Recent Easter services and gatherings celebrate Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. His resurrection led to his later ascension to heaven. Christians assume that heaven is good for him and, thus, worth celebrating. Jews and Christians view heaven as good for us as well. The question is whether heaven would be good for us.

Catholicism and some parts of Protestantism argue that some people go to hell for all eternity. See, for example, Catholic Catechism 1035. In fact, some lines of Christianity assume that that many people have gone to hell and will continue to do so, although what causes them to go varies depending on the theory. People might deserve hell because they are unrepentant sinners or wicked (see, for example, Pope Pius X’s view), fail to help the downtrodden (Matthew 25:41-43), reject God’s love, sin against him, or hate him (see, for example, Pope John Paul II’s and C. S. Lewis’ views) or not receive salvation.

The problem with this worldview is that it is unclear whether it is good to go to heaven. This is unclear for two reasons. First, as philosopher Thomas Talbott argues, it is unclear whether most people in heaven would be happy knowing that some of their loved ones are in hell. Hell is thought to a place (or, perhaps, state) that consists of everlasting destruction (Thessalonians 1:9), a lake of fire (Revelation 20:13-14), blackest darkness (Jude 13), burning Sulphur (Revelation 20:10) or the devil endlessly tormenting people (Revelation 20:10). An American mother would have a hard time enjoying a well-deserved Caribbean cruise if she knew that ISIS captors were brutalizing her daughter, a captured soldier. If this is correct, how could the same mother enjoy heaven knowing that the same daughter, albeit an unrepentant sinner and atheist, was suffering far worse things in hell than what her ISIS captors did to her? If the mother knew her daughter deserved to be in hell, this might make her even sadder.

Philosopher William Lane Craig argues that God might erase memories of loved ones sent to hell from the minds of those in heaven. This solution is cruel. How many mothers would want the memories of their daughter erased even if she was an unrepentant sinner? Also, a person’s memory of her loved ones could be erased from her mind only if her most treasured memories were erased as well. She would no longer be able to remember her life’s most touching moments, triumphs and epic failures. This is a steep price to pay for heaven. It’s similar to saying that an adult immigrant may come to the U.S. but only if computerized technology is used to erase memories of his earlier life.

Second, it is unclear if heaven is good for people who go there. The late philosopher Bernard Williams argued that immortality is boring and, as a result, it would eventually become intolerable. Williams implicitly argued that whatever goals a man might have (for example, fall in love, raise children, gain knowledge, help the downtrodden, etc.), life would become boring after trillions of years of pursuing them. For example, a man who wishes to pursue fatherhood in heaven would have to raise countless children or his children would never grow old. As a result, he would be changing diapers or teaching basic mathematics billions of times. Whatever other goals he had (for example, spend time with friends or teach students) would also become tedious. By the trillionth year, life would be intolerably dull. Even pleasures such as sex and food would be unsatisfying if that were that all someone’s life was about.

Consider the movie “Groundhog Day.” Phil relives the same day again and again. Some days he was successful in terms of his love interest, friends, and enemies. Somedays not. He could remember many of the previous days. After a while, reliving the same day again and again would be tedious. How many times can one report on the stupid groundhog? How many millions of times can he succeed or fail in making progress in winning the heart of his love interest before it gets old?

Even if heaven didn’t involve endless repetition of the same day, it would eventually consist of Phil endlessly pursuing the same handful of goals or trying to connect to and have fun with the same handful of people. By the billionth time, Williams argues, this would be dull. Alternatively, there might be an ever-changing churn of new people into Phil’s life. The churn would also become boring. By analogy, rock god James Hetfield of Metallica reports that eventually concerts and one night stands become boring. And he didn’t do them a million times.

Philosopher John Martin Fischer points out that a person might have different mixtures of projects, love interests, and friends and the ever-changing mixture would keep life interesting. Talbott posits that life in heaven might become like projects in which we have flow. Flow occurs when a person is fully immersed in an activity, completely focused on it, and greatly enjoying it. Still, it is hard to see why we would have a flow-like experience for activities we’ve already done a billion times. Also, many outward projects (consider, for example, giving money to the poor, healthcare to the sick, or comfort to the suffering) would be unavailable in heaven because people aren’t poor, sick, or suffering (except, perhaps, when they think about their loved ones roasting in hell). Even if there were such hard luck cases in heaven, without flow, helping them would eventually get to be boring. Also, no one wants to lose self-awareness for millions of years. Part of what makes momentous events take our breath away is awareness that such wonderful things are happening to us.

We need to rethink Easter. If everlasting life would be miserable, boring or require that God erase our most treasured memories, annihilation might be better. It might even be better for Jesus.

Stephen Kershnar is a State University of New York at Fredonia philosophy professor. Send comments to editorial@observertoday.com