Calvin reflects on the God-thirst in the soul, all too often warped and directed toward finite objects that will never satisfy it. In his interview with Jeremy Paxman below, Brand articulates Calvin's insight in contemporary lingo shaped by our media-frenzied and fame-entranced culture.
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity. This we take to be beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty. Ever renewing its memory, he repeatedly sheds fresh drops. Since, therefore, men one and all perceive that there is a God and that he is their Maker, they are condemned by their own testimony because they have failed to honor him and consecrate their lives to his will. If ignorance of God is to be looked for anywhere, surely one is most likely to find an example of it among the more backward folk and those more remote from civilisation. Yet there is, as the eminent pagan says, no nation so barbarous, no people so savage, that they have not a deep-seated conviction that there is a God. And they who in other aspects of life seem least to differ from brutes still continue to retain some seed of religion. So deeply does the common conception occupy the minds of all, so tenaciously does it inhere in the hearts of all! Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.
Indeed, even idolatory is ample proof of this conception. We know how man does not willingly humble himself so as to place other creatures over himself. Since, then, he prefers to worship wood and stone rather than be thought of as having no God, clearly this is a most vivid impression of a divine being. So impossible is it to blot this from man's mind that natural disposition would be more easily altered, as altered indeed it is when man voluntarily sinks from his natural haughtiness to the very depths in order to honor God!" John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion, Vol. II, ch. 2
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Haworth's 10 Ways #5: The Argument From Religious Need
Russell Brand's articulate murmurings about his desire for God and his positive belief that God does exist (see below) provides the springboard for Haworths Fifth Way. There are profound human yearnings that no earthly thing will ever satisfy. As C. S. Lewis remarked somewhere, "If I find in myself a desire that no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."
This argument seeks to demonstrate that the universal phenomenon of the human desire that God exist is in itself sufficient evidence that such a God does in fact exist. Atheistic thinkers have sought first to underline the human desire that God exist and have then boiled it down to one of two factors; either wish-fulfilment or evolutionary biology. The reality is, actually, that neither the wish-fulfilment hypothesis nor the facts of evolutionary biology (though they do explain the human desire that God exist) in no way effectively disprove the existence of God. What has been offered, in fact, is a genetic fallacy in each case (the "how" of something doesn't explain the "why" question it elicits).
It was Sigmund Freud who was the first to try to explain the phenomenon of religious belief on the basis of psychological wish-fulfilment. His theory has been enormously influential. It is simply this: in the face of the suffering and difficulty of life, people hope there is a kind, loving God. Although the notion of God is an illusion, it is a wish that people cling to as it offers comfort and hope in the face of inevitable death. Of course, Freud is probably right; most people do hope and wish that there is a good and loving God who can do away with death. But just because it is a wish and a hope in no way discredits this basic human desire. The two can go together; we can have a psychological belief or hope that does actually accord with reality. To simply describe the psychological belief and then discount it on that basis is simply a genetic fallacy. People, on the basis of their psychological make-up, may hope and wish that there is a God. There is nothing to say that such a psychological need is not a fundamental God-given human trait. The argument from religious need begins with this most fundamental human desire or need and builds on it.
Before we look at this argument, it is worth noting the other genetic fallacy that often passes for a serious argument against the existence of God. It is a variation on the wish-fulfilment hypothesis. Generally, atheistic writers will assume that religious belief is a quirk of evolutionary biology, something that evolved in humans over time to enable them to adapt and cope with a difficult environment. Now, again, this in no way disproves the existence of God. It is a genetic fallacy. The reality is that if God has created all things and is supreme over the evolutionary process of all life, it is not unlikely he would factor in an in innate desire or sense of the divine in his creatures. Just because such a desire is present in no way disproves the existence of a Creator God. Both can go together.
Having dealt with the only two major arguments that would seek to undermine the integrity of belief (the argument from wish-fulfilment and evolutionary biology), the next step might be to simply underline the continual and constant evidence of the human hunger and need for God. The basic form of the argument is as follows:
1.Human beings really need God.
2.What humans really need probably really exists.
3.Therefore, God really exists.
