{"id":1,"date":"2021-10-03T18:01:54","date_gmt":"2021-10-03T18:01:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ettmt.com\/?p=1"},"modified":"2021-10-10T20:28:21","modified_gmt":"2021-10-10T20:28:21","slug":"hello-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ettmt.com\/?p=1","title":{"rendered":"Eternal Torment Threat Management Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n

Eternal Torment Threat Management Theory: Why and how humanists and humanitarians of any faith or lack thereof should get involved with the future of theology in Abrahamic religions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Page <\/span><\/span>1<\/span>of<\/span><\/span>12<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a work in progress, currently in the early stages of development.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My review of the literature on TMT (Terror Management Theory)–for a decent brief introduction to TMT, I think Wikipedia suffices: Link<\/a>–has indicated that there is no adequate treatment of the key differences between the fear of death and the fear of eternal torment, which I will henceforth usually abbreviate as \u201cET<\/b>\u201d. These key differences are: <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Death is unavoidable, whereas ET is ostensibly avoidable if one does or believes the right things<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
  2. Death is universal to all living things; ET is for “them”, while heaven, we hope, is for “us”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
  3. ET could be a far more terrifying concept than annihilation; there should prove to be clinical implications. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Of the three differences, the us\/them dichotomy should prove to be the most socially significant.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I propose that these differences justify an additional theory, which we might call Eternal Torment Terror Management Theory (ETTMT).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Summary of the Scope and Purpose of This Document<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As I began to review the extant literature on TMT (Terror Management Theory) and on correlations between belief in eternal torment (<\/span><\/span><\/span>ET<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>) and social behavior, I at first found the opposite of what I expected to find. I found studies that showed a positive correlation between a belief in ET and pro-social behavior. But this finding would turn out to lead my research to something much larger and more complex than I’d originally expected to find. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Further research is needed to better establish correlations between the fear of ET and intergroup hostility and conflict. Many of the central hypotheses put forth in ETTMT would not be difficult to research, even experimentally. Experimental research could determine a causal relationship by utilizing, for example, priming and implicit behavioral measurements.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    More importantly, however, the establishment of a relationship between the belief in ET and intergroup hostility would justify a call to specific action, funded by social impact investments from humanitarians of every ilk. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The following summary will provide the theoretical frameworks for a full spectrum of social harm that may result from the widespread belief in ET, and it will suggest a viable and specific response from the humanitarian community.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Page <\/span><\/span><\/span>2<\/span><\/span>of<\/span><\/span><\/span>12<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Initial Summary of Hypotheses & Suggested Humanitarian Responses<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I propose the following:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. The widespread doctrine of an all-powerful God who will subject many, if not most, human beings to eternal torment causes tremendous social harm. The following pages will provide theoretical frameworks that could link the belief in eternal torment (ET)<\/b> to the following range of social and psychological responses: us-vs-them mentality, groupthink, intergroup conflict, cognitive dissonance, punitiveness, judgmental attitude, support for authoritarianism, the belief that “might makes right”, support for torture, support for capital punishment, submissiveness and susceptibility to manipulation, intellectual paralysis (or \u201cclosed-mindedness\u201d), terrorism, xenophobia, racism, fear, anxiety, bibliolatry, legalism, apocalypticism, and distrust of the universe\/reality\/existence.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    2. There is a viable alternative doctrine, the viability of which is demonstrated partially by its widespread acceptance within Judeo-Christian populations both contemporary and historical. That is the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation (UR)<\/b>, otherwise referred to as Christian Universalism. I’m short, UR maintains that, although hell may exist, it is used for remedial, rather than punitive purposes. Therefore, any person who is condemned to hell remains in hell only as long as necessary to bring about spiritual transformation, which is inevitable for all humans. Therefore, no person will remain in hell for a literal eternity. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    3. The viability of the UR doctrine is established by a multitude of factors besides its adoption by religious communities. See, for example, my succinct article at <\/span>https:\/\/owlcation.com\/humanities\/Why-I-Dont-Believe-in-an-Eternal-Hell<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span>, The Argument from Beauty<\/i><\/a> on my blog, or the truly massive collection of resources and information at <\/span><\/span><\/span>https:\/\/tentmaker.org<\/font><\/a><\/u><\/span><\/span>. <\/span><\/li>
