I see more clearly what you're getting at now, so thanks. I think concern in this respect is understandable.

I'm uncertain what we can do, though. Virtually all we do is technology. Being what we are, I'd expect that the "distance" between the knowledge of most of us and our technology will continue, unless we place a limit on it, and that would require significant effort, political and legal. I doubt we'll make that effort and am concerned whether it would be worth it if we do. I very much doubt that there will be any such effort merely because most of us know only how to use technology; that's something we've grown used to. In fact, we take it for granted. It would require a kind of agreement that certain technology isn't merely dangerous, but wrong. Something like genetic engineering, perhaps. Regulating that has at least been considered.

Yes, I knew this was coming. — Pantagruel

Only because of technology, though.

But the self-perpetuation of the manufactured portion of the "natural" world consisting of human products is contingent on the transmission of cultural knowledge, which means that the kind of understanding-gap problem which is the theme of the OP then becomes a critical issue. — Pantagruel

Hmm. Is this a kind of Terminator or Matrix-inspired fear of manufactured products? It's the "self-perpetuation of" that which we manufacture you refer to that leads me to ask the question.

It seems clear to me that we perpetuate what we manufacture, when we want to do so. Cultural knowledge, if I understand what you mean by that correctly, is something we've always relied on. If there is an "understanding-gap" problem then it's a problem which has existed since we began to make tools which were more than rudimentary. No knight knew how to make a longsword, or armor, though it may be said they were essential to his status and survival.

So, if we're not addressing what's been a common sci-fi topic for decades--machines taking over from humans--is the concern that our tools, now, are too complicated, too sophisticated, and this is bad for other reasons? If so, why is that the case, and what can be done about it? What level of technology may we aspire to without being harmed by it? Should we live as the Amish do?

Well, the natural world is a self-creating, self-maintaining, and organically fundamental and essential environment, for starters. — Pantagruel

You see, that's an assumption you make, and I don't. I think Nature, i.e. the "natural world", i.e. the world, includes human beings. Because it includes human beings, it includes all they do. Because it includes all they do, it includes their works.

In other words, we're as much a part of nature as any living organism you may name. If we choose, we can of course claim that the "natural world" doesn't include us or anything that we do or make, or doesn't include particular things we do or make, but these are distinctions I think are misleading.

No doubt someone who lived life in "the wilderness" would have problems surviving in the city as well. I don't see how a city would be less "reality" than the wilderness.

I think there is a real distinction between expert knowledge and not knowing how electricity works. Or gravity. — Pantagruel

I'd think "expert knowledge" would be required to know how electricity works, or gravity works. I doubt it's common knowledge. Does knowing how electricity or gravity work create a special kind of "power dynamics" different from that involved in the case of other kinds of expertise or specialized knowledge?

Technology commands us.. We consume it, and yet we don't know it. There is at least some form of power dynamics that comes from being excluded from that which we survive from. — schopenhauer1

Chances are fairly good that I know a lot more about the practice of law than most others gracing this forum. That gives me an advantage--in practicing law and knowing how the legal system works. Doctors have an advantage over others when it comes to knowledge of and the practice of medicine. Plumbers have an advantage when it comes to plumbing. Do these entirely commonplace, unsurprising forms of power dynamics disturb you as well?

For my part, I think it a major problem that we infer, from the fact that we don't know everything about, e.g., the workings and production of a cell phone, that we don't know what objects "really are", or that we're "helpless", or that we're excluded from our own "world of being."

Our ignorance of what it takes to do something or make something or use something we haven't personally done, or made, or used is unsurprising; it's to be expected, in fact. This has been the case forever. Romans who had not made or used concrete in constructing harbors, or temples, or many other things were ignorant in comparison to those who had done so. Those ancients who weren't architects didn't know how structures were designed or built. Those who weren't shipbuilders were ignorant of the making of ships.

