Placing a bet on whether God exists
Network Norwich columnist James Knight says that Christianity is not an each-way bet.
I remember one night last year at the Hotel Nelson, after a night of unofficial street-pastoring, speaking to a man about Christianity. He said that he did believe in God but did not wish to subscribe to any particular religion. Upon questioning him further, he said that when it came to religion, he wanted to ‘play it safe’. He went on to say, ‘If god is up there, it’s best that I believe in Him. If he is not then I’m in the same position as all the rest of us’.
Many of you might recognise this type of thinking; it was made famous by Blaise Pascal in his Pensees (thoughts - written for ‘those who cannot bring themselves to believe in Christianity’) - and it is commonly known as Pascal’s Wager. It is quite simply this. ‘If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing - but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will have lost everything. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist’.
Pascal is a man for whom I have much admiration, but this contention, it has to be said, is not sensible both on the emotional level or, indeed, on the philosophical level. I think it is a great shame that many atheists simply remember him for his flawed wager, because much of his Pensees is very good - in fact, sections of it are, in my view, among the best Christian writings of the last 2000 years.
The most obvious flaw with the wager is that a mere ‘each-way bet’ in God is never going to be enough, it is both insulting to Him and is never going to produce the inner-growth that is required. Christ does not want tempered acknowledgement, He wants every part of us; He wants to live inside of us and help us fulfil our potential; that is, He wants to make us more like Him. He did not die on the cross for us to make a half-hearted revelation - He died and rose again so that we could experience the spirit of Christ within us, so that we could fully imbibe all that the divine has to give us.
Christianity has virtually nothing to say to the man who is happy to acknowledge it as part of his daily background but makes no attempt to grow in Christ. Thus is it probably better not to believe at all than to adopt an indifferent sycophancy which merely hopes in the end for a divine hand-out (see Revelation 3). After all those who live their lives by this principle are no closer to the genuine rewards of Christianity than those who passionately repudiate it.
The wager is, of course, flawed on the philosophical level too. Pascal’s contention is only sound because it supposes Christianity to be the right religion; it has, by itself, no way of distinguishing which religion is the right one - thus a Muslim or a Mormon could adopt the same principle in his or her faith and be no closer to the truth.
 Another flaw in the wager is that it presupposes that two methods of thought have equal claim on the truth - that is, it presupposes that probability favours your chosen choice in the first place.
Yet another flaw is the idea that what we believe is chosen by us in the first place. We believe only what seems sensible to us; that is, we infer from experience, from perception, from feelings and (hopefully) from rational enquiry. Thus we will not be able to create a belief system if one is not put in place by another form of established cognitive discipline. We can, of course, circumvent this problem by committing fully to Christ, for then we shall receive sufficient faith and sufficient wisdom to formulate a proper enquiry. Self-centred solicitation of reward will never achieve for us any kind of blessedness - we have to be prepared to give Christ our whole self, for in doing so we will only be giving back what is His, but we will be doing so with worship and reverence for the One who created us.
Having, as I do, a great deal of respect for Pascal, I am inclined to believe that his wager might have been, in fact, propounded as a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy - which reads: behave as though you believe in Christ and you will gradually start to become more Christ-like; thus He will start to reveal Himself to you. But even if this is true (I do not doubt that it happens on some occasions) - I think the wager is a superfluous contention - it leads to many more incidents of indifference and complacency than it does genuine passionate enquiry.
Moreover, there is, I would say, a different type of wager which is sadly far more prevalent in this day and age than Pascal’s - it is what one might refer to as ‘The Atheist’s Wager’. In its simplest form it reads something like this: I am quite happy to live my life satisfying all my inner-feelings, living a good life, living for the here and now, trying to do no harm to anyone; thus if there is no God I will be satisfied that I lived a good and fulfilling life, but if there is a God He will look upon me favourably for trying to live the best and most moral life possible. And I think we do, in fact, greatly underestimate the part about ‘if there is a God’ - that is to say, we have not, in our ministry, placed enough emphasis upon this ubiquitous dismissal of our Heavenly Father; for if this type of attitude were going to be enough then Christ died for nothing. The reality is quite different; He died on the cross, not so we would live under such clouds of illusion, but so we could have a relationship with Him. To deny this is to live outside of the complete picture and, in doing so, deny yourself the pleasures of knowing Christ and having the Holy Spirit inside you.
Christianity is, of course, worth so much more than blithe acknowledgement; it is a part of, or interrelated with, everything we do and, more importantly, everything we are. I am sure all of us can see this atheist’s wager working in our friends and loved ones - it is easily recognisable, and it is very rarely a conscious outward decision with conviction; it is usually a sleep from which they need to be awoken.
Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?
Matthew 16:25-26
We are told by St Paul that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ do not belong to Christ. If we were created to know God, we were created to please God and to be blessed by Him; thus all attempts to find contentment, happiness and blessedness without Him will be, in the end, fruitless.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. Romans 8:5-8
James will be off to the Hillsong Conference in London next week, and will return in two weeks.
