In class we've been considering one potential reply to David Lewis' central argument against eternal hell and, consequently, the orthodox story. That reply denies that on the orthodox story, a perfectly good God inflicts wildly disproportionate punishments upon his creatures. Rather, the reply continues, according to the orthodox story any moral crime humans commit has God as a target (at least), and so is in fact an infinite crime, and so deserving of infinite punishment. In short, the punishment does fit the crime. (We presented, explained, and defended the argument in greater detail in class.)
We then considered two replies Lewis (and others) might offer to this line of reasoning. The first reply was that the "punishment fits the crime" response makes each and every moral infraction deadly serious. Given that it's so serious, it seems that God ought to do more to make that moral fact very clear to his creatures. But, Lewis contends, it's not at all that clear and obvious (at least not to all God's creatures). This makes God like the parent who litters the nursery with knives, handguns, grenades, blowtorches, bear traps, open bottles of cyanide, and old Boohbah videos.The second reply was that we should think of love and justice as compatible, not in tension or at odds. (This is so even on the orthodox story--see Micah 6: 8 and Romans 13: 8-10). So, a truly and robustly just punishment will not be an unloving punishment. But what's loving about hell? How is hell contributing to the flourishing and well-being of those consigned there? It's terribly hard to see how eternal hell contributes to the overall well-being of hell's residents.
So, in light of these potential objections (and others you might think of), what do you think of the "punishment fits the crime" reply? Does it succeed? Are there good replies available to the two worries raised against it?
As always, think long and hard about this. Train yourself to ponder and contemplate. Cultivate good habits here. And interact graciously and charitably.