Although we've used technology of various kinds for millenia, it seems to me that only recently, relatively speaking, have some of us come to believe that technology renders us somehow divorced from "reality" and "being" or some-such in what strikes me as a hyperbolic, Romantic, quasi-mystical manner a la Heidegger with his talk of hydro-electric plants as if they were monsters, or our coercing the world to do what we please, summoning forth the power of the sun (I forget what he condemned so excitedly). He compared it to the peasant lovingly planting seed in Nature's bosom, if I recall correctly. There was a chalice too, I believe. Chalice good, coal bad.

Technology presents real problems, but I suggest some restraint when it comes to contriving metaphysical and epistemological horrors arising from the fact that we don't know how to make certain things.

I'm the soul of futility, Sisyphus' avatar. — Agent Smith

I know someone who pretended he had no hands, then ended up acknowledging he had them after all. That's a level of futility even Sisyphus couldn't rival. Sisyphus never purported to doubt the existence of the boulder he rolled up the hill, only to establish it was, indeed, a boulder.

Well, when you put it that way, imagination does have merit; nevertheless, I feel it's more trouble than it's worth. — Agent Smith

There's nothing wrong with imagination, or imagining, provided we recognize it as such and nothing more. The same can be said about pretense, or pretending, which I think are closely related. Mere imagining or pretending may soothe, may amuse, may gratify, may even suggest. Taken as more than what they are, though, they may confuse, bemuse, misdirect and may even become exercises in futility.

See his essay Some Consequences of Four Incapacities.

Musement, you mean? I've always been interested in Peirce's Neglected Argument for the Existence of God. But no, I don't think he was pretending, as he wasn't purporting to doubt what he didn't doubt.

Notorious Nazi Heidegger
Whom Hitler had made all-aquiver
Tried hard to be hailed
Nazi-Plato, but failed
Then denied he had tried with great vigor.

I'm incorrigible, sorry. Imagine not acknowledging his supremacy. World's greatest Nazi, for sure. Philosophy's Fuhrer, as it were.

Looks like I managed to cut myself off. People may want to take a look at Dewey's The Quest for Certainty, in which he explores the fascination with certainty and explains why he feels its been harmful.

Then where does the fascination with certainty come from? — Reformed Nihilist

You may want to read Dewey's The Quest for Certainty. He thought the fear of the uncertainty of life led people to seek something certain. What they felt was certain came to be though superior to the world in which we live and our lives in it, which are subject to change. The practical became separated from what was considered "ultimate reality." Knowledge became something separated from practice and conduct. It became something apart from the world, unattainable. Something like God, I would think, or a kind of replacement for God.

Then where does the fascination with certainty come from? — Reformed Nihilist

Philosophers have been enamored with it since the time of Plato at the latest. The certain, the eternal, the unchanging, were felt to be superior to the uncertain and mutable. Nature, the world and our lives in it are subject to change and uncertainty, and so were considered inferior; even less than real. It may be the result of a psychological or religious need people have, I don't know. The result was

What you are describing is closer to what I think was CS Peirce's critique (it might have been a different philosopher) of Descartes, referring to his radical skepticism as "sham doubt" or "paper doubt", meaning he didn't actually doubt that he existed until it occurred to him that existing was a prerequisite for thinking, he just imagined doubting. That it was just a theoretical proposition. — Reformed Nihilist

No, it was Peirce alright.

If we address what should be the case, instead of what is the case (I assume we are doing that), I can think of no reason why relatively few people should make and retain huge amounts of money while others do not, and in fact have much less. There's no basis for the belief that a person is virtuous, or admirable, or worthy, or good in any moral sense because they make or have a great deal of money, unless making or having a great deal of money is considered to be morally virtuous, admirable, worthy or good by definition.

If it isn't, though, we have to consider the worthiness of having a great deal more money and assets than others in a world of limited resources with an increasing population. I think that the very rich are the equivalent of gluttons or hoarders in such a world--in our world--because their conduct is so selfish that they strive to possess and retain much, much more than they could possibly need to live comfortable lives (not just survive) where others merely survive, or live in need and want. Gluttons and hoarders aren't admirable; they aren't moral. We should stop thinking they are.

