Do these common criticisms of an eternal afterlife have merit?

Great Debates
1

Besides the matter of evidence for its existence and who goes there the two most common criticisms of the idea of an eternal afterlife that’s amazing and perfect in every conceivable way (Heaven) are the issues of eventual boredom and personal continuity (retaining your human personality and remaining “you” even after a very long time). In the next two paragraphs I’ll detail why I think these arguments are wrong.

Assuming a basic deistic framework for the sake of making this discussion easier Heaven is a perfect supernatural realm of peace, happiness, fulfillment etc governed by an all powerful, all loving and all knowing deity that made all of existence (including the afterlife) from nothing and intangible souls that retain their living personalities and exist forever also from nothing. With all of this in mind it would be absolutely trivial for God to make it so people in Heaven (or whatever you want to call it) never got bored and retained their personalities and what makes them “them” even as their minds and bodies are improved and time went on. If people got bored (for long at least) and miserable or became different people completely divorced from who they were on Earth it wouldn’t be perfect and naturally wouldn’t be Heaven. Mental continuity and individual identity are essential parts of personhood so I don’t see why they wouldn’t be retained indefinitely. I believe it was C.S. Lewis that said in Heaven you become fully human and reach the self actualization you yearned for your entire mortal life and it’s perfectly designed for your habitation like a glove for a hand.

Some may consider this a “cop out” but we shouldn’t expect a supernatural realm to be governed by the same rules that dictate our physical universe as long as it’s logically possible. It’s like saying a hypothetical wizard’s magic powers aren’t possible given our understanding of science. It’s magic so by definition it isn’t explainable using conventional means. Imagine an insect expressing incredulity at the idea of skyscrapers, algebra, quantum physics and supercomputers or someone asking if there would be enough room for everyone in Heaven. The answer to the usual questions is within the very premise itself even if we as mortal beings living in the real world can’t fully comprehend it.

Does this counter argument sound reasonable or is there something I’m missing?

2

Those criticisms would be complete valid in any rational discussion. None such is available on this issue. Nothing anyone says on the topic can be gainsaid or contradicted by anything anybody else offers except upon personal opinion.

Since this is the internet, the utter meaningless and futility of such an argument is meat to a lion, so I expect this thread to have a long and hearty life. Have at it!

3

I can’t speak for all religions and denominations, but I once had this discussion with my father who is a New England Congregationalist. He stated his belief that when a soul enters Heaven, it gains perfect communion with God and there are no individual separate consciousnesses. I didn’t ask if there was any particular bit of scripture he could point to that supported this belief, but he was deeply involved in his church and probably could point to it in the Bible or some other theologian’s carefully considered work.

4

Or he saw it on Star Trek.

5

I have good news and I have bad news.

The good news is you’re going to live forever. You’ll be reincarnated in the world you helped create.

The bad news is you’re going to live forever. You’ll be reincarnated in the world you helped create.

6

I have many logical objections to the idea of Heaven, but here’s a specific one.

Take this family example:

  • two great-grandparents died of pneumonia aged 45
  • one grandfather passed away at 85, sadly with dementia
  • one grandmother lived to 90
  • parents lived until 70
  • one child was stillborn; the others are aged 50 and 40

When in Heaven, presumably all diseases are cured. But what age is everybody?

7

I don’t understand the question. People wouldn’t have the same physical bodies that they do on Earth so age and physical appearance as we know it wouldn’t really be an issue. Everyone would be in the best condition imaginable regardless of their age when they died. I assume a child that died would mature in some fashion since it would be bizarre for someone to be stuck as an infant, toddler etc forever.

8

I remember a few years back a college professor getting in trouble for stating his opinion that “the one thing all religions have in common is that they all originated from the imaginations of men”. Truer words have never been spoken.
Any idea of the existence of a afterlife, what it entails, and how it functions derives solely from whatever you or anyone else can imagine it to be.

9

The OP’s postulates about God’s perfect love and omnipotence don’t align with many sections of the Bible — at least not as we humans understand love and power. But let’s accept the hypothetical.

I accept the notion of perfect contentment in the presence of God. The first time I used weed I was joyous and at peace with the world, and I’m told opioids can far surpass weed in that regard. But chemical highs are imperfect things: addiction, obsession, reduced effects, damaging to relationships, often incompatible with keeping the sewers working. But, again, I can imagine everlasting contentment without social or physical drawbacks.

The issue of remaining “me” — for an eternity in a world without problems — is thorny. The only way I can believe it, is by accepting God’s supposed omnipotence as an all-purpose problem solver.

In this world my identity is bound up with my problems and with time. I like humor, the mating drive, creation (art, writing, and projects in the yard), dogs, music, stories, a few people, advances of science, bravery, and the details of the universe (including history, neutron stars and lyre birds). All the things I like will be vastly changed if time and conflict are wiped out.

Humor? Stories? Bravery? Mostly based on conflict. The mating drive? Obsolete, I think. Artistic Creation? I think it will pall next to the majesty of God, and after 6 trillion years of unchanging bliss I might run short of inspiration. Science? Dead I think. History? Obsolete. Friendships? Family? I like a few people, but usually run out of things to say in few hours — although competitions and minor conflicts can keep the times interesting. Dogs? Yeah, I think dogs will hold up okay, but they’ll never die and there won’t be new puppies.

Still, if the hypothetical is that God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then it’s possible I can feel like “me” forever and ever and ever.

10

I think this is based on a common misconception about “eternity”. Eternity doesn’t mean “a really long time”. It doesn’t even mean “an infinitely long time”. It means no time. To an eternal being, all moments would be the same moment. So there’s no “it’d start off fun, but eventually get boring”. It’d be all of it, all at once.

11

The OP’s “counter argument” is merely stating one implication of the meaning of “omnipotent.” One can imagine any version of heaven or hell one wishes, or any explanation of how the world was formed, or how humans came into being, or literally anything else, and say “god did it.” If the premise of omnipotence is accepted, the conclusion is logically necessary.

Since accepting the premise leads to any number of mutually contradictory conclusions, we must conclude that the premise is meaningless and has no explanatory power. This is entirely apart from the fact that we have zero evidence for the existence of any omnipotent beings of any description, whether all-loving, all-hating, all-singing, or all-dancing.

12

My personality was formed by living through my childhood, adolescence, college years, adulthood, having kids, etc.

What do you do in the afterlife with a two day old child who dies?

13

Over the years, there have been a large number of people who have reported visions of Heaven and/or near-death experiences where they saw and/or talked with deceased family members.

One of the commonalities of such reports is that people who died in old age, now appear in the prime of their life; young or young-ish adulthood.

14

Perhaps personality and sense of self are meaningless in the afterlifte.

15

If you have no personality and no sense of self, it’s not ‘you’ in any meaningful way.

16

Hey, I’m an atheist so none of this really concerns me, but people are making the assumption that you retain some of your mortal characteristics in the afterlife, and I think that’s not required. There’s no reason to believe that your experience of self, time, or existence in the afterlife resembles that of this mortal life.

17

Me too. I was just trying to understand the OPs statement about growing little kids up in the afterlife.

Ultimately, discussions that come down to God can do anything are unsatisfying.

18

This is a bit beyond the purview of the prompt but it’s a good question. I’d assume they are raised (whether by dead relatives or designated caretakers who are also dead) in a manner similar to an earthly childhood but obviously orders of magnitude better.

19

So it starts off boring and stays that way?

20

And without knowledge of Good and Evil. Might be interesting.