The Status Principle
The Status Principle, (or Status Argument,) is a contention in defence of Eternal Hell. It can be phrased in various ways but it’s core premise is:
“Due to God’s infinite status, sin against him merits infinite punishment.”
In the past, theists have illustrated this argument by citing human laws where the status of the victim determines how severely the perpetrator is punished, for example Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) stated:
“The magnitude of the punishment matches the magnitude of the sin. Now a sin that is against God is infinite; the higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin — it is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen — and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.”
However, in more modern times the feudal nature of such justification has been criticised and as a result the argument has shifted to ontological status. For example; a crime against an animal is punished more severely than a crime against a plant, while a crime against a human is punished more severely than a crime against an animal — therefore a crime against God is punished more severely than a crime against a human and since God is of infinite ontological status, the punishment is infinite.
1. Infinite Status merits infinite punishment.
This is a non-sequitur. To claim that God’s infinite status necessitates infinite punishment is simply an assertion. There is no logical reason why a crime against a being of infinite status should demand infinite punishment.
One could just as easily assert that infinitely higher status merits greater leniency towards limited creatures so incomparably below him.
Furthermore, punishment is not determined solely by the status of the victim. Other factors must be considered:
2. The harm caused or risked being caused by the offence.
The harm caused or risked being caused to God is zero. He cannot be harmed, injured nor diminished in any way.
3. Culpability of the offender.
Whatever punishment the offender may or may not deserve, humans are fallible and limited creatures, which in itself precludes maximum culpability and thus maximum punishment.
4. The intention.
The intention of disbelievers is not to reject a God they know exists, but to reject claims they regard as false. They disbelieve because they are either unconvinced God exists or that Islam represents him. There is no malicious intention to rebel or sin against a God they believe exists.
In a qualitative sense, their intentions are no different to the intentions of Muslims when they reject the gods of other religions.
5. The nature of the crime.
The claim that the gravity of disbelief & shirk is of infinite seriousness is an Appeal to Faith. It is Islam (& Christianity) that considers them to be grave sins. There is no reason why others should. One could just as easily argue that holding flawed metaphysical beliefs about things one has been denied full knowledge of, is not a sin, let alone a grave sin. There is no reason to think a perfect divine being would be so intensely offended by the flawed reasoning of fallible & limited creatures, that he would want to eternally torture them!
