In the risk assessment phase of comprehensive existence management, I identified eternal torment in blazing hellfire as a possible risk.
Even though I'm convinced hell doesn't exist, I'm also convinced that I could be wrong. Lots of people were convinced Enron was fraud-free.
Pascal's Wager is a decision theory device to reduce or avoid hell risk. If you're not familiar, here's how it works. If Christianity is true, the Christian will spend forever in the eternal bliss of heaven, and the atheist gets eternal torment in blazing hellfire. If atheism is true, both the Christian and the atheist cease to exist. The best possible outcome for the atheist is the worst possible outcome for the Christian. Decision theory (or simply not having you head in your ass) dictates that if there's even a tiny chance that Christianity is true, we should choose Christianity over atheism.
But that's just Christianity versus atheism. You can extend Pascal's Wager into a head-to-head metaphysical death match of religious belief:
Christianity vs. Hinduism
Everyone gets reincarnated in Hinduism - Christianity wins!
Christianity vs. Buddhism
Buddhists believe in reincarnation, too - Christianity wins!
Christianity vs. Judaism
This is tougher because Jewish beliefs regarding the afterlife vary. Some Jews believe there's no afterlife - Christianity wins! Some Jews believe our admission into heaven or hell is based on proper action (orhtopraxy) rather than proper belief (orthodoxy). If you're a Christian with a kosher meal pan - Christianity wins!
Christianity vs. Islam
This is also tough because salvation is Islam requires a combination of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. If you take Ephesians 2:8,9 at face value ("It is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast.") then Christianity only requires orthodoxy. The risk of hell exists in both cases, but the risk is reduced with Christianity because the requirements are less stringent - Christianity wins!
Christianity vs. Unitarianism
Unitarians? Whatever - Christianity wins!
We don't need to line up Taoists, Sihks, Mormons, Baha'is or miscellaneous because hell plus Ephesians 2:8 gives Christianity the unbeatable Tekken combo of the Pascal's Wager Thunderdome. (Two religions enter! One religion leaves! Not as a result of syncretism!)
Pascal's Wager is an incredibly powerful and logical way to approach religion. It helped me stay committed to Jesus for years despite serious doubts. I found the extended version so compelling that I thought it was the silver bullet of faith: Christianity is the right choice as long as you are aware of your own mortality and recognize even a remote possibility of the existence of hell risk.
The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it's impracticable.
Let's say I choose to be a Christian based on Pascal's Wager, even though I'm convinced intellectually that it's not true. What does that mean? What does it look like? Does it mean that I simply hold myself out as a Christian? Or do I need to live like a Christian?
I could get some Vistaprint business cards that say, "Gregory M. Kyte, Christian," but never pray or worship or align my behavior with the Bible's teachings - say I'm a Christian but have no love of God nor fear of God. People who do this give religion a bad name, and nobody contends this empty choice is "saving faith." There's no Form 8832 for religious belief.
You can't fake it 'til you make it on this. You can't love or fear a God that you don't really believe in, nor can you sincerely worship or pray to a God that you don't think exists. I did that for as long as I could; but eventually, trying to love a God you don't believe in, feels like a lie - like you're lying about being a disciple of a God who commands you not to lie.
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but despite the powerful argument in Pascal's Wager, "maximizing afterlife value" doesn't seem to be a tenable purpose or core ideology.
Well, now I have a headache. The thing that tripped me in your post is the phrase, "Pascal's Wager is an incredibly powerful and logical way to approach religion." For me, logic and religion are like Jello and olive oil: they have no business being together. Religion is about faith. Logic is about reason. They're too different to try to analyze in the same conversation.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to this stuff about fearing God: I don't get it. Why believe in something scary? There's plenty of that right here in real time. I much prefer to believe in love, which, some would say is the same as God.
Now we're getting into some even deeper stuff. I own a book on epistemology (that I haven't opened). It's all about the theory of knowledge - what it means to "know something." Faith is different than knowledge, but they're similar. Faith is knowledge adjacent. Are faith and knowledge obtained in different ways? I want to say no because I like my Jello extra oily.
DeleteThe fear of God references were included because I wanted to be inclusive in my discussion about all religions. Deuteronomy 6:13 says, "Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take oaths in his name." My understanding is that the fear of Allah is also a prominent theme of Islam. If fearing a deity is part of a religion, you can't fake that. I don't believe in ghosts; as a result, I ain't afraid of no ghosts. <>
Of course faith and knowledge are obtained in different ways. Faith is learned from the heart, knowledge from the head. It sounds so easy, doesn't it?