    4. It is possible to persuade many people, including evangelical Christians, to accept the theology of Universal Reconciliation, and doing so would mitigate tremendous social harm. There are already significant groups of evangelicals who now accept the idea of Universal Reconciliation, and have done so even while maintaining belief in Biblical inerrancy and salvation through Christ alone. There are a large number of Biblical arguments to support the teaching, and Biblical arguments against it have been thoroughly refuted without denying beliefs such as Biblical inerrancy. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    5. Perhaps a majority of Christian believers in ET are ready to accept UR, but they are simply not aware of it, or are certainly not aware of its viability from scriptural, historical, linguistic, and philosophical standpoints. Most Christians today may already accept UR to some degree on a subconscious level, but reject it on a conscious level. This inner conflict (cognitive dissonance) itself is the root of additional psychological and social ills.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    6. Targeted outreach through PPC (search engine and social media) and organic digital marketing (SEO and SMM) may be the most effective means of popularizing UR, and of bringing about widespread awareness of both its existence and its viability for Christian individuals and communities.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    7. Funding for such outreach is needed, and after further research, could be justified for social impact.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    8. Many of the central hypotheses put forth in ETTMT would not be difficult to research, even experimentally. Experimental research could include, for example, the use of priming and implicit behavioral measurement. The results of such experimental and non-experimental research would provide sufficient evidence to justify such funding.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li>
    9. A cogent demonstration of the points above should be used to secure a broad base of support from many social impact investors and humanitarians both inside and outside the UR movement, and even outside the Christian faith.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      In the pages that follow, I will examine each of the above points in depth, attempting to demonstrate for the reader the need for further research into each of these points. I will also describe research methodologies that can be used for those purposes, and I will further discuss possible ways of marshaling a strong and effective humanitarian response.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Page <\/span><\/span><\/span>3<\/span><\/span>of<\/span><\/span><\/span>12<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Point I<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      \u201cThe widespread doctrine of an all-powerful God who will subject many, if not most, human beings to eternal torment causes tremendous social harm. This is especially manifested via an us-vs-them mentality, groupthink, intergroup conflict, cognitive dissonance, punitiveness, judgmental attitudes, support for authoritarianism, the belief that “might makes right”, support for torture, support for capital punishment, submissiveness and susceptibility to manipulation, intellectual paralysis (closed-mindedness), terrorism, xenophobia, racism, fear, anxiety, bibliolatry, legalism, apocalypticism, and distrust of the universe\/reality\/existence.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      There are a variety of theoretical frameworks, novel and established, with which to frame the various types of social harm proposed to result from the doctrine of eternal torment (<\/span><\/span><\/span>ET)<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      1. Key Differentiator Framework<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        The novel theoretical framework involved has already been stated. It can be summarized by reiterating that death is universal and unavoidable, whereas eternal torment (abbreviated \u201cET\u201d going forward), as traditionally understood in evangelical Christianity, is for \u201cthem\u201d, not for \u201cus\u201d, and it is avoidable. The \u201cus\u201d, in this context of evangelical Christianity, refers to all Christians who believe and practice \u201cthe right way\u201d. In the same context, \u201cthem\u201d refers to all non-Christians, or even those who call themselves Christians, but do not believe or practice \u201ccorrectly\u201d. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        In theory, these crucial differences may take the usual dynamics of TMT, but add elements of intergroup conflict that are not present in TMT, based on its addition of an ingroup\/outgroup dynamic not present in TMT. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

        Such intergroup conflict could play out in a variety of ways:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    It appears that the belief in and\/or fear of ET may not promote pro-social behavior, as some have theorized, but only pro-ingroup behavior, while reinforcing hostility towards outgroups. Most obviously relevant to contemporary international relations would be the hostility and conflict between Islamic and Christian communities. However, I will propose that the doctrine of ET contributes to a range of destructive intergroup phenomena that is exponentially broader than that. Or, as I intend to frame it in a planned follow-up work (See: http:\/\/ettmt.com\/finished<\/a>), the \u201cneed and opportunity for reconciliation\u201d is far grander, and goes much deeper than any of the more soundbite-worthy conflicts favored by facile media trends. See this paragraph <\/a> further down on this same page for more detail on that. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n