Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

‘Hell? Yes!’ Moorean reasons to reject three objections to the possibility of damnation

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objections to the orthodox doctrine of an eternal hell often rely on arguments that it cannot be a person’s own fault that she ends up in hell. The article summarizes and addresses three significant arguments which aim to show that it could not be any individual’s fault that they end up in hell. I respond to these objections by showing that those who affirm a classical picture of sin have Moorean reasons to reject these objections. That classical perspective holds that all (serious) sin involves choosing eternal destiny apart from God and that no sin could possibly be caused by God. Consequently, it is necessary for ending up in hell that someone commit a serious sin, and it is sufficient for ending up damned that one persists forever in sin. Since the objections conflict with Moorean commitments central to the classical perspective, those who hold to such a classical perspective on sin would have good reason to reject all these arguments, which involve assumptions that would entail that such a perspective is false.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)151-163
Number of pages13
JournalReligious Studies
Volume62
Issue number1
Early online date18 Dec 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2026

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
    SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

User-Defined Keywords

  • hell
  • predestination
  • responsibility
  • sin
  • universalism

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '‘Hell? Yes!’ Moorean reasons to reject three objections to the possibility of damnation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this