DeleteYou have a book on epistemology. I have the most recent edition of Vanity Fair.
Greg- This is great, I enjoy what you are doing here and appreciate the insights on the "Wager." It is often misused as an argument in itself, but you have identified the problem with doing so in that no one can love or worship a god they don't believe is real. Faking it doesn't work, not to mention it's disingenuous. This is not a short-coming of the "Wager" itself though because it was not intended to be used that way.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, Pascal's original intent was to help someone reason it out practically, who wasn't sure and was struggling to reach a decision. If someone sees both sides equally (or reasonably) and just can't decide which way to go in their thinking, then the "Wager" applies. Or if someone thought God or Christianity was likely true but was having a hard time committing or struggling with the decision emotionally, again it would be helpful. But this assumes two things, that someone thinks that God/Christianity makes sense to believe and that they are willing to be committed. In your case I think you are correct that the "Wager" doesn't apply because you have said that you are convinced that God doesn't exist and Hell is not real. Once someone reaches that point in their understanding then Pascal's "Wager" is unhelpful. So that's not a criticism, I think you are right on with this point. My only quibble would be with saying it is a "device to reduce hell risk" - it has a more profound purpose - but some do use it that way.
Duane, you add some great clarity. I think Pascal's Wager can be effective as a "tie-breaker" between belief and unbelief.
DeleteBy the way, it's good to hear from you! It's been over 20 years since youth group at North Seattle Alliance Church. Those were some good times and great memories!
Definitely good times back then in Seattle - which is where I am now days. I have found myself getting caught up on your life of late, obviously because you posted it, which has been interesting of course. For the record, I think what you are doing is necessary to sort this stuff out, wherever you end up, so that you can be completely genuine and have true clarity of mind. Barrett said it well, we need to question, if we just accept things then we will never truly understand them. I hope you can see that if it turns out there is a God, that He values the process you are going through and appreciates the honesty. I hope the rest of us value your struggle with these ideas as well.
DeleteGreg, I'm appreciating your writing. Not too long ago, I was where you are. Three years ago (right around the time I found Thriveal), I walked out of seminary and walked into agnosticism. Like you, it wasn't that I knew there wasn't a God, it's just that I didn't care. I had bigger fish to fry - namely, caring for my family by working my butt off and taking care of myself instead of waiting for charity from others.
ReplyDeleteToday, I'm drawn to Christ once again as supremely attractive. Hell plays little part in it, but during my agnostic stage, that was one of the thoughts that kept bugging me. It's not enough to get me where I am today, but it was just enough to keep me struggling. The struggle is good... during that period, I learned to continue struggling. I still struggle. Faith and knowledge are not separate, God wants all of me. Not enough Christians ask questions, they just believe what they've been told by someone they admire. The mind is emphasized in worship just as much as body, soul and spirit. But where I went wrong was with stopping at knowledge. I was in seminary because God was an interesting topic of debate and speculation (I loved epistemology), but had ceased to be an object of worship. Now that I've been drawn back, I have the worship and the knowledge.
Do I know where you'll end up? No. I didn't with myself either. But I trust in questions. As long as you continue to remain vigilant, and not give in to intellectual laziness, I trust that God is the end of all human understanding. Seek to know truth, and I believe you will find Jesus there again.
Barrett, you're a cool dude. (It's weird that we've never met in real life.) The nuance of my agnosicism is more clearly expressed by the term "doubting atheist": I'm pretty sure atheism is true, but it's not intellectually impregnable, and I've been so wrong about stuff in the past. I'm also an agnostic against my will. I really liked being a Christian. Part of the problem with atheism is the lack of purpose, but purpose is central to having a good life (not to mention a successful business). That's a burden that most atheists ignore or deny. Processing that is part of the purpose of the blog.
DeleteNo worries, Greg. Jason's never met me either. I find I'm more mysterious if I avoid meeting people in real life...
DeleteI get the "liked being a Christian" part. I was raised that way, it was all I ever knew. When I walked away from my church, I walked away from every friend I had. It was a lonely period. Purposeless, too. I was pretty pissy all the time. You're taking this a lot better than I did. If you need a friend that has walked where you've walked, I'm here to talk with.