The Shaving of The Razor

By Vinnie MacIsaac

William of Ockham is most famous for what is commonly called “Ockham’s Razor.” When we say Ockham’s Razor, we mostly mean his principle of simplicity. In fact, the very name of my Blog, “Simply Vinnie,” with the tagline, “Unpacking the complicated,” is an homage and tribute to the brilliance of Ockham and his Razor. However, sadly, we have tended to substantially over simplify Ockham to the point of watered-down, tasteless, skim-milk that fits the acronym K.I.S.S. (Keep it Simple Stupid). The tragedy is Ockham is so much more than “keeping it simple!”

We have shaved the Razor itself! The mere fact that we must unpack the complicated to make it simple is not to say truth is simple! But instead, it can be complicated and needs a razor to loosen it from the unnecessary realm of complications to be best understood, in more general terms, before we enrich it with more complexity. However, when we are simple, at the expense of real understanding, we are doing what I call ‘shaving the razor;’ that is, simplifying to the point of meaninglessness and functional uselessness. I call this, tasteless skim-milk theology. It may be low in calories, but it is also useless in fatty meaning. We want to use Ockham’s Razor to find meaning not to shave all meaning away by the crude oversimplification for the sake of the shave.

To stop shaving the Razor, we must first understand who Ockham was. Ockham was an English Franciscan friar (1287 – 1347) who was chosen, from a young age, to enter scholastic theology by his order. That is right, Ockham was first and foremost a medieval theologian who took a strict vow of poverty and took all matters of faith so seriously that he’d rather be summoned by the Pope to defend his positions in Papal court and risk being labeled a heretic than to compromise his convictions. Unless we understand that faithfulness to theological conviction as the core of Ockham, we, in fact, will misunderstand who he was and what is the right use of his Razor.

Ockham’s problem was that scholastic theology, in the medieval era, was so heavy-laden with Greek Metaphysics that the church could not understand its most basic theological tenants unless it could see them through a pagan Greek theological lens. Aristotelian Greek logic, adopted and developed via the minds of Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, before Ockham, had become the backbone of medieval scholastic theology. Philosophical Realism[i] had become Aristotelian logic on steroids and far advanced beyond anything Aristotle, Aquinas, or Scotus had envisioned. It was this metaphysical dogma Ockham developed his razor to slice through and get back to the Bible (centuries before Luther would ever show up).

To quote Doctor Ryan M. Reeves[ii] what Ockham was saying is “Christian theology is not Aristotelian Philosophy [or one of its many branches], that we just simply build our doctrines on top of. It can’t be that Christian theology is simply the best version of Pagan Philosophy.” And it is here that we can, now, understand that the meaning of Ockham is not just to make things simple for the sake of simply being “right” or most correct. Ockham used his Razor to free Christian doctrine from the mass complexities of Aristotelian logic gone to excess![iii] So, when we talk about his Razor, it is really unfounded to use that Razor to cut away anything complex and reduce things to a simplistic caricature of their full selves. Ockham was using his Razor to free the fullness of thought, not nullify it to nothingness, for the sake of mass appeal. Oversimplification is not at all what Ockham is doing.  Most of us reading Ockham would very quickly find his complexity is a level of difficulty, in its own right! What Ockham is seeking to do is cut away Aristotelian Philosophy from Christian dogma to end up at Biblical theology; which of course, will put him at odds, eventually, with the Pope of his time.

For the sake of example, let’s look at a couple of Ockham cuts so we can see how he worked. That said, don’t overthink them or get lost in these two examples because Metaphysics can do that to the best of us![iv] I have tried, in the spirit of Ockham, not to over or under complicate these examples:

Example one:

Philosophical Realism includes the idea of “Universals.” Universals are “properties that can be applied to many things;” that is to say, a tree, or a car, or a phone, exist independently of their being in the physical world, “they have existed somehow prior to the physical world,”[v] and thus that is why they are real, they are eternal so they can be physical. We know this because there are more than one tree, car, and phone, so therefore they are more than what they are in front of us. [vi] Ockham cuts this down by saying; instead, properties are not eternal forms but rather named concepts, and outside of the physical world, “a tree, or a car, or a phone,” only exist as a term (name) for a concept that exists only in our minds. Yes, there is more than one tree, but tree is only a term, or name, your mind is using to understand the concept “tree,” not some abstract eternal universal form of “phone-ness” and “car-ness” that we identify physical form with.[vii] He, in essence, is not chopping metaphysics, as much as he is pruning it down to the core and thus saying, “Hey guys, get a grip! You are way over-thinking this stuff; sometimes a tree is just a tree!”

