Gospel & Universe 🍏 Starting Points

A Brave New Deal

Defining the Indefinable - A Counter-Offer

🍏

Defining the Indefinable

In his Pensées (Thoughts), the 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal writes,

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two cases: if you win, you win everything; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Many people argue that “Pascal’s bet” is a benevolent, charitable one. It very well may be, if one takes from it that it’s comforting to believe that the universe is controlled by a benevolent Force, that you’ve chosen the right God, and that you’ll live forever. Hopefully, you’ll live forever in Heaven, not Hell. Hopefully, you’ll avoid guilt at not living up to your ideal, or pride at having found the Truth while others waste their lives in ignorance. In any case, belief in God is much more comforting than the notion that Blind Chance reigns and that you’re food for worms and nothing more.

Yet does your belief in God or Blind Chance determine their existence? Can’t one of these be true even if you don’t believe in them? Is it really so bad to say that you don’t know which is true? Is it dishonest or dishonourable to say that you don’t like being told to choose when in fact you can’t decide?

Why does Pascal say that if you don’t bet on God you’ll lose nothing? Clearly, you’ll lose the “everything” that you would have got by believing. Yet does it make sense to say that God’s favour depends on belief? What sort of God will help you if you believe, but abandon you if you don’t? What sort of God says, Bet on me or face the consequences? This sounds more like jealousy and vengeance than benevolence and mercy. Who believes that God actually said, I am a jealous God and will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. I lay the sins of the parents upon their children — even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me (Exodus 20:5)?

One can imagine a hellish end for people who abuse others — for instance for those who blow up hospitals and then double-tap them — that is, wait for the paramedics to help those still living and then drop more bombs —

— but does this scenario really apply to those who have different beliefs or who aren’t sure what to believe?

I’d suggest a different relationship, with a God that doesn’t deny or punish you (or your children and grandchildren) because you doubt or disbelieve. A God who even takes it as a compliment, given that He’s gone to such lengths to hide Himself. A God who is like a father to a son that has gone his own way. The father loves the son, regardless. He doesn’t plan to trap or punish the son along his prodigal route, or once he’s come to the end of the road. He just loves his son.

This Father God would have his son enjoy all the wonders of existence. So what if the son doesn’t say “Glory to the Father!” each time he sees the beauty of falling snow or feels the stillness of the mountain valley. Nor does the son blame God each time he sees a hurricane, an earthquake, or a baby with encephalitis. God knows he made these things. That’s enough for him. He doesn’t require flattery, recriminations, or capital letters.

Again, if we think of God as a human father — and God ought to be at least as loving and merciful as that! — the father would bask in the glory of his son’s joy, in his accomplishments and his lust for life, and in his aesthetic sense of the beauty that lurks in even the most unexpected places. The father wouldn’t say, “Ach! my boy’s writing another ode to a Grecian urn! He should be writing about Me.”

Pascal’s 17th century view of God isn’t the only one. Centuries before Matthew or Luke, the legendary Laozi wrote the following verses about what he called the way. Stressing how impossible it is to define the indefinable, Laozi gives his way many names: the forefather of God, the mother, the uncarved block, the highest good, etc.:

Darkly visible, it only seems as if it were there. I know not whose son it is. It images the forefather of God. (Tao Te Ching, verse 13)

Highest good is like water. Because water excels in benefiting the myriad creatures without contending with them and settles where none would like to be, it comes close to the way. (20)

The way is broad, reaching left as well as right. The myriad creatures depend on it for life yet it claims no authority. It accomplishes its task yet lays claim to no merit. It clothes and feeds the myriad creatures yet lays no claim to being their master. For ever free of desire, it can be called small; yet, as it lays no claim to being master when the myriad creatures turn to it, it can be called great. It is because it never attempts itself to be great that it succeeds in becoming great. (76)

[…] the way is revered and virtue honoured not because this is decreed by any authority but because it is natural for them to be treated so. (114)

It gives them life yet claims no possession; it benefits them yet exacts no gratitude; it is the steward yet exercises no authority. Such is called the mysterious virtue. (116)

One who knows does not speak; one who speaks does not know. (128)

Hence you cannot get close to it, nor can you keep it at arm’s length; you cannot bestow benefit on it, nor can you do it harm; you cannot ennoble it, nor can you debase it. (130)

The way is the refuge for the myriad creatures. It is that by which the good man protects, and that by which the bad is protected. (143)

Therefore the sage benefits them yet exacts no gratitude, accomplishes his task yet lays claim to no merit. (185)

It is the way of heaven to show no favouritism. It is for ever on the side of the good man. (192)

🍏

Perhaps God would question our obsession with belief, given that

1. He hasn’t clearly made himself known (master of all matter, he could easily print his name in the sky),

2. He hasn’t made it clear that belief is a prerequisite for anything (again, he could print laws and expectations in the sky), and

3. He has allowed on this planet a bewildering number of capitalized Truths, of definitions of God, as well as a bewildering diversity of sects that profess to have found the One and Only Truth. Which one is right? How can we possibly know?

