In accordance with instructions from message 2, I will "grant for the sake of discussion" a concept of eternal afterlife in some condition called "heaven", and I understand that this is posited as one "afterlife alternative," the other alternative being some other condition (not as advantageous in some way as "heaven"), or simply "not being." (Maybe there are multiple alternatives, but regardless how many, the condition called "heaven" is to be considered the most advantageous.)
Now, as per instructions in the OP, I would "assume for the sake of argument," these three additional points, but I hope to make sure I understand them properly, so I'll paraphrase in the hope of confirming (or correcting) my (mis)understanding:
- the "heaven condition" involves sensations or other states of awareness that never include sorrow or regret;
- whatever the criteria may be that qualified us for this condition, these are likely to disqualify some of people that we held dear during our lifetimes;
- the absence of sorrow and regret from our own heaven condition entails an understanding on our part that the exclusion of our former loved ones from heaven is "just", in the sense of being correct, appropriate, "ok", and so on.
I hope someone will correct me if I've got any of that wrong.
I don't see how you arrive at the conclusion that "it is irrational to want our loved ones to get into heaven." The only time it makes sense to talk about what we want for our loved ones is while we are still alive and among them. And during that time, it is both rational and entirely natural to want our loved ones to get into heaven: this term refers, by definition, to the most advantageous (desirable, sought-for) condition for afterlife, and while we are among our loved ones in life, one of the entailments of this emotional attachment is (or should be) that we want these people to achieve the best possible outcome (and we'd want to share it with them, naturally).
I would assert that the capacity for deep affection toward others, including the desire for these others to get as much benefit in general as possible, is a basic trait for many people (perhaps not all). For these folks, whatever is considered good and advantageous is what we want for our loved ones. It cuts across all religious creeds and applies equally to atheists and agnostics as well -- we have this in common.
Anyway, I think there may be some "issues" with those three premises. The concept of love (in the sense of deep, mutually beneficial affection) seems twisted or defective if it does not include a sense of sorrow or regret when we see our loved ones being denied what we would want them to have. Puts me in mind of the image of Christ saying "love me or burn." Makes no sense, really -- it seems absurd.
autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
™ Version 4.2