The second premise may prove to be problematic but it is simply necessary to point out the difference between unfulfillable immediate wants and deep-seated, fundamental needs. The universe would be irrational if the basic needs of humans did not correspond to what could satisfy them (hunger corresponds to the existence of food and thirst corresponds to the existence of water, and so on). However, the crux of the argument is this: do humans have a real need for God or is it merely a felt need? If there is a real need then why does not everyone experience it?
The oft-repeated quote of Augustine, to the effect that our hearts are restless until they rest in God, chimes in with what this argument drives at. Firstly, it is important to point out that the felt need for God is not limited to unthinking, uncritical or psychologically needy people. Some of the greatest minds have confessed a deep and profound hunger for God; theologians like Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, scientists like Galileo Galilei, Nicholaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and philosophers like Rene Descartes, John Locke, Soren Kierkegaard and Simone Weil were all massively influential thinkers. One cannot claim that it was intellectual deficiency which led to their perceived need for God. Secondly, it is important to note that even atheists, despite their protestations to the contrary, feel what can be called a religious impulse. Jean-Paul Sartre reputedly stated: “I needed God…I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it myself.” In his book, Beyond Consolation, John Waters writes about a debate in University College Cork in which he went up against the atheist thinker Peter Atkins (the motion was: ‘That This House Believes Religion Has No Place in the Modern World’). In the aftermath, as they spoke together, Waters writes:
“As we walked across the campus afterwards, I jokingly said to him that it was somewhat ironic, given his vehemence in the argument, that of the two of us, I alone had a chance of being vindicated. He asked me what I meant. I said, ‘If you’re right, neither of us will ever know, whereas if I’m right, we’ll both know.’ He laughed, fell silent for a moment and responded: ‘It’s much worse than that, I’m afraid, because if you’re right, I’m going to be very happy!’
Even committed atheists will often admit to their personal desire that God exists, despite the philosophical framework of their beliefs. As Waters goes on to remark, there is a fundamental human need for hope and a vision of some destination beyond the repetitions of earthly reality. This fundamental human need is only answered by the existence of God.
The theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834) defined religion as a feeling of absolute dependence. This could be expressed as a fundamental dependence on the “All” or the “Ultimate”, the sense of life as “sacred” or a sense of personal insignificance (even dread) in the face of the vast universe. If that is true, we can enlarge our definition of what defines the fundamental religious impulse. Most people will admit to this basic feeling of dependence that Schleiermacher spoke of. This can be unpacked further: why is there a fundamental feeling of dependence that frames human experience and existence? Is it not likely that such a feeling might correspond to our basic reliance on the God who brought us into being? In another sense, the religious impulse can be defined as an “ultimate commitment” or any ideal that is pursued with great conviction. In that sense, everybody is religious. Everyone has a life-goal to which their abilities, time and energy are directed toward. There is a basic human need for significance and a commitment to a higher ideal.
Finally, though, it has to be said that satisfaction originates in the personal. We were created for an “I-Thou” relationship, not an “I-it” relationship. Religious experience is always personal. As persons we are most satisfied when in relation to another person, another “thou”, rather than an object, an “it” – whether that is an ideal, a mathematical theorem (a “theory of everything”) or a philosophical framework. As such, although people will direct their ultimate commitment to humanist ideals or a form of science devoid of God, inevitably such things will be imbued with personal, God-like qualities. What emerges is a warm-hearted devotion to theories, frameworks or ideals that is fitting only in the context of an “I-Thou” relationship. In other words, God is displaced by something other. And yet, whatever that “other” may be, it is nothing less than “God” for those who commit themselves to it. We cannot escape the fact that human beings were created for a personal “I-Thou” relationship with the living God. If people refuse to acknowledge and worship the God who is there, inevitably they will worship something (or someone) else to fill the vacuum. Human beings are fundamentally religious. The desire for transcendence and a personal encounter with the divine is insatiable.
The argument from religious need simply aims to zone in on this basic human appetite for transcendence and the desire for God. It strives to pointedly force the following question: if there is a fundamental human need for God (that cannot be explained away by appeals to psychology or science), is it not likely that the need corresponds to a real reality, the reality of the God who is there?
