home | search | poll | current columns
"The Matrix" and philosophy: What will heaven be like?
By Steve Lansingh | Richard Hanley's essay "Reflections on the First Matrix," published in the "philosophy" section of the Matrix website, examines Agent Smith's monologue regarding the prototype dream-world presented by the computers to their human subjects. It was "designed to be a perfect human world, where none suffered, where everyone would be happy," Smith tells us. But "no one would accept the program."
The contention of Hanley's essay is that the Christian concept of heaven, one in which "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain," must also be Matrix-like in nature -- giving the illusion of free will while denying it in actuality. I hestitate to simplify Hanley's statements with a summary, but the essense of his argument is that the Christian view of heaven is impossible. "Perhaps our thinking is incoherent: we think that the best existence is one where human beings interact with each other and everyone has libertarian free will and nobody suffers and that someone knowingly arranges this. If this is an incoherent notion, not even God can actualize it." The primary contradiction, Hanley says, is that the combination of free will and other people necessarily produces unhappiness: "Indeed, the existence of other human beings in the world is part of the 'sharp corners'—a source of suffering. ... One person getting what they want means that another doesn’t." If this is the case, then "God has two main choices in creating a Heaven for human beings: either substantially alter the nature of human beings in Heaven (say by arranging a concordance of wills, contrary to [libertarian free will]) ... or else put each human in a solitary Matrix [that] ... provides plenty of virtual interaction with virtual humans," which would be contrary to true human interaction.
Hanley adds to this puzzle an observation set forth by Mark Twain in "Letters from the Earth," in which the banished Satan instructs his angels about mankind. The devil finds it uproarious that our idea of heaven would include prayer and singing, two activities the majority of us tire of quickly on earth, and yet has left out such pleasures as sex, which is the focus of much of earthly life. In other words, Hanley says, our idea of heaven is to have our desires changed completely, even though that would negate our humanness. "When we humans turn our eyes toward Heaven, our ranking of values seems to change," he writes. "When we consider a pre-Heaven existence, we seem to prefer the best real deal to the best Matrix. When thinking about Heaven, we seem to prefer the best Matrix to the best real deal." We seem to want happiness, however artificially contrived, in the afterlife.
Is there a way that heavenly happiness need not be contrived? Is there a way to maintain free will while interacting with other people? There are several possibilities, including entering into a new state of being that is beyond our current understanding. (Hanley is working off the idea that we remain primarily human in our essence, which is really the only way of discussing the issue without throwing one's hands in the air.) But short of the wiggle room afforded by the limitations of current understanding, there is still a solution available.
Hanley touches near it in his comments on psychological hedonism, which is "the view that there are really only two non-derived human desires: to obtain pleasure and avoid suffering." He suggests that if such a view were true, then free will could still exist in heaven if man "merely changes his beliefs about what it is that will bring him pleasure and avoid pain." But he then dismisses hedonism as cynical and certainly not Christian. But what if there is only one true human desire: intimacy with God? What if all the pleasures that we seemingly crave so much (food, sex, power, influence, admiration) are all just ways of enjoying God's gifts to us and/or pale reflections of real intimacy? If so, then God's full presence with us in heaven would satisfy our desires -- without changing our wills. Our fulfillment would be so complete that we wouldn't need to settle for the earthly imitations, or try to degrade others to our lowly level. We could simply love without wanting anything in return.
Hanley sees this argument coming, or a version of it, and posits two questions in response. "It is standarly claimed," he writes, "that all are free to sin in Heaven, but none do, because they are in some sense incapable of doing so; no one can sin when they are at last with God. This raises two distinct problems. The first is that any such incapability seems incompatible with libertarian freedom." In other words, does my solution really count as free will? Can we really choose anything if we are in fixed alignment to God -- like iron filaments positioned in a magnetic field? Well, yes. We have the account of Lucifer's defection to show us; the angels had free will and some used it to reject God. However, that raises the very large question of how God can promise us a heaven without suffering if it has already once eluded him.
Let me answer that in conjuction with Hanley's other objection: "If there is no incompatibility between human beings having libertarian free will and being incapable of sin, then ... God could have just created Heaven and be done with it, a creation with all of the benefits and none of the disadvantages." Keeping in mind the story of the angels, we might argue that God already tried creating such a heaven, and it didn't work. The problem was that Lucifer was too proud, and thought himself to be equal to God. The whole of earthly existence, then, might be a way to make human beings humble -- before they were given full access to the love of God. If we can experience a filtered version of God's love on this planet, and come to an understanding of how far it surpasses our own, then in heaven we will understand our relationship to God properly. After all, what is the biblical path to salvation if not a process of developing humility before God? We first must give up our pride in ourselves and our trust in our strength, and then throw ourselves on the mercy of God and submit our wills to him. This, then, is the key to a heaven with both free will and human interaction: We will know from experience, unlike Lucifer, that we cannot be God.
I offer this rebuttal not as an attempt to defend the faith. After all, Hanley begins his essay by stating that "The point of my polemical approach is not so much to criticize Christianity, but rather to bring the issue of the nature of ultimate value into sharper focus." I offer it much in the same spirit, to discuss with fellow Christians questions of ultimate value. If my depiction of heaven is valid in any way, what does that say about the way we live life on earth? First of all, it would mean finding the God-desire at the root of every one of our human desires. Not only will this spare us much discomfort, it will reduce the "sharp corners" we poke others with. In other words, I have to acknowledge that my marriage is just a reflection of the intimacy I want with God, and keep from putting the pressure on my wife to be God for me. And secondly, it would mean consciously developing humility. It means keeping in mind the great gulf between God's power and my own, not just to give glory to God but to understand the smallness of the gulfs between myself and other people. It puts in proper perspective the minor separations between myself and the movie stars of the world, or myself and the incarcerated, allowing me to see each person as a full human being.
Or, to state the same thing in the words of Christ: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37), and "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:4).
Use the form below to respond to this article. Remember, we want to hear what your opinions are, not just why other opinions are wrong. Comments will be posted within 48 hours.
READER RESPONSES