Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5jtmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T10:46:30.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Escaping Heaven and Hell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2015

MORGAN LUCK
MORGAN LUCK*
Affiliation:
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Centre for Applied Ethics and Public Philosophy, Charles Sturt University, NSW, 2678, Australia e-mail: moluck@csu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adams (1993) argues that the traditional view that no one in Hell can leave, poses a problem for the theist. This is because, she argues, such a bad state of affairs should be prevented by God. In response, Buckareff and Plug (2005) argue that everyone in Hell can leave. More recently, Matheson (2014) argues that if everyone in Hell can leave, then everyone in Heaven can also leave. However, Matheson provides reason to think that it is impossible for anyone in Heaven to leave. In which case, he argues, no one in Hell can leave either. In this article, I extend this debate, and offer reason to think Matheson's argument is unsound.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 395 - 402
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, M. (1993) ‘The problem of Hell: a problem of evil for Christians’, in Stump, E. (ed.) Reasoned Faith: Essays in Philosophical Theology in Honor of Norman Kretzmann (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press), 301–302.Google Scholar
Buckareff, A. & Plug, A. (2005) ‘Escaping Hell: divine motivation and the problem of Hell’, Religious Studies, 41, 39–54.Google Scholar
Matheson, B. (2014) ‘Escaping Heaven’, International Journal of Philosophy of Religion, 75, 197–206.Google Scholar