Can you polish your mysterious mirror [your mind] and leave no blemish? […] When the gates of heaven open and shut, can you keep to the role of the female? When your discernment penetrates the four quarters, are you capable of not knowing anything? (Tao Te Ching, 24)

God might well ask, “Who among you dares to say that you know my nature, my mind, my ways? Who will take up my gavel, and judge others in my stead? Who dares to coerce, hate, or kill in my name?”

And God might well say, “Hatred and violence I cannot accept. I have no problem with those who worship celestial beings with dog ears or rivers that are goddesses, with those who worship the rifts of rock stars or the flow of violins, with those who are rapt by the night sky or romantic chasms, by Gucci high heels or golden calves. But I cannot accept coercion, hatred, and murder in my name. Let me remind my human creations that there’a a crucial difference between paradox and contradiction. I believe in tolerance, but can’t tolerate intolerance is a paradox. I love God, but I hate those who don’t believe in Him is a contradiction.”

“Who among you is certain you’ve heard, seen, or otherwise verified my existence? Who knows for sure that I spoke to Moses, that Gabriel got his words from me, or that the Eastern poets and mystics have stirred the essence of my soul?” 

“Some of you are ready to kill others if they don’t believe what you believe. Some of you tell your children they’ll go to Hell if they don’t believe what you believe. Some of you talk condescendingly about doubting Thomas and the permissive West. Some of you even suggest that as a philosopher you’d better bet on God. You’d better believe even if you doubt. You’d better exchange your natural curiosity about snowflakes and finches for the doctrine of harps and pitchforks. Or else!”

“My good friend Pascal knows that it’s wiser not to choose, not to bet one way or the other: le juste est de ne point parier / the right thing is not to bet. Yet he then makes it a prerequisite of his exercise to bet one way or the other: Oui, mais il faut parier / Yes, but you have to bet. He should have said, Bien sûr, tu n’est pas obligé a parier, mais pour l'exercice … / Of course you aren’t obliged to bet, but for the sake of argument…”

“Why prolong this ancient curse of religious certainty, as if you had the facts and everybody else was in the dark? What occult knowledge, what claim to gnosticism, do you really have?”

“Let me be clear: you don’t have to bet. Not even in theory, not even for the sake of argument. Belief is a gift if it’s handled with humility, love, and charity. It’s a curse if it’s handled with superiority, zealotry, and intolerance. Sometimes I even find it perverse, given the frightening versions of me that people have fabricated in my silence. Just ask the Sodomites.”

“If I were Pascal, I would have written, Soyez juste, et ne pari point / Do the right thing and don’t bet at all.” Or, as my old friend Matthew wrote, “Ne jugez point, et vous ne serez point jugés / Don’t judge at all, and you won’t be judged at all.”

🍏

A Counter-Offer

“With all due respect to Pascal, I have a counter-offer, a brave new deal. In this deal you have three options. You can either 1. Believe in a benevolent God, 2. Hope that a benevolent God exists, or 3. Believe there’s no God. Any of these are fine with me. You can even go from one to the other, back and forth, as often as you like. It’s a free universe, or at least I’ve tried to make it that way.” 

“The only thing I won’t tolerate is disparaging, coercing, threatening, hanging, decapitating, burning at the stake, or otherwise terrorizing people who don’t share your belief. Suffice it to say, You sow what you reap, not what you believe.” 

“Remember, in this deal I’m benevolent. I won’t bite you if you reach out in the dark and try to touch me. Or if you utter poems to the stars and moon. Or if you see beauty in the eyes of another. Or if you search for truth in ocean trenches or mountain peaks, in winding back alleys or geometrical proofs.”

“You’re free to fabricate stories about arks and monkey kings, and you’re free to put words in my mouth. But for Heaven’s sake don’t mistake your own words for mine. I don’t have any words. I am what I am. It pleases me when you question everything, when you think freely about the infinite universe I created. It’s infinite for a reason.”

“But above all, remember this: I am benevolent. I cherish freedom. This isn’t a pact with the Devil.”

🍏

Next: Horizons

Back to Top

Brief Contents - Detailed Contents - Core Beliefs - Layout