture at college some time ago studying suicide in Cuba. The professor pointed out that though Mexico was just poor and had the same problems, the suicide rate was far higher in Cuba. She attributed this to Christianity. (It was about a book she wrote on suicide in Cuba).
In terms of serving God making one miserable, well think how God commands us to serve him. Love him, Love our neighbor. Feed the poor, clothe the naked, keep holy the sabbath (for our sakes more than his), love your wife husband (as Christ loved the Church). Doing this would hardly make us miserable, actually it could only make us better people, which is what God wants. He wants us to develop into good people, so we can enjoy the eternal happiness for which he made us.

3). This shows a problem with 2. It’s not a matter of God punishing us (if you mean hell), It’s a point that God is the source of all goodness, happiness, love, justice. If we want these things we have to go to him. If you want to be warm, your stand in the sun. It’s not a matter of punishment for rejecting God, it’s simply that unhappiness is the natural consequence of rejecting him (like a diver cutting his own breathing tube).
3b). as for God creating us, He did it because he loves us. That is also why he reveals himself to us, because he love us and wants us to know him. God does not need us. He has no needs. So he is able to love us with complete unselfishness. Neither does he need our worship. Fulton sheen has a you tube video “on prayer”, in part 2 or 3 (24 minutes), he show why we worship God. It’s like a little girl giving her mother a handful of dandelions and daisies she’s picked. Does the mother need the flowers? No. Does the child need to give them? Certainly! The child has been loved and given many good things, to not give the flowers she would be lacking in gratitude. So God does not need our worship, we do! Else, we would be lacking in love and gratitude for the things we are given (birth, life, love, Jesus, eternal happiness).

 

[danserr]

2). Finally as to the nature of this happiness. You are concerned that without misery we could not appreciate the happiness. This would be an interesting answer to the problem of evil, for me to claim that God makes unhappiness because it is necessary to enjoy happiness. But I don’t find it very plausible and I don’t thin many atheists I ran that idea by would either. I think a better answer is to point out that concern we’d get bored or not appreciate eternal happiness is really concern, not about a defect in the idea of eternal happiness, but about a defect in us. But this is why God wants us to develop goodness, so that we are finally without defect and can enjoy this happiness. And then we can say with St. Augustine, "you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.

I guess this got a little long, and it’s still only a partial answer to the important questions you raise. I do encourage you to look at Wright’s “Surprised by Hope,” since you are obviously interested by this stuff, I think you might enjoy it.
best,
danserr**

 

[paduard]

Hello Lemondiesel.

Reading through the different contributions to the topic you started, I found that in general there is a concentration centred on seeking to reconcile opposites – put crudely in my terms - such concepts as’ time and eternity’, space and infinity, ‘happiness and boredom’,’ act and non act’, & so on.

I may well be wrong? But that which I see as your underlying motive of inquiry can be summed up simply had you asked:

If there is life after death – how does it work?

God Bless

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You describe a fairly central belief in religion in the benevolence of God. And yet it seems that for nearly every benevolent god there is a malevolent god (or godlet, or something ascribed godly power but called something less for the sake of protecting benevolent god’s ego). I ask the question: which one is more likely to contact us in some way? The benevolent god who already knows what is inevitable, or the malevolent god who either isn’t aware that he cannot alter the inevitable, or has that knowledge and still a desire to try anyway?

I suppose the malevolent being would have more need to contact us.

The answer starts to seem more certain when we realize that a God who has everything does not need our reverence. It has infinitely more power than any of us, and yet demands our attention? What do we have that God envies? I detect more wretchedness than greatness in these ideas. God allegedly created everything exactly as he wanted it, and all of time to unfold in just the way he planned. Why then would he make himself known to us? Why would anything supernatural make itself known? That which makes itself known to us must have the motive of changing the unfolding divine plan. What other answer can there be?

You’re right, God does not need our reverence. And God does not experience jealousy, or want our attention. God envies nothing that we have. These are pretty standard teachings in Catholicism.

So why would God reach out to us then, and tell us to worship him? Because His actions aren’t based on self-interest, they are based on our interest. God is loving, and does things for the good of others, even when He requires nothing.

The inspiration for the thinking of the OP was probably fairly easy to recognize: Pascal. He put pen to the main idea of divine understanding as it still seems to be commonly communicated: the idea that God moves ones heart and gives one a relationship with the divine. It’s emotional, like love, which can drive men crazy enough to kill other men. Yeah, that sounds like piousness, too.

Men will go crazy and kill each other over all sorts of things. Race, political ideology, greed, lust for power, etc. Anything that is important to people can cause wars. Religion is important to people, and so like anything else that is important, can be misused in that way. But religion also contains teachings that help prevent wars. THe same can’t be said for all of those other things that people fight over.

I’ll accept the premise that an emotion can be as valuable as a deduction, but I think the religious have to accept the fact that whatever they think they know about divine motivation must necessarily embrace doubt. Unreasonable feelings and beliefs may be divinely inspired, but they may also be merely delusions. Faith makes the difference.

Yes, its difficult to know which religious ideas are correct. Hence the different religions in the world. But there are some things that most of them agree on.

If this is what makes a person happy, I say good for them. This should continue to be their truth if that is the case. My main point is merely to remain diligent and focused in the present life and not in some gamble on the future.

But being focused in the present life seems like something guaranteed to lead to disappointment. We’re almost certain to die some day. You’re betting on a sure loss if you put your hope and treasure in this life. I don’t think I could ever be happy in this life if I didn’t believe in a life to come.