Example two:

Aristotle discusses ten categories of investigation[viii] as his primary way of classifying the world around us. For Aristotle, the categories are an investigative rubric, of sorts, for processing thinking about the world.

What the ten categories are is not all that important to my discussion here. However, for the sake of clarity they are; substance, quantity, quality, relationality, somewhere, sometime, being in a position, having, acting, and, being acted upon.[ix]

By the time of academic thinking in the age of Ockham, Aristotle’s categories had become more of entities[x] in and of themselves, rather than a classification rubric for problem-solving or investigation of the world. In short, they were as Doctor Ryan M. Reeves put it, additional proofs “added in” to make the game of metaphysics work. This, of course, was problematic for theology. Think about trying to make the Trinity fit into these ten entities of reality for it to be a real doctrine. What Ockham does is, again, point out our theology does not need all this metaphysics to work. He does this by basically saying, theologians are making up the necessity for all ten of these entities. He is saying, the inclusions of the categories are not real to the Trinity, and certainly not needed. Ockham skillfully uses his Razor and slices the ten down to only three categories. He greatly simplifies it by saying: there is Existence, Qualities, and sometimes Relationality. This is simply to say, things exist because they have substance, they having defining attributes or qualities about them, and sometimes may share a relation to other things with existence. Again, think of how much more straightforward this makes the Trinity. It exists in that God is real and has substance, it has definable attributes we know it by, and is has relationality, in that it is three in one (interrelation) and also relates to us (outsiders). Ockham would say we know this is valid because all three of these categories we see in the Bible about the Trinity.  So, Aristotle is not needed and only complicates the Trinity for the sake of doing Metaphysics.

All of this is to say, Ockham is not that simple after all. But what he is doing is cutting unnecessary metaphysics from medieval theology and doing so hundreds of years before Martin Luther. He is trying to return the church to the Bible as the prime source of scholastic theology, over Aristotle. So, when Ockham says, “When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions”[xi] we need to understand, Ockham was actually talking about the reduction of metaphysics in theology. And he did not know how widely we would, one day, go slicing with his Razor. Mathematician, Philip Gibbs, correctly notes, “The Razor is often cited in stronger forms than Ockham intended.” Then Gibbs cites these frequent summaries of Ockham, as examples which were not at all Ockham’s intention:

 “If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along.”

“The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations.”

“If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest.”

“The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct.”

. . .or in the only form that takes its own advice. . .

“Keep things simple!”[xii]

Ockham was not trying to shift western thought into its most basic forms. He simply wanted to be a good Franciscan friar, have a sound and straightforward Theology, and live out a life of poverty, like Jesus did. And for that; he caught the ire of Pope John XXII in the Avignon Papacy.[xiii]  Rondo Keele, a Professor of Philosophy, in his book, “Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion,”[xiv] makes a good case that Ockham may well be the first Protestant Reformer of sorts. For, without Ockham, Luther would not have had a humanistic background, to bring about the Reformation. Keele’s case is made pretty active when he points out, the whole last quarter of Ockham’s life is not spent in metaphysics at all, but in fighting the Pope and running for his life for daring to advocate the separation of church and state in medieval Europe.

Ockham, having just barely, successfully defended himself against a Papal accusation of heresy over his view of Metaphysics, didn’t even get out of town before he sided against the Pope in another major conflict that would lead to Ockham forever being banished to exile. The dispute is a little complex because the actual discussion took place steeped in Metaphysics. However, the key fight was over the vow of poverty that the Franciscan order took and its logical ramifications on the rest of the Church. The argument goes like this: Ockham is a Franciscan friar.  Franciscans take a vow of poverty. Because they take a vow of poverty, they can’t hold property or wealth.  If they did, Metaphysics would say they do not fit the form of poverty or, at least, not in the way Jesus did. However, Franciscans need food, shelter, and clothes. But if they own them, then they are not metaphysically poor. So, they have an arrangement with the Pope that the Pope, who already holds great wealth, would keep their wealth but give them access to any tangible needs the Order would have.

