An Eschatological Hunch

Probably not the one you're thinking of.

I have been working out this hunch for a little while now. I think my reasoning is pretty solid, but I may be wrong of course. The question is this: what can make life no longer worth living?

The question first arose for me through reading an Episcopal priest's reflections on MAiD in Canada. It was, and still remains mostly, an intellectual question for me. Nobody close to me has died in the last six years. But death seems to be orbiting by me in ever shortening arcs year by year: in my neighborhood, Church, extended circles of friends. It won't be long again until it strikes near me, or just strikes me.

For the last month the question has begun coming up again in conversations I am having. When should one just let go? For now, I'll leave aside the hardest parts of that question. The parts that ask: how do you surrender someone dear one into God's loving arms? How do you repair a hole that has ripped into your world? How do you empty yourself of that which was to prepare for that which may happen again? But still honor your memories, a shared life that is no more?

Instead I want to focus on the simple, logical question of: is there a there a point at which suffering becomes so great that it becomes preferable to die?

I don't think so. The argument itself is simple to sketch, starting from Christian premises or materialist premises. It hinges on this statement: existence is infinitely better than non-existence. I think this is defensible as a Christian or as an atheist.

The atheist case is easier to make. What's the probability that consciousness exists at all in this universe? What's the probability that your consciousness exists? The odds of your existence are so astronomically small, and as best as we can tell this is the only time it will exist (though conceivably, it could exist again), why would you ever shorten this already short existence? Even an existence of pure suffering and terror is infinitely more valuable than non-existence because existence is rare and it will eventually end. Non-existence doesn’t end, therefore it isn’t rare or valuable. Suffering is incidental to the question of existence and non-existence. Existence is so improbable it is always to be preferred, even if it’s an objectively terrible existence.

Of course, it's not morally wrong to cut short your existence, it's just stupid and irrational under these conditions. I’d be super interested in hearing any refutations of this point. It seems self-evident to me, but I might be overlooking something.

The Christian case becomes mildly more complicated because now you're dealing with eternal souls. Existence doesn't end after death, it just changes forms. It becomes more complex because for the Christian who believes in a traditional doctrine of hell, you now must separate people into two ontological categories: those destined to hell and those destined to heaven. For the folks destined to hell, it is always preferable to prolong their existence on Earth because it increases the likelihood that their ways will be reformed and they will then become destined to heaven. Whatever suffering you experience on Earth is infinitely preferable to the eternal conscious torment of hell, simply because hell doesn't end. But what about the believer who is destined for heaven? Couldn't it be merciful to simply end their suffering on Earth and surrender them into the loving arms of Christ?

I don't think so. This is something I've been thinking through as I test and weigh apokatastasis as a possibility. Apokatastasis is the belief that all souls may eventually be delivered from hell. There is biblical basis for this, thank you for asking, Romans 11:32, Acts 3:21, 1 Peter 3:18-20. Also the words of Jesus in the gospel of John that I can't find right now. But the point is, in light of the possibility of heaven, does our question change? Is there a level of Earthly suffering where it makes more sense to kill the soul destined for heaven in order to alleviate pain? No.

This is because the joy of heaven is both infinite and eternal. When your soul takes its flight to the joy eternal, you will never experience suffering again. The Christian case takes an entirely different path from the materialist position: suffering becomes rare and valuable. If you consider the weight of eternity, what is 10, 20, 30, 80 years of earthly suffering compared to eternity? And in fact, if we believe that our lives on Earth will have meaning in eternity: what could we miss in eternity if we cut short our experience of suffering on Earth? It may seem like I'm arguing that we should seek out suffering, but that's not true. Joy is self-evidently good and needs no defense; I'm only advocating that we don't write off suffering as something only to be avoided.

At this point I could make the argument that suffering is good because it is a rare state of existence that will not exist again in the future bliss. I will not make that argument because I don't think it's that helpful for you know, actually living your life well. Instead, Christians should look to the life of Christ as the model. God became man and freely received all the joy and suffering that human life had to offer until his time was complete. So also should every follower of Christ freely accept every joy and suffering that becomes a part of their story.

There are much harder questions left to answer. A 1,000-word blog post isn't the place. How do I accept suffering? How do I suffer well? The answers to these questions cannot be found in propositional logic. In my life right now, I am entering a season of joy. I'm going to put away all the questions of suffering for another time.

May God's peace be upon you.