The views carried here are those of the author, not of Network Norwich, and are intended to stimulate constructive debate between website users. We welcome your thoughts and comments, posted below, upon the ideas expressed here. You can also contact the author direct at james.knight@norfolk.gov.uk
James is a Norwich local government officer, author and Proclaimers church member in Norwich. You can access his current collections of columns here
Meanwhile, if you want to find out more about Christianity, visit: www.rejesus.co.uk
|
|
(page
1
2)
| | | John Payne (Guest) | 01/10/2008 14:00 | I like your bit about the 'atheist's wager'. They usually end by saying 'if God exists and if he's like you say he is, he'll rescue me anyway because he's so kind.' That's a funny way of putting it because they assume that the gospel message is true but don't want to do anything about it and so by telling them God loves them I'm defeating my evanjelical purpose and lulling them into a false sense of security.
| | | | Mike H (Guest) | 17/10/2008 19:44 | Is "He" not supposed to love all of us regardless ? And if he does, and forgives our hopeless incompetencies, does that not make it completely immaterial whether we believe in him or not..?
The idea of him being vengeful and shutting us out of Heaven and causing us hurt and pain means he would acting cruelly... but surely he's incapable of such a thing... isn't he ?
I say, it's tricky, this belief business, isn't it
| | | Judy Halsey | 17/10/2008 20:17 | If you were sentenced to death for a serious crime in a country where there is corporal punishment, Mike, and someone said you could go free and they would take the punishment, what would you do? The choice would be to take the offer, and go free and live, or refuse the offer and die. This epitomizes the Gospel, and shows why belief is necessary. If you don't believe in the person who could save you, you won't go free. Your sentence would be real, though, whether you believe that to be right or not. God is not only a God of love, but also a God of justice. Everyone has the sentence of death upon them and deserves death. It is God's love that has made a way, for anyone who chooses it, to be innocent in His eyes because the punishment was paid by Jesus.
| | | | xxx (Guest) | 18/10/2008 03:29 | Judy AMEN
| | | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 20/10/2008 16:17 | Mr Smith (= xxx, I presume)
'Amen' to your 'Amen'!
| | | | Paul (Guest) | 25/10/2008 00:07 | Though I agree with you that Pascals wager is problematic doesn't this kind of dissection miss his underlying motivation. He wasn't making an appeal to the reasonableness of belief in the way that had been offered before. What he was doing was trying to forge an argument that invited his gambling friends to participate in the transformative life and community of faith. In essence saying that rather than have an abstract debate about God, wager that he exists and therefore participate in the faith community and activities. There you might encounter God.
In dissecting the wager as you have done you have put forward the modernist construction that one believes first - it is about thought, will and logic. You've basically said it's about competing truth claims (eg propositions that can be debated, arguments clinched). Surely all that does is narrow and confine the God you are attempting to expose to as "more than" that. In essence then the place to encounter God is in certainty and the mind.
Interesting that Kraft said the evangelical church was the child of modernity. Not sure your arguments hold in a postmodern, postchristian, postchristendom and postwhatever society.
| | | | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 25/10/2008 14:37 | Postmodern? Post evangelical? Is this a cryptic allusion to emerging church Paul?
In the tension between the Institutional and the Celtic, between the analytical and the intuitive, between science and art, between the informational and the heartfelt, between ‘left brain’ and ‘right brain’, I’m for a synthesis rather a competitive spiritual hegemony by partisans who place all their eggs in one basket, whether that basket be just the formal or of the intuitive.
It is surely ironic that today’s charismatically oriented mainstream evangelical, who often derides the ‘head’ knowledge of propositional doctrine, thus finds himself on a similar quest to the emerging church and the liberal theologians. In their own ways they are all reacting to the apparent epistemological and ontological hegemony of analytical science by finding spiritual refuge in that last bastion of sacredness and humanity: the mysteries of inner life. I would be the last to deny the important role that sublime experience may play in the spiritual life of some people but it’s gone too far when the ecstatic is set over and against the analytical. (BTW Paul, see this discussion thread http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Forums/Messages.aspx?ThreadID=175903#new for James own encounter with sublime!)
God can, I believe, can be found in the modernist and the abstract (in thought, will and logic) as in any other domain of human experience. But human knowledge is inherently probabilistic and probabilities soften the sharp outlines of binary logic saving the analytical from human hubris.
Pascal is a very significant figure in this connection. In him we see the tension between the analytical and the intuitive worked out, in his case resolved in favour of the mystical and the fideist. But he had also become aware of the probabilistic nature of human knowledge. He appealed to the analytically inclined by suggesting that their knowledge had blurred edges. (The exact space of possibilities in which Pascal offered the choices of his wager were the options the culture of his day thought to be nigh on exhaustive)
Evangelicalism the child of modernity? No! No! No! Evangelicalism has been and continues to be as much the embodiment of tensions between “right and left brain” expressions as many other parts of society.
| | | | Paul (Guest) | 25/10/2008 15:12 | Wasn't an allusion to emerging church merely an observation on culture and worlviews.