This argument seeks to demonstrate that the universal phenomenon of the human desire that God exist is in itself sufficient evidence that such a God does in fact exist. Atheistic thinkers have sought first to underline the human desire that God exist and have then boiled it down to one of two factors; either wish-fulfilment or evolutionary biology. The reality is, actually, that neither the wish-fulfilment hypothesis nor the facts of evolutionary biology (though they do explain the human desire that God exist) in no way effectively disprove the existence of God. What has been offered, in fact, is a genetic fallacy in each case (the "how" of something doesn't explain the "why" question it elicits).
It was Sigmund Freud who was the first to try to explain the phenomenon of religious belief on the basis of psychological wish-fulfilment. His theory has been enormously influential. It is simply this: in the face of the suffering and difficulty of life, people hope there is a kind, loving God. Although the notion of God is an illusion, it is a wish that people cling to as it offers comfort and hope in the face of inevitable death. Of course, Freud is probably right; most people do hope and wish that there is a good and loving God who can do away with death. But just because it is a wish and a hope in no way discredits this basic human desire. The two can go together; we can have a psychological belief or hope that does actually accord with reality. To simply describe the psychological belief and then discount it on that basis is simply a genetic fallacy. People, on the basis of their psychological make-up, may hope and wish that there is a God. There is nothing to say that such a psychological need is not a fundamental God-given human trait. The argument from religious need begins with this most fundamental human desire or need and builds on it.
Before we look at this argument, it is worth noting the other genetic fallacy that often passes for a serious argument against the existence of God. It is a variation on the wish-fulfilment hypothesis. Generally, atheistic writers will assume that religious belief is a quirk of evolutionary biology, something that evolved in humans over time to enable them to adapt and cope with a difficult environment. Now, again, this in no way disproves the existence of God. It is a genetic fallacy. The reality is that if God has created all things and is supreme over the evolutionary process of all life, it is not unlikely he would factor in an in innate desire or sense of the divine in his creatures. Just because such a desire is present in no way disproves the existence of a Creator God. Both can go together.
Having dealt with the only two major arguments that would seek to undermine the integrity of belief (the argument from wish-fulfilment and evolutionary biology), the next step might be to simply underline the continual and constant evidence of the human hunger and need for God. The basic form of the argument is as follows:
1.Human beings really need God.
2.What humans really need probably really exists.
3.Therefore, God really exists.
The second premise may prove to be problematic but it is simply necessary to point out the difference between unfulfillable immediate wants and deep-seated, fundamental needs. The universe would be irrational if the basic needs of humans did not correspond to what could satisfy them (hunger corresponds to the existence of food and thirst corresponds to the existence of water, and so on). However, the crux of the argument is this: do humans have a real need for God or is it merely a felt need? If there is a real need then why does not everyone experience it?
The oft-repeated quote of Augustine, to the effect that our hearts are restless until they rest in God, chimes in with what this argument drives at. Firstly, it is important to point out that the felt need for God is not limited to unthinking, uncritical or psychologically needy people. Some of the greatest minds have confessed a deep and profound hunger for God; theologians like Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, scientists like Galileo Galilei, Nicholaus Copernicus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and philosophers like Rene Descartes, John Locke, Soren Kierkegaard and Simone Weil were all massively influential thinkers. One cannot claim that it was intellectual deficiency which led to their perceived need for God. Secondly, it is important to note that even atheists, despite their protestations to the contrary, feel what can be called a religious impulse. Jean-Paul Sartre reputedly stated: “I needed God…I reached out for religion, I longed for it, it was the remedy. Had it been denied me, I would have invented it myself.” In his book, Beyond Consolation, John Waters writes about a debate in University College Cork in which he went up against the atheist thinker Peter Atkins (the motion was: ‘That This House Believes Religion Has No Place in the Modern World’). In the aftermath, as they spoke together, Waters writes:
“As we walked across the campus afterwards, I jokingly said to him that it was somewhat ironic, given his vehemence in the argument, that of the two of us, I alone had a chance of being vindicated. He asked me what I meant. I said, ‘If you’re right, neither of us will ever know, whereas if I’m right, we’ll both know.’ He laughed, fell silent for a moment and responded: ‘It’s much worse than that, I’m afraid, because if you’re right, I’m going to be very happy!’