Knowing someone's complete physiology, present and past, does it make sense to doubt their sex? Some say very insistently, no, it makes no sense, because the sex can be read off the physiology with certainty. Others say most stridently, yes, because a person's sex is determined not by observation of others but by that person's self-perception. The law, in deciding, will need to grapple with the metaphysics. If it doesn't do so explicitly and with argument, then it will do so implicitly and with unquestioned assumptions. — Cuthbert

I think it will be more a matter of definition--the presence or absence of one--at least in the case of the law where I practice. When a word is defined by the law (as in a statute containing definitions of words used) that definition is accepted. The meaning of the word is clear, and it isn't subject to interpretation. Law is subject to interpretation only when it's ambiguous (where reasonable persons may disagree on meaning).

If it isn't defined by the law, recourse may be had to dictionary definitions, and, again, if the meaning is clear, there's no opportunity for interpretation. If the meaning of the word in itself or in context is ambiguous, then courts may interpret the law. That may be done based on legislative history if it exists, comparing the law with other, similar, laws in which the word is used, looking to case law interpreting other laws--there are rules of statutory construction which are followed by courts. Meanings of words, which can change over time and in circumstances, are significant, not metaphysical questions regarding the existence of an external world. You may say metaphysical assumptions are built into the meaning of words, and in a trivial way (as far as the law is concerned) that may be true. The law generally is committed to the existence of an "external world." You won't find me, or I think any lawyer, citing Descartes as an authority in a court proceeding.

Chances are that in a court, those people who assume there may be an Evil Demon or that there's no certainty we have hands won't be considered "reasonable." Depending on the matter before the court, they may be not only considered but adjudged incompetent.

Yeah, except this is a philosophy forum, discussing philosophical topics. You know, "what is really out there?" — hypericin

And, don't forget, "Do we have hands?" Or eyes, noses, feet, etc. "Are our hands really out there? Do we really know we have hands?"

Wittgenstein may have been right when he claimed that a good and serious philosophical work could consist entirely of jokes. Cicero may have been right when we wrote that there's nothing so absurd that some philosopher hasn't already said it. Being fond of the Classical Pragmatists, I may have a different idea of what constitutes philosophical topics than you do.

Do you have hands, by the way? I assume you're not certain you do. But how could you tell, in any case, "non-pragmatically"?

These reasons are not definitive. They can't be, since we in principle cannot be certain it is not true. — hypericin

Ah, "in principle." Happily, absolute certainty doesn't matter in practice, which is to say that it's disregarded, just as we disregard in practice any pretended "question" regarding the existence of our hands.

One of my daughters has scolded me for being confused by the term "non-binary" and finding it difficult to remember to refer to someone as "they" or "them." I like to think this is more the result of being old than being a bigot.

I can see this as being an issue in law, and know it has been to an extent in the case of restrooms, but haven't had to deal with it yet. I look forward to it being addressed by our Supreme Court, after it has dealt with abortion, again. [Irony warning] Since it's determined speech includes money paid, I'd think it would be able to handle this area with ease.

He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!". — schopenhauer1

You seriously believe "the workers" think like this, and consider their company's CEOs "gracious" because they pay the workers enough "to live"?

Nothing's wrong with a system in which everyone receives enough to live, I would think. My guess would be there would be less wrong with such a system than one which encourages the equivalent of gluttony and hoarding by a few while others get enough "to live."

This was my addition to your list, sorry I thought it was obvious. — hypericin

Ah well, nothing wrong with deliberately misquoting someone, is there? And the list was meant to provide examples of what it is to "doubt" the existence of one's hands according to the definition of that word. I don't doubt my hands exist, nor did Descartes, by that definition, so nothing on that list was an expression of an opinion on my part. You managed to not only attribute to me something I never said, but misrepresent my opinion.

I greatly prefer stable, mind independent objects, over ED. — hypericin

Is there any basis for this preference? One which makes it more likely to be correct than ED, for example?

