Off topic, Ebonmuse; just curious, but have you ever considered a book?

You might say that, yes. :) Check out this post from October, which discusses the idea: Daylight Atheism: The Book?

If the existence of Hell is forcible coercion, why is it that Christians think that the existence of prisons (or death penalty) isn't?

Every belief that a person holds is tempered to a greater or lesser extent by evidence. I cannot shut my eyes and make myself believe that I am on the moon. The air I breathe, the sounds of parades and fireworks outside my window, the feel of my kitchen floor beneath my feet all remind me that I am still on Earth. I could confabulate the rhetorical escape hatch that my kitchen, the entire city of Taipei, and a good portion of Earth's atmosphere were transported along with me, but as I have abundant evidence of this not happening, and having no precedent for it ever happening, I am left with only one reasonable option. If I opened my eyes and saw my neighborhood leading a procession and shooting bottle rockets over the Sea of Tranquility, I'd be forced to reorient my thinking, but alas, this has not yet happened.

Off topic, Ebonmuse; just curious, but have you ever considered a book? I've been checking in on your sites for over a year now, and I think you have a good take on things.

The ghosts employed by Dicken are a 'Deus ex machina' or let us say a literary device.

In fact, for all we know Scrooge just has a bad dream. The point that Dickens is making is that the heart can be changed and that we are our brothers keeper. I don't see this as a particularly difficult interpretation to cull from the story.

Regarding the question of free will. The only people who don't believe in the practical existence of free will are people who don't have children (or who neglect them). Free will is implicit in Dickens proposal that Scrooge can be changed by
gaining more knowledge of the poeple in his life.

But where does it end? If god has to step in every time someone is acting poorly, do we really have free will? Or does god only step in when the transgression is enough for you to burn forever?

This reminds me of the old story of the doctor who asked the psychiatric patient why he coats his peas with honey. The patient replies, "Because it stops them rolling off my knife."

In a certain sense, yes, it would seem silly to have an army of ghosts standing ready to correct people every time they stray. But that only seems silly because God, if there is such a being, created human beings so manifestly imperfect to begin with! Rather than going to great lengths to solve a problem that you yourself created, it makes much more sense to avoid the problem in the first place, and that is something an omnipotent being could easily have done. There are many imaginable scenarios that preserve free will without permitting the existence of moral evil as widespread or as severe as it is in our world.

I would take the position of Devil's advocate. Ebeneezer was frightened into becoming good. He did not make a truly free choice.

There is a difference between persuasion and coercion. As frightening as some of Scrooge's visions were, the story gives no suggestion that they were not actually accurate depictions of the fate he was headed for if he did not change his ways. Nor do any of the ghosts physically threaten him to get him to behave as they desire. The existence of Hell could be considered forcible coercion, but none of the ghosts were responsible for that state of affairs, and it does not play a major role in the story. Even the terrifying Ghost of Christmas Future only shows Scrooge visions of himself dead and everyone who knew him either not caring or positively happy about it - it does not show Scrooge visions of himself as a tormented specter like Marley. (By contrast, in the 1988 comedy Scrooged, the Ghost of Christmas Future makes Bill Murray's Scrooge character imagine himself alive in a casket rolling into the crematorium. That would be an example of something that crosses the line from persuading someone by providing accurate information into trying to forcibly change their behavior through coercion.)

Furthermore, the Bible itsself has examples of people who do believe because of extraordianry evidence. As BillF said, the apostles believed because they saw Jesus and his miracles. Moses believed because the bush was on fire and wasn't consumed. The Apostle Paul believed because he had a miraculous encounter with Jesus.

But, In all fairness perhaps in this parable Jesus wasn't making an argument for the existence of God, maybe he was commenting on the nature of people. There is lots of hard evidence that kindness, generosity, and good morals are far better for the happiness of society and the individual. Despite this there are still lots of criminals, greedy people, and very immoral people who just end up miserable because of their own actions.

I think the parable means that "Some people still do things that are bad even though there is overwhelming evidence that bad actions lead to misery".

I also think that this is an excellent example of literary irony. Jesus tells a parable that states "people won't believe, even if someone is raised from the dead". Later in the book of Luke, Jesus is crucified, rises from the dead, and here we are 2000 years later, not believing. That is outstanding!

Fagin was Dickens' purest Jewish stereotype. And I agree: Scrooge is a better example of Puritanism. Had he been an Anglican churchgoer in mid-19th century England or America, there would have been very little to prevent Scrooge--miserable miserliness and all--from being a totally respected pillar of the Christian community. Slacktivist has remarked about how, under Calvin, the traditional attitude of charity in Christianity was essentially stood on its head and the act of not helping the poor became the requisite sign of holiness. And of course, Calvin intellectually begat and begat and begat until we ended up with Joel Osteen and, in the larger sense, America.

What truly beggars belief is that there are some theists who would apparently prefer to see people remain cold-hearted and miserable - both at Christmas and throughout the year - in the name of preserving their free will. To the contrary, wrong decisions made in ignorance are not genuinely free at all. The best and freest choice is one informed by reason working within the dictates of compassion and loving kindness. Our hearts already understand that message well enough. It is due time for our creeds to catch up.

BILLF raised some good points on this issue, but I thought I'd throw my own opinions in anyways. Personally, I'd challenge anyone who made this claim to show me where Scrooge's free will was violated. He made the decision to reform completely on his own based on new information at hand. The only thing he was forced to do, in the end, was listen to the new information. Maybe that's what Christians are really mad about, that they should ever be forced to listen?

I think that if there was any truth to the existence of God, that proof would be available to us. Kind of like the apostles. They were not believers until they actually got to meet and greet with the deity. And see his miracles first hand.

And I agree that Abraham’s response to Lazarus does not make sense. I think anyone who actually witnesses a resurrection is going to be influenced by that event. I am a skeptic, but raise up a corpse in my presence and I will become a believer.

However, I think that the believer here can throw free will at you in your example. Ok. No one is hurt in the scrooge story. Everybody wins. Scrooge is bad, he is shown the light of goodness in a convincing manner, and he changes for the better. But where does it end? If god has to step in every time someone is acting poorly, do we really have free will? Or does god only step in when the transgression is enough for you to burn forever? But if that is the case, a sly person could always sin ‘just enough’ not to burn, secure in the knowledge that if he ‘crosses the line’ god will step in to keep him from doing so. There would be no risk to making a poor moral judgment.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the free will defense is BS. But those who do buy into ‘free will’ will have no problem applying it to your example.