Even committed atheists will often admit to their personal desire that God exists, despite the philosophical framework of their beliefs. As Waters goes on to remark, there is a fundamental human need for hope and a vision of some destination beyond the repetitions of earthly reality. This fundamental human need is only answered by the existence of God.
The theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 – 1834) defined religion as a feeling of absolute dependence. This could be expressed as a fundamental dependence on the “All” or the “Ultimate”, the sense of life as “sacred” or a sense of personal insignificance (even dread) in the face of the vast universe. If that is true, we can enlarge our definition of what defines the fundamental religious impulse. Most people will admit to this basic feeling of dependence that Schleiermacher spoke of. This can be unpacked further: why is there a fundamental feeling of dependence that frames human experience and existence? Is it not likely that such a feeling might correspond to our basic reliance on the God who brought us into being? In another sense, the religious impulse can be defined as an “ultimate commitment” or any ideal that is pursued with great conviction. In that sense, everybody is religious. Everyone has a life-goal to which their abilities, time and energy are directed toward. There is a basic human need for significance and a commitment to a higher ideal.
Finally, though, it has to be said that satisfaction originates in the personal. We were created for an “I-Thou” relationship, not an “I-it” relationship. Religious experience is always personal. As persons we are most satisfied when in relation to another person, another “thou”, rather than an object, an “it” – whether that is an ideal, a mathematical theorem (a “theory of everything”) or a philosophical framework. As such, although people will direct their ultimate commitment to humanist ideals or a form of science devoid of God, inevitably such things will be imbued with personal, God-like qualities. What emerges is a warm-hearted devotion to theories, frameworks or ideals that is fitting only in the context of an “I-Thou” relationship. In other words, God is displaced by something other. And yet, whatever that “other” may be, it is nothing less than “God” for those who commit themselves to it. We cannot escape the fact that human beings were created for a personal “I-Thou” relationship with the living God. If people refuse to acknowledge and worship the God who is there, inevitably they will worship something (or someone) else to fill the vacuum. Human beings are fundamentally religious. The desire for transcendence and a personal encounter with the divine is insatiable.
The argument from religious need simply aims to zone in on this basic human appetite for transcendence and the desire for God. It strives to pointedly force the following question: if there is a fundamental human need for God (that cannot be explained away by appeals to psychology or science), is it not likely that the need corresponds to a real reality, the reality of the God who is there?
Monday, June 27, 2011
Russell Brand on GOD
Russel Brand, famous only for his libertine excess, here waxes lyrical on the vacuous nature of celebrity, the hollowness of fame and the pursuit of God. In no uncertain terms he claims that everything his fame and celebrity brings him - sexual promiscuity, wealth, pleasure, media attention etc - are but mere shadows of the only thing that will ever truly satisfy him; God. He admits that he is, like so many people, simply running after shadows, obeying the endless yearnings of the human heart for significance and purpose. Brand admits that fame, the very thing many people aspire to as the ultimate prize, is nothing but dust and ashes. It is a fascinating interview.
Haworth's 10 Ways #4: The Argument From Design
The most famous form of this argument was put forward by William Paley (1734 – 1805), who employed the watchmaker analogy. Since every watch has a watchmaker, and since the universe is exceedingly more complex in its operation than a watch, it follows that there must be a Maker of the universe. The teleological argument reasons from design to an Intelligent Designer. It works as follows:
All designs imply a designer.
There is great design in the universe.
Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.
When we see encounter complex design of any kind, we immediately assume there is a designer behind it. Experience teaches us that complex design is the product of the mind of a designer. For example, watches imply watchmakers, buildings imply architects and paintings imply artists. All coded messages, language and information imply an intelligent sender. Furthermore, the greater the design, the greater the designer. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it. Birds construct nests but could never assemble the Luas line. A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters for millions of years could never produce Hamlet. Only Shakespeare could pull it off. Similarly, the complex design of the universe implies a designer of vast intelligence.