Even if we could somehow shoehorn this theory to fit all observations, the resulting model would be so baroquely complex we would reject it. — hypericin

Why should we care whether a theory fits all observations? What if it fit most observations, as opposed to theories which fit none at all?

He believed he had hands without the certain knowledge he had hands
— Ciceronianus — hypericin

Where did you find this? I don't recall saying such a thing, and the comment I'm directed to doesn't seem to contain it.

This underpins our modern understanding of science, that every theory is provisional in principle. This extends to our pragmatic, mundane lives: we cannot explain any phenomena definitively, another explanation may always come along which explains the same thing equally well, or better. — hypericin

So, our "modern understanding of science" is that it supports the existence of an Evil Demon as much as any other explanation of our observations? I don't think so.

You seem to be on the "quest for certainty." No certainty, no basis for judgment. I think that's something very different from an acknowledgement that new evidence may require an adjustment in judgments made. That acknowledgement doesn't mean we must believe that any theory, no matter how well-tested, no matter how well it fits the evidence, is no more preferable than any other. If so, the belief we're hatched from eggs by the will of God is just as reasonable as any other explanation of our existence.

If your view is the prevailing view, it's no wonder people won't take vaccines for fear of microchips or turning gay, and believe Trump won the 2020 election.

o be sure, following ↪Ciceronianus's point, we might excuse those who fein admiration in order to avoid becoming victims themselves, although presumably god will be aware of their attempted subterfuge and treat them accordingly. — Banno

Well, is this just about admiration? Worship may be based on fear, which isn't admiration. I think worship has been based on fear in many cases. That would be the duress I refer to. If an all-powerful being commands worship and eternal punishment if it's not given, worship would be rendered out of fear, not admiration. One doesn't have to admire such a being, but will do what's necessary to appease it. Such a being wouldn't necessarily require admiration--that's the "Let them hate me so long as they fear me" stance of such as Gaius Caesar Germanicus, better known now as Caligula.

Those Christians who chose to worship a god they believe will damn fol for eternity remain morally reprehensible. — Banno

Perhaps an argument can be made that they acted under duress. Convinced that they must be Christians and believe Christian doctrine to avoid eternal punishment and be saved, they're compelled to accept both--hell and the Christian God who created and tolerates hell. If they worship because they fear eternal punishment, can they be said to be morally reprehensible?

I can't remember if this was addressed in the article, but I don't think it was. Believe in hell or go to it, saith the Lord, or at least his Church.

We know that Christianity is flawed-that doesn't mean the people are. — john27

Christians would consider themselves flawed, it being part of Christian doctrine. You're not the one who can save them, either. So, don't feel too bad about it.

That was probably the orientation of Saint Paul. — Primperan

Christianity as a religion, as we know it, would not exist but for Paul of Tarsus. It's largely his creation, I think. There's no escaping him and his influence. Without him, it's likely it would have been a Jewish sect.

This is a recurring counter to those who say hell is our own choice, since god still forces upon us a "choice I was forced to make in ignorance". — Banno

Yes, there's a kind of "informed consent" argument available, although it can be said in response that we've been warned about eternal damnation. But I have no problem with what's said in Lewis' Divine Evil. I think intolerant, exclusive monotheism such as Christianity (with its one but oddly "triune" deity) necessarily condemns those who don't accept it to some form of punishment, extreme in its case.

Let's take as an illustration two notable christian philosophers, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine:
— Amalac

Thanks for this. Those who have claimed that belief in hell is not central to Christianity would do well to consider your post.

If they would make the claim that Christian doctrine has changed over time, or that these two Church Fathers did not mean what they said, then there is significant further explanation needed. Changes in morality over time are prima facie incompatible with what is right being what god wills. It looks as if what is right changes along with human sentiment, such that what was once considered acceptable no longer is.
an hour ago — Banno

To know the official view of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church on hell, you need only consult the Catechism (as to the heretical Protestant communities, who can say what those people think). You'll find hell addressed in Part One, Chapter Three, Article XII, IV (I've deleted footnote references, and have used italics to emphasize those portions of the text which may used to support the position that God is really a swell guy, hell notwithstanding):

"1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." BUT WAIT! The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance."