Ironically, the Pope figures out that the Order is indirectly implying he is corrupt, i.e., not like Jesus, (since he holds property). Moreover, the Pope sees they are suggesting they are holy, or more like Jesus because they don’t hold property. Worse yet, this all takes place during the era of the Avignon Papacy, when the Papacy is already under fire from the Kings for excesses in both wealth and secular power. The problem is the Pope can’t stop holding property because he is the Pope and the very head of the church on Earth. But he also can’t have the Franciscans implying those who own property are not like Jesus because that is the same as publicly accusing him as not being like Jesus. So, the Pope’s solution is not to embrace poverty but rather to force the Franciscans to embrace wealth and own their own property! While that will not make the Pope more like Jesus, it will stop the comparison and end the controversy.

Pope John XXII

What ensues next is a metaphysical fight between the Franciscans and Pope John XXII where “Realism” and the “Razor” battle the question if Franciscans can hold property, or not, is property wealthy, and what makes one have wealth! It is a bizarre and mind-bending argument that no one wins until Ockham and Michael of Cesena literally flee the Pope and run away and hide in the Holy Roman Empire, under the protection of some princes until they die. Ockham spends the rest of his life in exile, not expounding the metaphysics for which he is known best, but arguing against the corruption of the Papacy and the need of separation of Church and State, for which he has not been well recognized enough.  It is these ideas which Ockham develops on the separation of Church and State and the corruption of the Papacy, according to Reeves, that one day would influence an Augustinian Monk named Martin Luther.

I think it is correct, then, to say, when we boil Ockham down to just a simplicity formula, we miss everything! We must resist the temptation to “shave the razor” and over reduce our ideas for the purpose of mass appeal.  If we make Ockham the acronym K.I.S.S (Keep it simple stupid), it is we who are who are stupid, or at least grossly ignorant of both his brilliance and contributions. For me, and for my blog, the mandate for how to use Ockham in the theological sense, oddly enough, is best summed up by a line attributed to Albert Einstein’s take on it, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”[xv] I am simply, Vinnie, and my blog seeks to unpack the complicated, not because complication is not real, but because It can be simplified for the sake of being accessible but never to the point being so simple, it is as unless as watered down, tasteless skim-milk. The “Truth” is rich and creamy but best poured out rather than locked up and aged into hard cheeses. The Razor, should not shave Ockham, it should shave whatever is of man’s philosophy and not of Christ.[xvi]

Let’s follow Ockham’s example and take Christian Theology back to the Bible and common sense, while at the same time refusing to “shave the razor,” and simplifying it to the point of being tasteless and useless. We unpack the truth, to bring understanding, we don’t cut the truth loose to bring a mass appeal or uncommitted seekers. We want to knock, seek, and find, but we want the theology that is worth the find!

Join my Facebook to find more

spiritual growth resources!

Related Articles:

All Bets Are On God!

Kierkegaard: A Single Life [Reflective Review]

Direct Talk On Doubt

Footnotes:

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqnIJ6qcFw

[ii] Ryan M. Reeves (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6y-3tiwO5Y)

[iii] It would also be fair to say that Ockham is not at all against Aristotelian Philosophy even, in fact, he is so brilliant at it he writes the literal textbook of his age for it. His problem with it is only that it is not needed for Christians to intelligently understand Christian doctrine. Ockham is a brilliant Aristotelian thinker. He just wants to keep theology, Christian and logic, Aristotelian.

[iv] It would be irony upon irony to overcomplicate Metaphysics in a blog about Ockham.

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

[vi] This concept is called Nominal Metaphysics (Name or Term Metaphysics) also knowns as conceptualism and nominalism.