Complex design entails specified complexity. A crystal and a snowflake have specificity but not complexity. They have the same basic patterns repeated over and over. A polymer is a large molecule composed of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds. It has complexity but not specificity. However, a living cell has both specificity and complexity. This kind of complexity could never be produced by purely natural laws. It is always the result of an intelligent being.
Living cells contain the same kind of complexity encountered in human language, engineering and technological design. Letter sequence in the four-letter genetic alphabet is identical to that in a written language. The amount of complex information in a simple one-cell is greater than that found in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. The presence of information, tailored into the fabric of the cosmos, suggests the presence of a Supreme Mind. On a basic human level, complex information and organized language always suggests to us the presence and activity of a thinking, creative intelligence. Why should we not apply the same criteria to the information and complexity encountered in the cellular fabric of the vast cosmos?
The genetic information of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons – about 100 trillion; 1014 bits. If written out in English, that much information would fill roughly 20 million volumes. Thus, the equivalent of 20 million volumes is locked away in every human head. The brain is a vast, expansive labyrinth of information contained in a very small space. The neuro-chemistry of the brain contains the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than anything humans have ever devised. If the simplest computer requires a designer, then why not the immensely intricate marvel of the human brain?
In the same way, when we encounter any kind of human artifact, we immediately assume there is intelligence behind it. For example, whether we pick up an i-phone or whether we dig up the ancient remains of a by-gone human settlement (unearthing for example, axe heads or pottery) we immediately assume such things are the product of creative intelligence. They bear the hallmarks of design; they were created with particular purposes in mind. We do not for a second assume that the complexity and specificity of these objects are the result of chance processes that just happen to form them. We know that they are the product of human intelligence and design.
In the same vein, when we encounter patterns of design in the created world, it is illogical to force an interpretation that simply would not apply to the i-phone or the axe-heads. If the created world bears the hallmarks of design, it is not illogical to posit the existence of a creative intelligence behind it. In fact, it is quite rational and more than that, it is basically intuitive. The very existence of a universe so incredibly complex and nuanced demands the existence of an immensely intelligent creator. To accept that the i-phone and the axe-heads are the product of intentional, intelligent design and then, in the same breath, to insist that the universe is the product of random, unintentional, blind processes is a contradiction in terms. The universe bears precisely the same marks of complexity and specificity (only infinitely more so) as the designed implements of human technology. So then, if the i-phone and the axe-heads are the product of ordered, intentional, intelligent design, then why not the vast and immensely intricate marvel of the universe?
All designs imply a designer.
There is great design in the universe.
Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.
When we see encounter complex design of any kind, we immediately assume there is a designer behind it. Experience teaches us that complex design is the product of the mind of a designer. For example, watches imply watchmakers, buildings imply architects and paintings imply artists. All coded messages, language and information imply an intelligent sender. Furthermore, the greater the design, the greater the designer. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it. Birds construct nests but could never assemble the Luas line. A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters for millions of years could never produce Hamlet. Only Shakespeare could pull it off. Similarly, the complex design of the universe implies a designer of vast intelligence.
Complex design entails specified complexity. A crystal and a snowflake have specificity but not complexity. They have the same basic patterns repeated over and over. A polymer is a large molecule composed of repeating structural units typically connected by covalent chemical bonds. It has complexity but not specificity. However, a living cell has both specificity and complexity. This kind of complexity could never be produced by purely natural laws. It is always the result of an intelligent being.
Living cells contain the same kind of complexity encountered in human language, engineering and technological design. Letter sequence in the four-letter genetic alphabet is identical to that in a written language. The amount of complex information in a simple one-cell is greater than that found in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. The presence of information, tailored into the fabric of the cosmos, suggests the presence of a Supreme Mind. On a basic human level, complex information and organized language always suggests to us the presence and activity of a thinking, creative intelligence. Why should we not apply the same criteria to the information and complexity encountered in the cellular fabric of the vast cosmos?