Incidentally Kraft is an anthropologist offering a comment on cultural expressions of Christianity for context for quote. I'd be interested in how anyone can argue that evangelicalism is anything other than Modern. Birthed in Modernity, built on propositions etc. No value attached to that merely an observation on context and definition.
| | | Timothy V Reeves (Guest) | 25/10/2008 22:52 | Evangelicalism birthed in modernity, built on propositions etc? No doubt with the right choice of context and definition of terms such as ‘evangelicalism’, ‘birthed’, ‘modernity’, ‘proposition’ that proposition could be made to stick. However for me, the evangelicalism I know is a blended phenomenon, a blend of the modern, the pre-modern and the postmodern. Consider this taken from a likely EPC source (EPC = Evangelical, Pentecostal, Charismatic)
“If you always process salvation through your mind you will never enter the fuller things in your walk. You must move from a place of cognitive reasoning ability to a place where faith and belief flows through your spirit and not your head … God is beyond your logic.”
That’s hardly a paragon of modernity and ‘propositional’ faith. I’d be interested in how anyone can argue that evangelicalism is anything other than a somewhat strained blend of the modern, pre-modern and postmodern.
No value in your observation Paul? An observation such as this is likely to depend on the perspective set up by group identification. To the extreme left winger, centre left looks to be right wing. An interesting case is Kraft himself: from the perspective of many liberal theologians Kraft would look quite close to evangelicalism and even fundamentalism. I wonder if Kraft thinks of himself as modernist? Anyone…?
| | | | James Knight (Guest) | 17/11/2008 10:14 | Y’know crazy as it may seem - I’ve only just noticed these comments. I check for comments and questions on a regular basis but have completely missed the comments on this article.
Paul, on your first point ….
“He wasn't making an appeal to the reasonableness of belief in the way that had been offered before. What he was doing was trying to forge an argument that invited his gambling friends to participate in the transformative life and community of faith. In essence saying that rather than have an abstract debate about God, wager that he exists and therefore participate in the faith community and activities. There you might encounter God.”
This wasn’t a point I was missing; rather, it was a point with which I see fundamental difficulties. Due to social conditioning, this type of approach can result in similar convictions if it were, say, Islam replacing Christianity. Although that is a moot point in some fields of psychology.
I know that the Holy Spirit capitalises on any opportunities for grace so naturally I think anyone who diligently seeks the truth and can see what Christ on the cross means will find himself on the right road to salvation. My article was directed more at those for whom ‘faith’ is rather a blind and indifferent appeal to ‘him’ rather than ‘Him’, if you get my drift. I thought it a pertinent topic, particularly as I receive many letters throughout the year from people that live their lives with this viewpoint very much central in their reasoning. Although interestingly I believe that if one acts more like Christ he will find himself drawn more to Christ, and if he finds himself drawn more to Christ he is very likely to see God.
“In dissecting the wager as you have done you have put forward the modernist construction that one believes first - it is about thought, will and logic. You've basically said it's about competing truth claims (eg propositions that can be debated, arguments clinched). Surely all that does is narrow and confine the God you are attempting to expose to as "more than" that. In essence then the place to encounter God is in certainty and the mind. Interesting that Kraft said the evangelical church was the child of modernity. Not sure your arguments hold in a postmodern, postchristian, postchristendom and postwhatever society.” Again I think we have a disagreement, although it might be more a case of crossed-wires. If you check out my recent article on ‘The Real Truth About Faith” you’ll see that in the subsequent thread I make categorical distinctions between two types of rationale - Character and Operation, and I say that both stand alone as well as overlapping in a rather broad spectrum. Therefore I think my arguments do hold up in postmodern times - and let’s face it, Kraft’s priggishness isn’t really something that sits well in the emerging church where ‘dancing in the aisles’ and ‘rapid proliferation’ are concomitant, ho hum.
Tim then goes on to say, in a response…
“I’m for a synthesis rather a competitive spiritual hegemony by partisans who place all their eggs in one basket, whether that basket be just the formal or of the intuitive.”
Me too. Our friend Pascal agreed too, he says that we won’t achieve greatness by being at one extreme or the other, but by touching both extremes and filling all that lies between.
Moreover, I think I would disagree with Paul again on his view that evangelism isn’t anything other than ‘modern’. Very probably the parts that you are categorising as modern as less to do with evangelism itself, more to do with culture and the shifting zeitgeist and how evangelism interrelates with both. Evangelism has always been a conflation of the past and the present, and cannot, in my view, be singularly ‘modern’.
Best wishes
James
|
(page
1
2)
|
|