In The Problem of Hell, Kvanvig sets out on what he believes is a much needed philosophical analysis of the doctrine of hell. He notes that the doctrine of hell is “losing its force in the last remnants of conservative Protestantism” continuing a theological trend of the last few centuries that is straying away from a central feature of the Christian faith due to growing moral objections to the doctrine. The problem of hell then is it appears to expose a need for an almost incomparable level of evil to be allowed, yet one cannot appeal to it serving some unknown greater purpose as with the problem of evil. Hell serves an easily discernible purpose that rejects any hope of further or future good to result from this evil.
It is for this reason Kvanvig feels the problem of hell must be addressed and the religious doctrines of hell examined and analyzed such that a suitable solution to the problem of hell might be constructed. While the examination of hell is done primarily with Christianity in mind, Kvanvig being a Christian himself, the exploration of the various doctrines of hell, their objections and what can be done to salvage the doctrine of hell is mindfully done from a theologically neutral perspective and equally applies to doctrines of hell found across other religions.
The first chapter deals with the cultural “fire and brimstone” hell that Kvanvig calls the “strong view”. He establishes that it is founded on four main commitments:
H1 – Some people are consigned to hell;
H2 – Hell is a place where people exist, if they are consigned there;
H3 – Once one is consigned to hell, there is no possibility of leaving and nothing one can do, change or become in order to get out
H4 – Hell is retributive in nature, issuing punishment.
At length Kvanvig then examines the strong view of hell and poses a number of rather damaging challenges to it including rebuttals to various defenses such as status principle being applied as a solution to the moral problem of equal punishment for all consigned to hell.
The second chapter is where I think the book really shines, taking a look at what Kvanvig calls the “simple alternatives” to the strong view. These are the typically offered alternatives to the strong view such as Annihilationism and Universalism. Kvanvig’s brilliance is in highlighting what seem like rather agreeable and drastic alternatives to the strong view are in fact only minor alterations that simply deny one of the four main commitments of the strong view. For Annihilationism merely H2 is denied, for Universalism merely H1. Kvanvig also offers examinations for doctrines of hell that deny the other two commitments, second-chance theories that deny H3 and quarantine theories that deny H4.
Along with this insight, Kvanvig does not shy away from presenting each in the strongest possible scenario, providing alternatives to each doctrine that may offer solutions to his objections and in turn analyzing those too. The commentary on Universalism has the bulk of the chapter devoted to it with some great arguments responding to Thomas Talbott’s views.
For the most part, the book is eminently readable and Kvanvig takes great care during moments of technical analysis to restate arguments in a more familiar and accessible manner. However, it is during this chapter we are reminded this is indeed intended as a work of technical philosophical analysis and the seven pages he devotes to responding to Alvin Plantinga’s arguments on possible world actualization will be near incomprehensible to anyone without some form of academic background in philosophy.
The second half of the book, chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to constructing what Kvanvig calls an “issuant conception of hell” that manages to survive not only these philosophical objections but also theological ones. It is however, in the construction of this issuant conception of hell entails that I feel the book is lacking. Having so thoroughly and triumphantly kicked in the door of various doctrines of hell, one expects Kvanvig’s solution to be elegant, simple and deeply satisfying. Yet, for odds reasons it feels half-complete as it rests on a composite of two doctrines of hell that emerge and there’s a good deal of discussion on how and when one doctrine is dominant over the other. Overall it feels under-developed as it lacks the force of his earlier arguments.
I think part of the frustration is Kvanvig’s search is merely for a teleological solution to the problem of hell that doesn’t address how the actual mechanistic implementation could work. In doing so, while it may satisfy the aims of the book and find a solution for the philosophical objections discussed, there’s questions left unanswered. Admittedly this is likely out of professional respect to theologians who one assumes are better appealed to in order to find such answers.
Overall though, Kvanvig’s book is a brilliant and critical examination of the problem of hell across its various conceptions that holds no punches. He manages to cram a impressive amount of analysis into its ~180 pages owing to his direct writing style and brevity. It is a delightful and thought provoking intellectual journey that will reward, enrich and enlighten all those willing to entertain Kvanvig’s courageous approach and desire to clear out the skeletons in the closet.
Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