See? Hell isn't God's problem, it's ours. If that's where we end up, it's our fault. And okay, maybe there's some fire there, but the real punishment is "eternal separation from God" so the fire can't be that bad.

It's true that God sounds quite needy. He just wants to be loved. It's an odd thing for an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal being to be needy, I'll admit, but just the same. Hell apparently is the fury of a God scorned.

I think that's more a dispute over the definition of "sex." As far as I know, there's no dispute regarding the definition of "hands." But in all honesty, I don't know much about the "war" you mention.

the dead horse of organized religion — Tzeentch

Ah, if only it was dead! Or a horse.

I wonder about that. For Descartes to respond imaginatively to his experience as he did — is that “distancing” himself from life, rather than another possibility of life? Is there no imagination in the life and in the world you suggest are our proper study? — Srap Tasmaner

Philosophy (in the past at least, and it seems for some now) cherished certainty and perfection. Philosophers sought immutable truth, beauty and goodness. They treated the "real world" and ordinary day-to-day life as imperfect and consequently inferior, unhelpful in seeking the absolute. For example, they thought that cases of mistakes in perception established our senses could not be trusted as sources of knowledge in any case regardless of whether they could be explained by circumstances and conditions that applied. They thought dreams indicate we can't tell for sure whether we're asleep or awake at all times. They ignored context, perhaps because they thought context was the world and the world just wasn't good enough.

I think that's what Descartes and other philosophers thought. That allowed them to ignore the fact that moment to moment their existence and conduct established they didn't harbor any reasonable doubt they had hands, or that there was an "external world." Instead, they thought they had to justify the fact they didn't doubt what they didn't doubt, instead of inquiring whether there was any reasonable basis for doubt in the first place. They were befuddled, in other words.

You’re wrong. Descartes had reason to doubt he had hands. I imagine if you were to ask him point blank what odds he would give that he had no hands he would say something like 1/10th of 1% or less, probably much less. That is not certainty of having hands, that is exceedingly strong confidence of having hands. The point isnt the percentage of doubt. It is that there is no way to exclude at least a smidgeon of doubt, due to the possibility that one’s faculties of cognitive judgement have been deranged. That is a vital and important point to make about where cognitive certainty and doubt come from, especially when it is contrasted with what he claimed one can be indubitably, 100% certain about in cognition. — Joshs

Well, if you think we have "reason to doubt" in any case absent absolute certainty, then I think you've accepted a very peculiar definition of "doubt" which admits of no reasonable discussion of it given its definition.

Do you think this was an important idea for him to convey , an idea deserving of analysis within thousands of doctoral dissertations written over the past few hundred years? — Joshs

I can't say I do, sorry. I fear there's nothing I can do about those doctoral dissertations, but I don't think I'm alone in thinking philosophers have been addressing pseudo-questions for centuries, so it isn't surprising that such dissertations were written.

Tell me how much stronger Descartes’ argument would have been had he eliminated reference to the ED — Joshs

That's difficult to do, as I don't think he needed to argue that he had hands. I don't think there was an reason to think he didn't. However, if the question was raised, e.g. if someone claimed he had no hands, or that he should doubt their existence, in his place I would have asked--"Why?" And have addressed the feebleness of the responses made.

I'm struggling to see what your point has been. Are you accusing him of disingenuously pretending to honestly believe he had no hands, or what? — Janus

I'm saying he pretended to have no hands (and so on). I'm unsure how to make this any clearer. He entertained a faux doubt--he feigned doubt--for the purpose of justifying the fact he never had any doubt in the first place. But, to put it simply, we don't doubt what we don't doubt. We don't resolve doubt when we have no doubt. We may be able to resolve our doubt when we actually doubt, by addressing the reasons for our real doubt and determining whether they have any basis. Resolution is obtained when we no longer feel any doubt.

