The Wager

“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?

Read More......

Desperate Atheists?

You’ve heard of Desperate Housewives. I propose that the rash of books over the past couple years from atheist writers could be classified as “Desperate Atheists.” Historically, the greatest philosophical argument against belief in God, especially Christian belief, is the presence of evil in the world. (In fact, Boston College Professor of Philosophy Peter Kreeft says the problem of evil is truly the only “proof” against belief in God. There are arguments against belief, but no other “proofs” in the atheistic arsenal.) Yet, this proof has been thoroughly demolished by Christian philosophers with the argument of free will. “Man can only be a saint in a world where he can also be a devil.” If we are free, we must be free to do evil. The vast majority of suffering and evil in this world is carried out by people against other people. God gave us the gift of freedom and our misuse of that gift is the cause behind much of the world’s suffering. The argument of free will is so airtight that atheist writers don’t even take it on aggressively anymore. In my readings of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens I found it interesting that they...

hardly mention it. No wonder they are desperate. Their only “proof” is dismantled. Couple that with the greatest philosophical problem for atheism (the existence of and continued growth of faith in God worldwide) and modern atheists find themselves in a philosophical dilemma.

Oxford professor Alister McGrath articulates this dilemma quite well in his brilliant response to Richard Dawkins’ best selling book, The God Delusion. What follows is an extensive quote from McGrath, using the conclusion from his book, The Dawkins Delusion. While the book focuses on Dawkins’ in particular, the points he makes are applicable to other current atheist writers as well.

“Every worldview, whether religious or not, has its point of vulnerability. There is a tension between theory and experience, raising questions over the coherence and trustworthiness of the worldview itself. In the case of Christianity, many locate that point of weakness in the existence of suffering within the world. In the case of atheism, it is the persistence of belief in God, when there is supposedly no God in which to believe.

Until recently Western atheism had waited patiently, believing that belief in God would simply die out. But now, a whiff of panic is evident. Far from dying out, belief in God has rebounded and seems set to exercise still greater influence in both the public and private spheres. The God Delusion expresses this deep anxiety, partly reflecting an intense distaste for religion. Yet there is something deeper here, often overlooked in the heat of debate. The anxiety is that the coherence of atheism itself is at stake. Might the unexpected resurgence of religion persuade many that atheism itself is fatally flawed as a worldview?

The God Delusion seems more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with religious believers and others seeking for truth. (One wonders if this is because the writer is himself an atheist whose faith is faltering.) Religious believers will be dismayed by its ritual stereotyping of religion and will find its manifest lack of fairness a significant disincentive to take its arguments and concerns seriously. Seekers after truth who would not consider themselves religious may also find themselves shocked by Dawkins’s aggressive rhetoric, his substitution of personal creedal statements for objective engagement with evidence, his hectoring and bullying tone toward “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads” and his utter determination to find nothing but fault with religion of any kind.

It is this deep, unsettling anxiety about the future of atheism that explains the “high degree of dogmatism” and “aggressive rhetorical style” of this new secular fundamentalism. Fundamentalism arises when it fears its own future is threatened. The God Delusion is a work of theater rather than scholarship—a fierce, rhetorical assault on religion and passionate plea for it to be banished to the lunatic fringes of society, where it can do no harm. None can doubt the visceral appeal that this book will make to a secular audience that is alarmed at the new political importance attached to religion and its growing influence and presence in the public arena. Its dismissive attitude to religion will doubtless win plaudits from those who heartily dislike religion.

Yes others have been more cautious. Aware of the moral obligations of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many have been disturbed by Dawkins’s crude stereotypes, vastly oversimplified binary oppositions (science is good; religion is bad), straw men and hostility toward religion. Might The God Delusion actually backfire and end up persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant, doctrinaire and disagreeable as the worst that religion can offer?

Dawkins seems to think that saying something more loudly and confidently, while ignoring or trivializing counterevidence, will persuade the open-minded that religious belief is a type of delusion. Sadly, sociological studies of charismatic leaders—religious and secular—indicate that Dawkins may be right to place some hope in this strategy. For the gullible and credulous, it is the confidence with which something is said that persuades rather than the evidence offered in its support. Yet the fact that Dawkins relies so excessively on rhetoric rather than the evidence that would otherwise be his natural stock in trade clearly indicates that something is wrong with his case. Ironically the ultimate achievement of The God Delusion for modern atheism may be to suggest that this emperor has no clothes to wear. Might atheism be a delusion about God?” – Alister McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion (InterVarsity Press, 2007), pp.95-97.

Read More......

Intelligence and Faith

Q: It seems that the trend in people with PhD’s is to stop believing in God or start questioning His existence; why is it that the more “educated” you become, the more atheistic you lean?

A: I’m not positive that "more educated" and "atheist" have a direct correlation. Having come from the engineering world, it was drilled in my head to avoid finding a correlation between two variables based on limited evidence. In other words, I might run across a friend at a local coffee shop three times in a five week period and conclude that whenever I go there, he goes there. I may later learn that he goes there every day and therefore there is no correlation between his presence and mine. The fact is that there are many PhD’s who are Christian or believe in a god, so I’m not sure there is a direct correlation between smarts and faith.

On the other hand, there may be an indirect correlation. The more we learn, the more we rely on our learning and our own understanding. God never asks anyone to check his or her brain at the door, and Scripture encourages investigation and discernment. But the Bible says, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. Do not be wise in your own eyes…” and “‘…my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD. ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’” The wiser we become in our own eyes the easier it becomes to believe only what our minds can grasp.

It does seem that most of the PhD’s we see on TV or meet in person are University Professors &/or Scientists who are either atheists or agnostics. These are people who have spent and continue to spend a great deal of time in secular academia. This environment is not just neutral to the Christian message, but often hostile to it. In many cases there is very little respect for or tolerance of Christian belief in faculty members or researchers. This is especially the case in the area of hard sciences. So, the lack of belief in many who hold PhD’s may simply be the product of their environment.

Read More......