The genetic information of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons – about 100 trillion; 1014 bits. If written out in English, that much information would fill roughly 20 million volumes. Thus, the equivalent of 20 million volumes is locked away in every human head. The brain is a vast, expansive labyrinth of information contained in a very small space. The neuro-chemistry of the brain contains the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than anything humans have ever devised. If the simplest computer requires a designer, then why not the immensely intricate marvel of the human brain?
In the same way, when we encounter any kind of human artifact, we immediately assume there is intelligence behind it. For example, whether we pick up an i-phone or whether we dig up the ancient remains of a by-gone human settlement (unearthing for example, axe heads or pottery) we immediately assume such things are the product of creative intelligence. They bear the hallmarks of design; they were created with particular purposes in mind. We do not for a second assume that the complexity and specificity of these objects are the result of chance processes that just happen to form them. We know that they are the product of human intelligence and design.
In the same vein, when we encounter patterns of design in the created world, it is illogical to force an interpretation that simply would not apply to the i-phone or the axe-heads. If the created world bears the hallmarks of design, it is not illogical to posit the existence of a creative intelligence behind it. In fact, it is quite rational and more than that, it is basically intuitive. The very existence of a universe so incredibly complex and nuanced demands the existence of an immensely intelligent creator. To accept that the i-phone and the axe-heads are the product of intentional, intelligent design and then, in the same breath, to insist that the universe is the product of random, unintentional, blind processes is a contradiction in terms. The universe bears precisely the same marks of complexity and specificity (only infinitely more so) as the designed implements of human technology. So then, if the i-phone and the axe-heads are the product of ordered, intentional, intelligent design, then why not the vast and immensely intricate marvel of the universe?
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Haworth's 10 Ways #3: Floody's Wager
This is a very famous proof originally formulated by Blaise Pascal. Normally it is referred to as Pascal's Wager for this very reason. Once a week I meet Gerald Flood ("Floody"), a guy who lives around the corner from Immanuel church, where I work. We meet up over coffee and read through a portion of Scripture. It just so happened that today we happened to be discussing the positive things that come with believing in God. He proceeded to outline what basically follows below. I told him that a guy called Pascal had come to the same conclusion a few hundred years ago and presented the very same wager, but he was having none of it. "It's Floody's Wager now!" he declared. So, here it is, Haworth's 3rd Way: Pascal's (aka. Floody's) Wager.
Pascal's Wager does not appeal to reason in the same way as the traditional proofs. Instead, Pascal simply argues that we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet. Pascal’s Wager runs as follows:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument from probability; mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. In other words, to believe in God and God does not exist only leads to a finite (limited) loss. However, to believe that God does not exist risks an infinite loss. To believe that God does exist and God does exist, infinite gain is our reward. Therefore, it is a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.
This argument is like a third way. For those who have not got the gift of faith and for those who do not trust an appeal to reason, the wager offers an alternative ladder to the knowledge of God. Of course, in a sense, it is a low ladder. However, as Peter Kreeft has written:
“If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."Pascal wrote: “a game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance(death) where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?”
Pascal decisively shows up atheism as a foolish wager. But, that is not all. Pascal also shows that agnosticism is impossible. Many people maintain that a skeptical, uncommitted attitude is the most reasonable option when it comes to the existence of God. The agnostic insists that the best option is not to wager at all; “ignorance is bliss”, “I’ll find out when I die”. Pascal replies to the agnostic: “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked (committed).” The reality is we are not outside observers of life, but participants. Peter Kreeft continues:
“We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late.”
The Wager works because of the fact of death. The ship of life is moving forward and there will come a point of no return. We cannot remain implacable and undecided in the face of death. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or a fake. He has to take a chance on this port or some other, or he will never get home.
Every one of us must wager. Once it is decided that there are only two options (theism or atheism) and not three (theism or atheism or agnosticism) then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. As Pascal writes:
“You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
If God does not exist then it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.
If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.
But, is believing worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever must be given up is only finite; personal independence perhaps, or illicit pleasures - but you gain infinite happiness and eternal joy. Furthermore, in this life, belief brings purpose, peace, hope and joy. Pascal concludes his argument with these words that underline the gravity with which he has presented his Wager:
“If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.”
