In a private correspondence, I explained further about the issue behind Pascal’s “wager.” Pascal’s starting point is the recognition that we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
The problem with scientific and deductive “proofs” is that the conclusion is always contained in at least one of the premises, which themselves are created by definition or by unprovable, inductive reasoning. For example, one of my colleagues argues that there is no God, because there is no such thing as disembodied agency. His logical syllogism goes like this:
- Premise 1: Scientifically and experientially, there is no such thing as disembodied volition or agency.
- Premise 2: God is defined as disembodied/non-material agency.
- Conclusion: Either "God" has no volition/agency (violating #2), or does not exist.
But the problem is in the premises. Our knowledge of embodiment/matter/existence cannot be used to define the "being-ness" of God. What if -- a condition that I think is biblical -- our existence lies within a greater or other being-ness of God? Within human thinking and existence, we could not comprehend ("grasp together") such being-ness, since it is other than our own. However, it might be possible for that other Being-ness to enter into our existence and reveal Itself to us. That is the claim of those who have experienced the grace of God.
As John Baillie said, “Thou art hidden behind the curtain of sense, incomprehensible power; yet here I speak with Thee familiarly as child to parent, as friend to friend.* That is the response of a human heart that has been touched by the Presence of God.
Thank you, Lord, that your touch reached my hardened heart. Amen.
*A Dairy of Private Prayer, Day 9, morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment