From July 2007
I have heard many discussions of atheism and agnosticism among Christians. One argument leveled against atheism’s assertion that there is no God is that atheism is one belief system among many and therefore is is one opinion over another – nothing more. This tends to follow a basic misunderstanding of Pascal’s famous wager in which it is a better bet to believe in God whether it is true or not since not believing could have a dire consequence while believing can only lead to a good end. So if it is just a matter of one religious belief over another, it is better to pick the one that leads to a good end. Apologists make two critical errors here that atheists can chew up and spit out very quickly and they have to do with misinterpretation.
First, calling atheism, or agnosticism for that matter, a belief system or religion is hard to do without a consistent creedal or mission statement. While we can point to atheistic systems of belief (Theravada Buddhism, ethical humanism, communism, etc.), there are no systems of belief for atheism in itself. That would be like saying that monotheism is a system of belief. While we can point to myriad systems of monotheistic belief, there is no “system” that we can point to representative of all monotheists. Like atheism, this term is only a descriptor of an orientation to deity.
Second, Pascal’s wager is often used to argue for the existence of God. Rather it is simply a statement of probability. But for the atheist this statement is false right off. From this view it is irrational to believe in something for which there is no reason to to believe other than the assertion that if we do not we “could ” suffer the consequence of damnation. This does nothing for the modern atheist who simply does not have reason to believe in any understanding of either damnation or any deity who controls that destiny. To the atheist this simply heaps one superstition on top of another and neither justifies the other therefore, the gamble is useless since it is based on premises that cannot be validated by any externally verifiable, predictable, or reproducible means.
But Pascal was pointing not to simply believing as if one could flip a divine switch in the mind. Pascal was pointing to forming the habit of belief. This begins with an openness to the possibility that God might be true. To wit, even though a Christian cannot provide the evidence to satisfy a material proof of God’s existence (appeals to Scripture and undocumented or invalidated miracles simply do not meet these criteria – but that is another issue) it is likewise not beyond a reasonable doubt to say that the atheist assertion that there is no evidence and thus no reason to believe in God is true.
Third, at stake is the criteria for proof. The atheist generally will require material evidence followed by proof that the evidence presented is verifiable through more or less objective means. The Christian or any theist will simply not be able to produce this. To assert that this evidence is available often leads the Christian down very treacherous paths where assertions are heaped on top of assertions that cannot be proven beyond this criteria of reasonable doubt. The evidence from the Christian relies on one’s experience of salvation and the presence of God. The claim validation of these claims are placed in the category of doubt often in terms of the state of mind of the subject of the experience. This is often asserted to be merely a delusion. However, there is no evidence to say that belief in God is a delusion in itself. While religious belief can cause delusions (believing one is Jesus, snake handling, forms of charismatic worship, healings, etc.) there is no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that religious belief in itself can be written off as simply delusional and thus irrational.
Both sides will always require evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they are fundamentally and unconditionally correct. This has been waged for decades and perhaps will be waged for decades more. The more we learn about reality and how humans are inscribed into the structure of the universe, the more questions we raise. This is just as true as each generation of Christian has to make sense of their revelation of God to the same structure of reality, lived experience, and praxis.
Fourth and finally here, an openness of belief based on the assertion that God might just be real is the choice that one has to make. This is not “blind faith” as if it is some uncritical appropriation of something, but quite the contrary. It is the choice that one makes when one has reached the boundary of reason itself. For Kierkegaard this is precisely what the “qualitative leap of faith” is. In his view the relationship of the existence of God and the cosmos is a paradox that cannot be resolved by logical means and material proof alone. The Incarnation then turns this relation around once more resulting in a double-paradox even more impossible to resolve on the basis of reason alone. A leap of faith is when one takes a chance and decides to be open to the possibility that the paradox is true. And more than just a one time openness, one has to habituate one’s self to this possibility. This is thus the only way that the reality of God can take root in one’s soul. Hence, openness to God as a result of a qualitative leap is, as he says in The Sickness Unto Death, when one can begin the process of becoming a true self which is grounded in the transparent reality that posited it. But one has to choose this possibility and it cannot be chosen for one’s self. In this regard, Christ is the true self that is an example of a self who is completely and utterly related to God in a dynamic relationship. Christ becomes the one who represents the constitution of a complete self grounded in the transparent reality that grounded it in the perfect relationality of the Incarnation.
However, the rest of humanity must choose this first as a possibility and this requires a qualitative leap beyond the bounds of reason alone. This is the part that atheists will always have a hard time accepting since it appears to be a self-reinforcing delusion. “You mean one has to believe…in order to believe? That’s absurd!” And this is precisely the assertion Kierkegaard makes – to choose the absurdity itself! So if you are a Christian in a debate with an atheist, you have to understand that your claims are essentially absurd based on rules of logic and in the bounds of reason alone – and that is the beginning of wisdom.
Related posts:
Actually I don't accept Pascals Wager because it means I should accept the religion with the worse Hell. That would be… worship of the Choas Gods.
Or the Mayan ones. I hear there Hell is truely horrific.
Actually I don't accept Pascals Wager because it means I should accept the religion with the worse Hell. That would be… worship of the Choas Gods.
Or the Mayan ones. I hear there Hell is truely horrific.
I have always understood that the Bible talked about faith and belief in terms of God's promises and the work that Jesus did on the cross, but God's existence was always a given. It is more like my relationship with my father. His existence is a given. His promises are what I treat with faith or skepticism based on my relationship.
Being a technologist, I proceed simply with the fact that all technology has a designer and there is no contradictory example. Life should also have a designer based on simple induction. This is a given in science and was always this way until theologians started contradicting in the 19th century. Atheists begin by rejecting the obvious, which makes the conversation difficult.
I have always understood that the Bible talked about faith and belief in terms of God's promises and the work that Jesus did on the cross, but God's existence was always a given. It is more like my relationship with my father. His existence is a given. His promises are what I treat with faith or skepticism based on my relationship.
Being a technologist, I proceed simply with the fact that all technology has a designer and there is no contradictory example. Life should also have a designer based on simple induction. This is a given in science and was always this way until theologians started contradicting in the 19th century. Atheists begin by rejecting the obvious, which makes the conversation difficult.
Wiki doesn't have a designer. Capitalism doesn't have a designer. They are both emergent systems.
So that is a flaw to "technologist" thinking- not all things that are made have a designer. And not all things that are designed have ONE designer. And not all things with one designer have a designer who toots their own horn.
Or, in short "god of the gaps" on your part.
Wiki doesn't have a designer. Capitalism doesn't have a designer. They are both emergent systems.
So that is a flaw to "technologist" thinking- not all things that are made have a designer. And not all things that are designed have ONE designer. And not all things with one designer have a designer who toots their own horn.
Or, in short "god of the gaps" on your part.
Samuel, good point. There were no intelligent designers who help with Wiki, and no entrepreneurs who helped with capitalism. No intelligent designs in Ph.d. dissertations, and the microprocessor was the result of random wave action on silicon sand crystals on the beaches of Santa Cruz. Intel is a myth. That is what evolution has proven to be a fact!
Samuel, good point. There were no intelligent designers who help with Wiki, and no entrepreneurs who helped with capitalism. No intelligent designs in Ph.d. dissertations, and the microprocessor was the result of random wave action on silicon sand crystals on the beaches of Santa Cruz. Intel is a myth. That is what evolution has proven to be a fact!
Exactly Looney! Just as all inventions have an inventor, complex systems have multiple inventors! Look at the complexity and variety in the universe! Look at how small a corner we occupy, and how much of the universe in beyond our comprehension! Polytheism is the only explanation that makes sense! I really don't see how you monotheists can reject the obvious. It makes the conversation rather difficult.
I'm joking, but not by much. If you decide to look for God(s) – whether because you've decided to open yourself and "choose the absurdity itself," or because you've convinced yourself with some cosmological proof – where do you go next? There are literally millions of different religions in existence. There are probably infinite possibilities for the nature of the divine, and most of them – like the universe itself – are beyond our ability to comprehend. That's part of the problem with Pascal's wager; even if you choose to believe, you might end up believing the wrong thing.
If I'm to make a leap of faith, I have to know which direction to leap in. Any suggestions?
Exactly Looney! Just as all inventions have an inventor, complex systems have multiple inventors! Look at the complexity and variety in the universe! Look at how small a corner we occupy, and how much of the universe in beyond our comprehension! Polytheism is the only explanation that makes sense! I really don't see how you monotheists can reject the obvious. It makes the conversation rather difficult.
I'm joking, but not by much. If you decide to look for God(s) – whether because you've decided to open yourself and "choose the absurdity itself," or because you've convinced yourself with some cosmological proof – where do you go next? There are literally millions of different religions in existence. There are probably infinite possibilities for the nature of the divine, and most of them – like the universe itself – are beyond our ability to comprehend. That's part of the problem with Pascal's wager; even if you choose to believe, you might end up believing the wrong thing.
If I'm to make a leap of faith, I have to know which direction to leap in. Any suggestions?
"complex systems have multiple inventors"
The problem here is that it assumes that all material existence must have a source in an invention.
The logic here does not make sense. Just because human artifacts on the whole can find some source in "invention" does not mean that therefore everything that we perceive in material existence must therefore have an inventor. This would only make sense if God was of the same kind as all other material existence.
The problem here is that it is simply another way of terming the argument from causation and the end of this is not logical, it is arbitrary. There is no way to argue that if the premise A (that everything invention has an inventor) that premise B (that everything in material existence must therefore have an inventor) and have them both hold together necessarily unless you can also assume that the designer in question is also of material existence. The latter is absurd, the former is irrational.
The argument from invention fails.
"complex systems have multiple inventors"
The problem here is that it assumes that all material existence must have a source in an invention.
The logic here does not make sense. Just because human artifacts on the whole can find some source in "invention" does not mean that therefore everything that we perceive in material existence must therefore have an inventor. This would only make sense if God was of the same kind as all other material existence.
The problem here is that it is simply another way of terming the argument from causation and the end of this is not logical, it is arbitrary. There is no way to argue that if the premise A (that everything invention has an inventor) that premise B (that everything in material existence must therefore have an inventor) and have them both hold together necessarily unless you can also assume that the designer in question is also of material existence. The latter is absurd, the former is irrational.
The argument from invention fails.
Thanks Drew- I'll simplify.
If you use the premise "all things need a designer" than what about God? If he doesn't need a designer than the premise is invalid and Occum forces you to choose the universe as the uncaused link.
Thanks Drew- I'll simplify.
If you use the premise "all things need a designer" than what about God? If he doesn't need a designer than the premise is invalid and Occum forces you to choose the universe as the uncaused link.