Many often object to the wager by claiming that they refuse to believe for the low motive of saving their own skin and avoiding eternal punishment. In response, we can simply change the motive. Peter Kreeft writes:
“Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.”
Pascal imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. In response, Pascal simply suggests some practical psychology:
“True...Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God...Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions...Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed... Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.”
In other words, behave just as if you do believe and belief will follow.
Pascal’s wager is a simple, practical argument that haunts the atheist with the abiding question, but can you be sure there is no God?
Pascal's Wager does not appeal to reason in the same way as the traditional proofs. Instead, Pascal simply argues that we should wager that God exists because it is the best bet. Pascal’s Wager runs as follows:
If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven; thus an infinite gain.
If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument from probability; mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. In other words, to believe in God and God does not exist only leads to a finite (limited) loss. However, to believe that God does not exist risks an infinite loss. To believe that God does exist and God does exist, infinite gain is our reward. Therefore, it is a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.
This argument is like a third way. For those who have not got the gift of faith and for those who do not trust an appeal to reason, the wager offers an alternative ladder to the knowledge of God. Of course, in a sense, it is a low ladder. However, as Peter Kreeft has written:
“If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, "Let us now speak according to our natural lights."Pascal wrote: “a game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance(death) where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?”
Pascal decisively shows up atheism as a foolish wager. But, that is not all. Pascal also shows that agnosticism is impossible. Many people maintain that a skeptical, uncommitted attitude is the most reasonable option when it comes to the existence of God. The agnostic insists that the best option is not to wager at all; “ignorance is bliss”, “I’ll find out when I die”. Pascal replies to the agnostic: “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked (committed).” The reality is we are not outside observers of life, but participants. Peter Kreeft continues:
“We are like ships that need to get home, sailing past a port that has signs on it proclaiming that it is our true home and our true happiness. The ships are our own lives and the signs on the port say "God". The agnostic says he will neither put in at that port (believe) nor turn away from it (disbelieve) but stay anchored a reasonable distance away until the weather clears and he can see better whether this is the true port or a fake (for there are a lot of fakes around). Why is this attitude unreasonable, even impossible? Because we are moving. The ship of life is moving along the waters of time, and there comes a point of no return, when our fuel runs out, when it is too late.”
The Wager works because of the fact of death. The ship of life is moving forward and there will come a point of no return. We cannot remain implacable and undecided in the face of death. The weather will never clear enough for the agnostic navigator to be sure whether the port is true home or a fake. He has to take a chance on this port or some other, or he will never get home.
Every one of us must wager. Once it is decided that there are only two options (theism or atheism) and not three (theism or atheism or agnosticism) then the rest of the argument is simple. Atheism is a terrible bet. As Pascal writes:
“You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
If God does not exist then it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.
If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.
But, is believing worth the price? What must be given up to wager that God exists? Whatever must be given up is only finite; personal independence perhaps, or illicit pleasures - but you gain infinite happiness and eternal joy. Furthermore, in this life, belief brings purpose, peace, hope and joy. Pascal concludes his argument with these words that underline the gravity with which he has presented his Wager:
“If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.”
Many often object to the wager by claiming that they refuse to believe for the low motive of saving their own skin and avoiding eternal punishment. In response, we can simply change the motive. Peter Kreeft writes:
“Let us say we want to give God his due if there is a God. Now if there is a God, justice demands total faith, hope, love, obedience, and worship. If there is a God and we refuse to give him these things, we sin maximally against the truth. But the only chance of doing infinite justice is if God exists and we believe, while the only chance of doing infinite injustice is if God exists and we do not believe. If God does not exist, there is no one there to do infinite justice or infinite injustice to. So the motive of doing justice moves the Wager just as well as the motive of seeking happiness. Pascal used the more selfish motive because we all have that all the time, while only some are motivated by justice, and only some of the time.”
Pascal imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. In response, Pascal simply suggests some practical psychology:
“True...Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God...Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions...Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed... Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.”
In other words, behave just as if you do believe and belief will follow.
Pascal’s wager is a simple, practical argument that haunts the atheist with the abiding question, but can you be sure there is no God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)