[vii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNz110GE-FM

[viii] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-categories/

[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxhwRjH5YUg

[x] Ryan M. Reeves (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6y-3tiwO5Y)

[xi] https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

[xii] Phil Gibbs 1996. https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

[xiii] The Avignon Papacy took place from 1309 to 1376, during which seven successive popes resided in Avignon, in south-east France instead of Rome. It is often called, “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy” because after the death of Pope Benedict XI, who was attacked in his own Vatican, reportedly by agents of France, the newly elected French Pope Clement V refused to move to Rome as a show of support to the French King.  This was a time of great tension between the Catholic Church and various states (Nations) and the Papacy. In part, King Philippe of France and Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor used argumentation that the Church lived in lavish wealth at the expense of the Nations. The larger question the period was really addressing was who really had the power over secular issues, the state (Kings) or the Church (Popes). This is important in our understanding of Ockham because in the latter period of his life the Holy Roman Emperor would protect him as he lobbed argumentation of separation of Church on the merits of excesses in the Church holding wealth.

[xiv] Rondo Keele, Ockham Explained: From Razor to Rebellion (Ideas Explained) Open Court; 1st edition (May 11, 2010) See https://www.amazon.com/Ockham-Explained-Razor-Rebellion-Ideas/dp/0812696506

[xv] https://quotationcelebration.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/everything-should-be-made-as-simple-as-possible-but-not-simpler-albert-einstein/

[xvi] A counter of Ockham is the Anti-Razor, which also has value. If the Razor cuts way metaphysics to two or three entities (Existence, Qualities, and sometimes Relationality) then the rule of the Anti-Razor first suggested by a contemporary of Ockham, Walter Chatton, states, “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on.” The point of the Razor and Anti-Razor are to cut enough but to keep enough, to bring clarity.

The post The Shaving of The Razor appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

Kierkegaard: A Single Life

A Reflective Book Review

Book by Stephen Backhouse

Reflection by Vinnie MacIsaac

To philosophers, and a certain breed of theologians, Kierkegaard is foundational to thinking about the very merits of faith and even just “being,” or existing, with an individual purpose. Yet to the average person in my pews or readers of my blogs, they likely have never read him, and all but a few likely have ever heard of him. For me, as a Pastor, this is a tragedy! However, it is a tragedy beautifully rectified by Stephen Backhouse and his brilliant Biography of Søren Kierkegaard entitled “Kierkegaard: A Single Life.”

Backhouse’s stated reason for writing this book is that most works on Kierkegaard are too “dense, distant, and unappealing,”[i] for people looking to break into Kierkegaard for the first time. He speaks of his friend Lincoln, who is clergy and a trained theologian, who still struggled. Backhouse delivers extremely well in rectifying that problem with a warm, insightful, page-turner, that grips the reader, throws them into 19^th Danish Culture and quickly attaches readers to the quirky, controversial Kierkegaard. From Preface to Notes, he creates a fascinating characterization that steals your soul and makes it impossible to turn your head away. I read all 291 pages in two sittings, I just could not put it down!

I realize this will not be a widely read blog, but true to Kierkegaard, I write it because life is not about being accepted by the masses but about being called out from them to “A Single Life,” lived for Christ and the truth in Him. Kierkegaard is one of the best minds, in western thought, and the rightful father of whole schools of philosophies[1], worldviews, and ways to consider psychology.  Yet more importantly, to me, his fingerprints are all over the way I choose to live a life of Faith in the public square of pastoral work. I must not fold into the crowd, go with the flow, be synchronized and sanitized by the populace, or swept away into blind denominationalism. Rather  I must stand as a single life, and lead by the truth of Christ in me, forever upholding my faith and denomination to God’s ideals, not the “System’s.” Secondly, I hope this blog, while likely less popular than most of my works, still leads some honest minds out there to both Kierkegaard and Backhouse.

There is so much that I would want to tell you about Kierkegaard, but I will start with saying if you are a first-time reader, or an attempted and failed reader, Backhouse’s “A Single Life” is the ideal place to start so that you will be able to properly piece together key intersections of Kierkegaard’s life, philosophy, and theology. For me the beauty of this book is its simple and practical layout:

Preface/ Acknowledgements

Biography

1. A Controversial Life

2. School Life

3. Family Life

4. Public/Private Life

5. Love Life

6. Writing Life

7. Pirate Life

8. An Armed and Neutral Life

9. A Life Concluded

10. A Life Continued

Afterword

Overviews of the Works of Søren Kierkegaard

The overviews of his works, in my opinion, is worth the price the book itself. It provides the titles, dates, pseudonyms used, and a brief summary of all the key points made in that publication. It, literally, is an in brief literary roadmap to Kierkegaard that helps the reader jump right into the work without feeling lost in the stream of his work. However, when you combine that overview with a compelling, page-turner biography that bleeds context into to those books and their overviews, you have the perfect Kierkegaard kit at your fingertips.

