I argue that Pardi’s criticisms of Drange’s version of the argument from nonbelief (ANB) do not refute ANB, although they may or may not require peripheral corrections or clarifications on Drange’s part. I focus not so much on Drange’s formulation, but on what I take to be the central intuitions of ANB and on the inadequacy of Pardi’s objections. I assume some familiarity with Pardi’s paper and with ANB, although I present what I consider to be ANB’s central claims.
Published on the Secular Web
The existence of both hell and God’s love and mercy cannot easily be justified, and neither can the appropriateness of substitutive sacrifice. In wanting to hide or soften the repugnant ideas of hell and human sacrifice, the theologian resorts to “double-talk”.
The punishment suffered by Jesus, that of the crucifixion, gave rise to multiple interpretations to explain how and why God allowed His Son to suffer so. The concept of Original Sin became one of the central tenets of the Christian religion to explain God’s actions in sacrificing His Son. Jesus is said to have born the sins of the world in an effort to cleanse humanity from sin. The author explores the concept of Original Sin, the idea of sin transferal, while questioning the notion of whether Jesus’ fate was indeed a sacrifice as claimed.