“I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true, than of being mistaken and believing it to be true.”
In a nutshell that is what is called “The Wager.” It was developed by Blaise Pascal, the brilliant French philosopher, scientist and mathematician of the seventeenth century. He died much too young, in his 30’s, yet accomplished more than many do in a life twice his length. Most of his life he lived as a nominal Catholic until late in his 20’s when he had a second conversion experience. His profound experience of God thoroughly changed him and he became...
an apologist for Christian faith.
The wager is basically this: On the objective side, either God exists or he does not. On the subjective side, I believe it or I do not believe it. If God exists and I believe, I have everything to gain and nothing to lose. If God does not exist and I believe, I gain nothing and lose nothing. If God does not exist and I do not believe, I gain nothing and I lose nothing. However, if God exists and I do not believe, I gain nothing and I lose everything (eternal happiness). Since neither objective position can be proved in this world, the options remain open and a “bet” is possible as well as necessary. Pascal’s wager points out that a choice must be made and the consequences of that choice. Everyone must choose and everything hangs in the balance. Where do you place your bet?
Friday, March 7, 2008
The Wager
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Pascal's Wager does not take into account that there are other gods. If you believe in the wrong god and the actual god is a jealous god like Jehovah, you lost anyway.
To paraphrase Dawkins, if you force yourself to believe in god mearly because the odds of disappointment are less can you really expect to receive eternal bliss if there happens to be a god and you were betting on the right one?
Terry: If God were to visit earth in human form, what might he look like? Would he be brilliant in his teachings, wiser than his contemporaries? Would he baffle his critics and forge a new path? Would he have such an impact on the world that millions would become his followers and the nations reset their calendars from his birth? Would he have power unlike anyone who has ever lived - power to heal the sick, calm an angry storm, walk upon the water, raise the dead? Would he himself defeat death in the end? If so, you know which is the right God to place your bet on.
I understand your point but none of the evidence you presented was part of Pascal's Wager or yours.
People have been in control of all of the evidence you described. If those people believed a certain way then they would change the calendar etc. As for the testimony of Jesus' ministry, those are subjective accounts written down by people who did not actually witness the events.
I know there is much debate about that last bit. If you found out that the testimony of Jesus' ministry were in fact subjective accounts written down by people who did not actually witness the events would you still believe? I suspect you would, because you have faith.
... and not because of any wager
terry: No, actually I would not believe. If it was conclusively proven that Jesus did not rise from the grave, for instance, I would no longer be a Christian. To say that I would is sentimentalism. My faith is rooted in actual events of history and if that history proves to be false, then my faith is in vain.
You are correct about the wager and the material I provided. You asked a question that the wager does not exist, quoting Dawkins concerning what God to believe in. The Wager is narrow in its focus: it was assumed by Pascal to refer to Christian faith in God, not other religions. The Wager does not address the question, "Which religion is right or what god/God is right?"
I actually did not mean to imply that if you were presented with evidence that Jesus never rose from the dead you would maintain your faith. What I meant to say was if it were proved that the writers of the gospels never witnessed any of the events about which they wrote you would probably maintain your faith. Is that false too?
No, I would not maintain my faith if the writers of the gospels were false witnesses. Matthew and John were present; Mark got his material from Peter and Luke from Mary. If somehow all that was proved bogus, how could I continue to believe? The gospel I believe is rooted in real history and if that real history is not true, then my faith is in vain.
I read your post and I was wondering if you've ever read "The Jesus Puzzle?" I don't think you should read it if you already haven't. You seem to read some opposition books. You may read many but I only see you referencing a few.
terry: I've not heard of "The Jesus Puzzle." What is its thesis?
The thesis of the book is that "Christian faith evolved from a Jesus myth to an historical Jesus."
In the book Earl Doherty argues that Paul never places Jesus on earth. He says that Jesus was born, died, and arose all in a spiritual plane. He also argues that the Gospels were written after Paul's writing to satisfy a need that some Christians had for Jesus to have been on earth.
The book is difficult for me to completely comprehend. It seems to be written for scholars. I almost finished it and then gave up because it didn't really matter to me anyway. I only stated reading it shut the christians who were constantly preaching to me about this and that up.
I don't agree with the interpretation he uses for a very few of the bible verses he quotes but there is something to his argument. For instance, he blows Josephus completely out of the water.
I know that you are a biblical scholar. I am not. So I'm not going to argue with you about the historical origins of the gospels. I remember being told that the gospels were written by people other than the disciples when I was young and trying to understand how the gospels could have been written 30 & 40 years after Jesus' death.
I asked you about the book because I was never under the impression that the writers of the gospels actually witnessed the events they recorded. I always thought it was handed down orally until someone finally wrote it down. I'm a little suprised that anyone educated thought that. It could be true! I'm not trying to say you aren't educated. I'm just saying I never heard it before.
terry: If that is the thesis, there are actually liberal Christian scholars who, while not going that far, would say nearly the same things. I have a problem with our liberal "scholars" claiming to know more than the first century witnesses.
Yes, it is commonly accepted that the New Testament writers were either eyewitnesses or got their material directly from eyewitnesses. In fact, those were the standards for inclusion into the canon of scripture in the early church. In relation to the four gospels, Matthew and John were two of the 12 disciples. John was part of the inner circle. Mark got his material from Peter, another member of the inner circle. Luke, the only non-Jewish author in the Bible, got his information from Mary and the Apostle Paul. Again, this is accepted tradition dating back to the earliest days of Christianity.
I just finished a series at our church on Mark called "Eyewitness." We looked at passages that Mark alone includes, details that only an eyewitness could or would mention. I would invite you to read Mark and notice the little details that add nothing to the overall message but would only be included because the author was there and saw it firsthand.
The gospels were written 25 to 50 years after Jesus' death - but the band of Christ followers were young. John, who wrote his gospel last, wrote around the year 90 AD. He was a teenage follower of Christ, so that puts him in his 70s or 80s when he wrote the gospel - not unheard of today for an author.
Post a Comment