Wheaton Philosophy Conference: What Philosophers Think about Heaven and Hell

Without seeing the abstracts it looks like more philosophers are thinking about Hell than Heaven! I'm sore that I'll have to miss this one. If there is anyone attending who'd like blog space to provide color commentary let me know.

Don't worry, Matt. It seems like most philosophers are completely ditching Hell or making it only temporary. So, eventually, they've got to start talking more about Heaven!

Well, it certainly does NOT look like most philosophers scheduled to be at this conference are completely ditching Hell or making it temporary (though a couple of us are).

And I think it's a pretty safe bet that generally most Christian philosophers are doing neither. I'm one who thinks hell is temporary, and I certainly seem to be very much in the minority.

I'm curious now. What recent defenses of an eternal Hell are there by Christian philosophers (beyond what's to be presented at the conference)?

One of the most prominent recent defenses of the traditional doctrine of eternal damnation is Jerry Walls's HELL: THE LOGIC OF DAMNATION (U Notre Dame Press, 1992).

Many also cite William Lane Craig's paper, "'No Other Name': A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation through Christ," FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY 6 (1989): 172-88.

To add to Keith's list, and at the risk of being self-serving:

Charles Seymour, A THEODICY OF HELL
Jonathan Kvanvig, THE PROBLEM OF HELL

I certainly would have recommended Jon's book, but I didn't think it fit the description of a "defense of eternal damnation." Don't you leave open the possibility that the really stubbornly unrepented are eventually annihilated, Jon?

Well, if I'm remembering the details of Jon's thesis right, maybe it should count as a defense of eternal damnation. If Jon still has his ears on & I get this wrong, he can correct me. But as I recall, his position leaves open both eventual annihilation and eternal residence in hell (by the residents' own choice). If so, then his position isn't that there will be any eternal residents of hell (since he leaves another possibility open), but his defense of his position could still be counted as a defense of eternal hell, because he defends that as a possibility. Is that right?

My view is that the telos of hell is annihilation, but that there is no guarantee that individuals in hell meet the conditions of rationality and stability of preference needed for that. It's not that they choose eternal residence over annihilation, but rather that they choice of separation from God doesn't meet the conditions needed to warrant the ultimate separation of annihilation. The result is that they may be eternal residents instead.

James,

You might also be interested in William Lane Craig's exchange with Thomas Talbott.

"Talbott's Universalism." Religious Studies 27 (1991): 297-308.
"Talbott's Universalism Once More." Religious Studies 29 (1993): 297-308.

Had I looked in earlier I would have recommended Jon's "The Problem of Hell" myself. Jon's discussion of annihilation as punishment vs imprisonment as punishment should interest folks even with the discussion of hell aside. To my knowledge he's also one of the few defenders of annihilationism, even if it is only teleological. I have some reservations about annihilation not being the mechanical component because it seems odd to me that God would leave some folks in an eternal limbo. If I recall my differences had to do with the conditions of rationality, but I'd have to check my notes to make an argument. So I'll just register my reservation and recommend it as a great read on the subject. :)

Thanks for the references. Today, I ordered Kvanvig's book (see... shameless plugs count for something!), as well as Walls' and Seymour's. I had not heard of Seymour's book before; I thought Kvanvig was an annihilationist - but I wasn't too sure; and Walls's view I am completely ignorant about (or perhaps with your recommendation, *was* ignorant about where he stood). The issue that has been discouraging to me was that I was not aware of there being (post Edwards) recent philosophical defenses; I thought there might be some, but there would at most be only a be few. While most Christian philosophers may believe in an eternal Hell (so Keith is right), the appearance to me has been that most people *addressing the topic* have been against it. I guess the conference says otherwise.

Personally, I'm pretty convinced that the Scriptural evidence for an eternal Hell is strong. But without any awareness of recent philosophical defenses of the idea of eternal punishment, and due to the field I read the most in (free will), such that the amount of skeptics now denying retribution at least in some deep sense is apparently growing, this has together caused me some discouragement. Anyway, thanks again for the recommendations. Obviously, I'm following up on them.

There's also a somewhat popular treatment by J.P. Moreland in Beyond Death (formerly titled Immortality). I remember it as one of the stronger parts of that book, but I read it as an undergrad, and I can't promise that I'd agree with that if I read it now.

Eleonore Stump also defends a traditional and eternal view of hell in her "Dante's Hell, Aquinas's Theory of Morality, and the Love of God", The Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16 (1986), 181-198.

Sorry I can't make it to this conference. I just found out about it, but live in Stockholm, Sweden - a bit too far away to pop over for 2 days (even though it would be quite tempting if I had a pile more money). Are there any plans to publish the papers which will be presented? Thanks,
Ray