I found Backhouse’s book, at times, had me laughing out loud, other times cheering or shouting aloud in agreement at presumptions now proven, and sadly with pity moved for Søren and Regine and even Peter. Søren and Peter, his brother, had a near classic, real-life prodigal son vs elder son relationship going on; Søren playing the wasteful, floundering son off living it up, while Peter was the dutiful, hardworking elder son who achieved his academics as expected of his Father. Tensions are wound ever tighter when Peter goes to work for the Danish National Church as an Ordained Minister which was also the expectation of Søren, which he stalls out on and eventually rejects. Ultimately, Peter’s vocation and the Danish Church will become Kierkegaard’s target in his war on the faithless faith of the masses defined by the cultural “Christendom” of the era. Added to the drama is a real-life Romeo and Juliet relationship of Søren Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen and now you have all the makings of a what could one day be a whole Netflix/Amazon Soapy Drama series in the making (they seriously should make his life into a Drama series).

In my own opinion, If ever two people were in true love their whole life long it would be first Adam and Eve and secondly Søren Kierkegaard and Regine Olsen. Their love is a tragedy worth the combined creative power of every Greek poet that ever lived! Søren, is the lost, brooding melancholy under-achiever of a wealthy family, steeped in a life of bitter loss and strife, repeated sibling death, and the inability to find himself like Peter his achieving elder brother. And suddenly he becomes hopelessly and utterly smitten by the calm, quiet, soft, gentle love of his beautiful Regine. A chance meeting, a super painfully awkward suitorship by a fumbling Søren, and a mutual infatuation that would last a lifetime of separation from each other makes her the perfect muse that calms the beast and sets his mind afire for a life of existing with purpose. Having now felt the power of love in the world Kierkegaard feels the pull of the love giver from above on his life ever more strongly. The shadows are lifted by the light flooding into his life as James 1:17 becomes his and Regine’s shared engagement verse as they see each other as “Every good and perfect gift is from above coming down from the Father of lights.”  Alas, Søren sacrifices human love for a higher calling to be, “a single life,” free from the control of the masses, seeking to restore true faith to a faithless charade of cultural Christianity. He knows, he loves her enough to release her from the pain and despair of his higher calling. He knows he must hurt her a little now to save her from a life of shame and ridicule of the cross he must now start to bear. And yet, their love, despite his rejection and abandonment, still lasts their full lifetimes; through Regine’s happy, healthy and love-filled marriage to another, and Søren’s one-man war against the church. A nod on the street here, a glance across the pews at a chance sermon on the couple’s favorite bible verse there, and the hidden coded messages in the works of Søren; all seem to be enough to remain in love for life, and yet for both still to move on with life without the other. Tragically, attached and dis-attached throughout eternity, it is a love not bound to need of presence. It is love that sets each other free!

For me, the core of life of Kierkegaard comes down to this: through a painful upbringing, a life of romantic love he could never give into without self-defined sin, the rise to celebrity status as an author, the object of political and public shaming as a mere caricature of himself in the media,[ii] to his failed attempts to reform Bishop Mynster through unreturned friendship, and never having fully been understood by his brother Peter or his own father Michael; there emerges a single clear and clarified Søren with one lone wish in his war on the church: that his People would come to know Christ, and not just the shadow of Christ, in the culturally acceptable Dutch Reform Church.

People can and will, and should, wax on about the Philosophy and intellectualism of Søren Kierkegaard, for being the father of Existentialism and for the brilliancy of his Philosophical contributions of to the world. But they all miss the point if they do not see him, first and foremost, as a theologian with one, and only one, singular purpose in this matured life; namely to call the masses of his country back to an individual, personal relationship with the Christ of the New Testament. His war on the state-sanctioned Danish Lutheran Church was to simply seek to lead it to repentance for becoming the Papacy it had once escaped from. All Philosophical merit in Kierkegaard is simply abstracted from this central concept Jesus and the Cross. The philosophy of Kierkegaard is but a mere shadow of the Theology of Søren.

