The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Hell and Vagueness
Open accessAbstract
A certain traditional conception of the afterlife is binary.After death one proceeds either to heaven or hell.Heaven is very, very good; hell is very, very bad.There are no possibilities for the afterlife other than heaven and hell, and membership in heaven or hell is never indeterminate or a matter of degree.The problem with the binary conception is that it contradicts God's justice.God must employ some criterion to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.No reasonable criterion would be sharp; any reasonable criterion will have borderline cases.But the binary conception of the afterlife allows for no corresponding fuzziness in how the dead are to be treated.Hell must therefore contain people who are nearly indiscernible in relevant respects from people in Heaven.No just Cod would allow such a monstrously unfair thing.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
21 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“faith, like all psychological states, has borderline cases.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there must be a sharp cutoff in this procedure: some particular N such that someone with N obscenities is in Hell, and someone with N-l obscenities is in Heaven.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the possible worlds considered, there are no gaps in the distribution of morally relevant qualities, including realized obscenity levels and states of faithfulness.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the proportionality of justice and the binary conception of the afterlife, it can be argued that the divine criterion cannot be based on a moral matter of degree.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: God's justice is not utterly divorced from our human notion of justice.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no avoiding borderline cases for a faith-based criterion of divine judgment.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have seen that faith cannot be a just criterion for a binary afterlife, because of its vagueness.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is impossible to believe that a just God would treat such a pair so differently.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I say that the epistemicist's cutoffs for predicates like 'faith' and 'bald' lack rational and moral significance”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are no other plausible factors that could be used in the divine criterion.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No, for this ignores higher order vagueness.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any proposed criterion that admits borderline cases will need to draw an arbitrary sharp line, which leads to injustice.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only possibility would seem to be to draw an arbitrary sharp line somewhere within the region of indeterminacy.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“This again violates the proportional nature of justice.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a causen = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given a binary afterlife, there will be someone who just barely made it and someone else who just barely missed out.This is impossible, given the proportionality of justice.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: In the possible worlds considered, there are no gaps in the distribution of morally relevant qualities, including realized obscenity levels and states of faithfulness.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“no just God could give radically different treatment to a pair of persons who differed only by a single obscenity.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What J am calling the proportionality of justice prohibits very unequal treatment of persons who are very similar in relevant respects.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- The authors state this as an assumption: God's justice is not utterly divorced from our human notion of justice.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any just criterion of selection, whether for the afterlife or pay raises in the workplace, must make its selection depending on certain factors.Moreover, justice requires its judgments to be proportional to the factors.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: God's justice is not utterly divorced from our human notion of justice.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perhaps it is not unjust to be arbitrarily generous when this involves bestowing some benefit on an otherwise happy person; it is harder to admit the justice of arbitrarily rescuing some from horrible agony while abandoning relevantly similar others to their fate.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every morally or spiritually relevant factor we encounter in our lives is quite clearly a smear.The reply claims that the world has precise moral or spiritual joints, but as a matter of contingent fact these simply do not exist.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The continuity of morally significant factors is flatly in contradiction with God's justice (or at least God's non-arbitrariness) and a binary afterlife.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Precision could be attained if God were a perfectionist, allowing only the perfectly good (or faithful, or whatever) into Heaven.It could perhaps also be attained if God were completely indiscriminate, banning only the perfectly depraved (if such a state exists).”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I say that whimsical generosity is unjust; or, more cautiously, that it falls short of God's perfect justice.”
§ HELL AND VAGUENESS > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
God's justice is not utterly divorced from our human notion of justice.
“I assume throughout that God's justice is not utterly divorced from our human notion of justice”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Any human notion of justice precludes the criterion of selection being pre-natal divine decree.
“r will assume that any human notion of justice precludes the criterion of selection being pre-natal divine decree.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In the possible worlds considered, there are no gaps in the distribution of morally relevant qualities, including realized obscenity levels and states of faithfulness.
“Suppose further that there are no II gaps”
The authors state this as an assumption.
As a matter of contingent fact, no one is either wholly good or wholly bad.
“assuming that, as a matter of contingent fact, no one is either wholly good or wholly bad”
The paper relies on this without support.
God is omniscient, and the holding capacities of Heaven and Hell are boundless.
“But God is omniscient, and the holding capacities of Heaven and Hell are presumably boundless.”
Citations
Cites
Imagination, Stipulation and Vagueness
Williamson, T. L. (1997) · Philosophical Issues · doi:10.2307/1523006 · Cited by 86
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stump, E. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199277421.001.0001 · Cited by 622
Descriptivist Reference and the Return of Classical Theism
Knight, J. A. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5219-1_18 · Cited by 32
Philosophical Heuristics and Philosophical Methodology
Hájek, A. (2016) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668779.013.3 · Cited by 26
The evil-god challenge: extended and defended
COLLINS, J. M. (2018) · Religious Studies · doi:10.1017/s0034412518000070 · Cited by 18
Sullivan, M. (2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118608005.ch27 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Sider, T., & The Society of Christian Philosophers
- Affiliations
- Syracuse University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sider, Theodore
- ORCID
- Sider, Theodore
- Venue
- Faith and Philosophy
- Publisher
- Society of Christian Philosophers
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-68
- ISSN
- 0739-7046 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012996892
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Faith and Philosophy (publishedVersion)
- ePlace - Preserving, Learning, and Creative Exchange (Asbury Theological Seminary) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Theology and Philosophy of Evil
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Karl Barth and Christian Theology
- Keywords
- hell, afterlife, vagueness, divine justice, borderline cases, heaven and hell, moral judgment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
