In Their Own Words XXXIX: Heaven Will Be Boring

Isaac Asimov was an American writer and professor of biochemistry at Boston University but was mostly known for his works of science fiction and popular science. Asimov was a prolific writer who wrote or edited more than 500 books including I Robot and the Foundation series.

Isaac Asimov was an atheist, a humanist, and a rationalist. He considered the term atheist inadequate, as it described what he did not believe rather than what he did. Eventually, he described himself as a "humanist" and considered that term more practical. He did not oppose religious conviction in others per se, but he frequently railed against superstitious and pseudoscientific beliefs that tried to pass themselves off as ‘genuine’ science. So, knowing Asimov didn’t like his belief being described as something he didn’t believe…it is ironic that he would make the following statement describing his view of an afterlife…that he didn’t believe in.

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse. ~ Isaac Asimov

Sometimes the statements of atheists are so blatantly in error that their mistake jumps off the page. Isaac Asimov so poorly understands the Christian faith here that it is virtually embarrassing and sadly for him...damning. Second, for a dude that had a Doctorate in Philosophy, he makes a surprisingly elementary error in thought and trips face-first into a logical fallacy. There is quite a bit to pick apart in this short statement so let's start...

Immediately Isaac states, “I don’t believe in an afterlife.” Well, just because someone doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I might not believe in electricity but if I stick a fork in a socket, my belief system is going to change pretty quickly. One of the fallacies here is the Argument from Incredulity. He has concluded that because he can't or refuses to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of argument from ignorance. The unwillingness to entertain ideas that one finds unbelievable is fallacious. The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs seems impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited. Which is exactly the case with Asimov.

Secondly, he has started with a metaphysical statement. Belief is firmly in the realm of metaphysics and he appears to assume that it immediately removes it of its need for logical reasoning. If I assume his intent, it would’ve been more accurate to say, “I am not convinced of an afterlife by the evidence presented.” Otherwise he is merely stating an unsubstantiated opinion. The second idea falls out from the first or Asimov concluding the non-existence of something based on the lack of evidence for it is the argument from ignorance or argumentum ad ignorantiam because of lack of evidence to the contrary.

What is ironic is this statement is coming from Asimov who had a doctorate in Philosophy and should’ve clearly saw the inherent fallacies in such a banal atheistic statement. Asimov who was of scientific mind and should’ve saw the flaw in making a theological statement firmly in the realm of metaphysics and making a absolute conclusion with only a subjective point of view. A man of scientific inquiry making an absolute truth statement devoid of any logical reasoning. I mean, he should've at least given a logical syllogism to have a leg to stand on. Otherwise he was merely appealing to his own authority on a theological issue...a topic on which he had no authority.

However, in practice, he accepted the conclusion without evidence for or against because he simply trusted the source. Himself. This is generally a good heuristic (depending on the sources), but when it comes to any important issue (like eternity), he should've ditched the heuristic and been more methodical in his approach. His eternal salvation was at stake whether he knew it or not. Again, just because he is ignorant of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Asimov then makes a purely theological statement about Heaven (never mind Hell) that betrays his complete ignorance of Christian orthodoxy. A topic he understands little of and it is obvious. The statement:

“…I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse” [than Hell]

Asimov assumes boredom at the prospect of an eternity in Heaven. It is the idea that Heaven will be about doing things that he wants to do forever and that in so doing, he’ll inevitably do everything he wants to do when he wants to do it. He then assumes it will inevitably become painfully ordinary and tediously boring because he’ll end up repeating himself ad nauseum. This ironically is exactly how I would expect a godless mind to think. A godless mind not understanding and not grasping an eternal not fully fathomable God.

What Isaac Asimov fails to understand is the theological purpose for which a person/believer is saved to. He is thinking selfishly and only of his own ends. He is thinking myopically. Sadly, I find this to be the case with many outside (and inside) the faith. The purpose to which we are saved is to: 

(1) Bring glory to an infinite, eternal God. Both here on earth and in heaven. We will be saved to a place in the presence of a glorious eternal God. When we are saved we are literally brought into the Kingdom of God here and there. To bring glory to a wondrous God with infinite attributes in infinite amounts. We can never plumb the depths of the greatness of God. It will be like going back to a crystal clear well of water eternally drawing to drink of it in a divinely given thirst. I don’t know about other people but that first drop of water when one finds Living Water will never be fully satiated. It is the purpose for which we were made. 

(2) God wishes that none perish. Folks, God really does love us. It is grace by which we are saved. Grace that we don't deserve. He wants us to be with Him. Not because he needs us, He has the Trinity for that. He wants us to love Him because we want to. He has loved us first (John 3:16).

(3) Your resurrected body will come equipped with unimaginable capacity for joy (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). The Bible says you will have a resurrected body far better than anything you knew on earth. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15, says that your body will be stronger, fuller, more spiritual, more glorious, and everlasting. Your delight, your knowledge, your intellect, and all your affections will be renewed and restored so that you might enjoy Christ with perfected bodies.

(4) In heaven, your capacity for joy will never cease to grow. Never. Never-ending. The implications of this are staggering. First, it pummels any idea of heaven becoming boring, static, or all-too-familiar. How can it? If your ability to enjoy God and his gifts are always expanding, your perception of heaven will always be fuller, deeper, and richer.  That means will never look upon the same reality twice without some new way in which to enjoy it. 

Sad is the irony of Asimov’s arrogant thinking. He merely dwells on himself in an insolent way. A Christian is called to think just the opposite of the way Asimov does. They are to be like Christ himself which was loving in selfless and humble manner. Christians are called to be a servant to do for others in the image of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). A Christian is to turn outwards to God and others in a communal wholeness. By turning inward Asimov was, less whole. By turning inward, he turned his back on God.