Descartes never felt any doubt he had hands. There was nothing to resolve or explain. He would never have come to the conclusion that he had no hands, or that his doubt he had hands was justified. The conclusion was never in question. There was no question to be addressed, and the answer was "fixed." I think that entertaining pseudo-questions isn't beneficial.

Descartes was able to imagine a scenario in which the existence of his hands (to stick to the example) could be subject to doubt. — Janus

"Imagining a scenario" sounds quite a bit like pretending, to me. I suppose you may say that Descartes "imagined" he had no hands if you'd like to or even "imagined" doubting he had no hands. What I contend, though, and what it seems several people disagree with, for reasons unclear to me, is that he never actually doubted he had hands; he always believed he had hands; he always thought he had hands. Like "pretending," "imagining" something to be the case isn't believing it to be the case.

Are you offended that Descartes had thoughts that he didn’t have to? — Srap Tasmaner

No. I don't find anything he did (that I know of) offensive. I think he never, really, thought that an Evil Demon was fooling him, or that he thought he had no hands, no eyes, or that he thought any of things he said he would assume didn't exist didn't, in fact, exist. I don't find that offensive. I merely think it was a pretense.

The point is Descartes did not believe he had no hands etc. He found himself capable of doubting he had hands etc, on the strength of the possibility that he might be dreaming, it might be a trick played on him by the ED and so on. He went through the process of identifying everything he could possibly doubt in order to see what he could not possibly doubt.
— Janus

I re-post this, which you (perhaps conveniently?) failed to respond to previously. — Janus

Let's consider the definition of "doubt."

Macmillan Dictionary (online)
"to think that something is probably not true or that it probably does not exist
to think that something is unlikely"

From Dictionary.com:

"to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe
verb
to be uncertain about something; be undecided in opinion or belief:
noun
a feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something:
a general feeling of uncertainty, worry, or concern:
As soon as I'd dropped out of school to become a full-time musician, I was full of doubt—what if I’d made a terrible mistake?
Set your doubts aside, and listen to my business idea with an open mind."

From Collins English Dictionary (online):

"1. VARIABLE NOUN
If you have doubt or doubts about something, you feel uncertain about it and do not know whether it is true or possible.
2. TRANSITIVE VERB
If you doubt whether something is true or possible, you believe that it is probably not true or possible.
3. TRANSITIVE VERB
If you doubt something, you believe that it might not be true or genuine.
4. TRANSITIVE VERB
If you doubt someone or doubt their word, you think that they may not be telling the truth."

As you say Descartes did not believe he had no hands, I assume you think he believed he had hands. By saying he was nonetheless able to doubt he did have hands, are you saying:

He believed he had hands, but was uncertain he had hands?
He believed he had hands but thought it probably not true he had hands?
He believed he had hands but thought it questionable he had hands?
He believed he had hands but thought it unlikely he had hands?
He believed he had hands but believed it might not be true he had hands?
He believed he had hands but hesitated to believe it true he had hands?

If not, you should reconsider your use of the word "doubt." If so, you must think Descartes to have been a very frightened, undecided and confused man.

If you and others believe he really thought he had no hands, or eyes, or nose, or ears, and that an Evil Demon was having a joke at his expense, then by all means say so. If you don't believe he thought that, but nonetheless said he would assume that was true, have the kindness to say that as well.

Those who do not believe in god, when they die, will be cast into eternal torment. — Banno

It's their own fault, though. They were granted free will. They knowingly reject God, or commit mortal sin without repenting.

This is a punishment out of all proportion with the offence. — Banno

Nah. It's not a big deal anymore. In my distant youth, in Catholic grade school, we were shown films and slides which depicted sinners burning alive in the flames of hell (or maybe purgatory, depending). We saw screaming faces sticking out of the fires (well, not real ones). But now, hell is merely deprivation of the presence of God and the vaguely named "blessed" for all eternity. It's nothing worth weeping or gnashing your teeth over anymore. There's no longer a "lake of fire" to be tossed into. It would be like never being invited to a really good and very lengthy office party, or being forever persona non grata at the country club.