As for me, what might I say of his impact on my work? Oddly, I have chosen a career path of Peter Kierkegaard[iii], not Søren Kierkegaard.[iv] May God ever permit me to practice the career of Peter with the heart, mind, and soul of Søren. May I always call people, first, to an individual relationship with the Christ of the New Testament[v] and secondly to real, authentic community and not of the mass control of the crowd. May I forever lead people to be true individuals in Christ, making up the community of faith at large, rather than mere puppets without hearts, souls, and minds connected to the Divine. May those I minister to be submitted first and foremost to the Trinity, via Christ, and then to the community as partners, never settling for being mere drones of the “Bishop” at hand.

   Meet Stephen Blackhouse

Footnotes

[1] Postmodernism (likely a grandfather figure), Existentialism, and in my humble opinion finding your of Faith in the community, but not enslaved by the community.

[i] Blackstone pg 15

[ii] See the The Corsair Affair

[iii] An ordained pastor

[iv] The philosophical theologian

[v] And of course full scripture

The post Kierkegaard: A Single Life [Reflective Review] appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.

All Bets Are On God!

Pascal’s Wager

By Vinnie MacIsaac

Pascal’s wager is a simplistic way to boil down the soundness of mind rooted in faith.

French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal presented to the world philosophical simplistic mathematical bases for acting on the belief of God.  His reason goes like this:

1. “God is, or He is not”
2. A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
4. You must wager. (It’s not optional.)
5. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

The cross tracks of faith is reason.

The Christian faith is not an unthinking faith, or a faith-based solely on emotion or superstition as some would wrongfully charge. Blaise Pascal, who was one of the most brilliant minds not only of his time but all time, reminds us we do not have to divorce reason and belief. This is a man who was a groundbreaking French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer, philosopher and serious defender of the scientific method. We are talking about a man who literally invented the concept of the mechanical calculator; and so it has been rightly reasoned that we may see him as the great, great, great, grandfather to the microprocessor. Simply put, the man was no dummy, nor a slave to childish fantasies about some grand deity in the sky. He was a brilliant academic and logistician who contributed more to scientific advancement than most can and will ever be able to claim.

 And what did all that brilliance do for him? It made it clear, that the most logical and safe assumption is the assumption of the existence of God and the soundness of embracing the Christian faith. Pascal is a little to clinical for me at times but what he does is take away all the nonsensical arguments that faith and reason must be at odds. Pascal’s Wager may not be where you want your faith to ultimately work from but it is a radically logical jumping on the place.

Criticism of Pascal’s Wager

Often Pascal is criticized not just by skeptics but also by theists, and logisticians. It would be fair to acknowledge that Pascal was a 16th-century historical figure from Europe. Therefore his worldview is Christian by default. We don’t need to see the outcomes of his thinking as being “Heaven” or “Hell” but rather more philosophically about the outcome of the odds that God exists or not. Often agnostics and atheists will disregard him by saying which God should we pick? “What if we pick a Hindu God rather than the Christian God does the logic still hold? However, philosophically it doesn’t break the logic. Pascal’s argument to some degree still holds because believing in any God increases the chances of having the right go versus no God at all. That said, escaping Hell is not the point of his wager. He is not saying gamble on God and hope for the best. He is suggesting that the odds of there being a God outweigh the risk of there being no God at all. Even if there is no Hell in this equation the odds still favor God. It would be better to side with a chance of God than to ensure you end up with nothing.

I further add the criticism that while logically his position holds that there is more to faith than logic or reason. What I mean by that is that God doesn’t want you in Heave because you played the odds well. He wants your heart and your mind! Logic may aid us in the belief in God but it is a stepping stole we use while reaching for higher motivations like faith, love, and hope.

His unfinished work Pensées (“Thoughts”) Apologie de la religion Chrétienne (“Defense of the Christian Religion”) remains to this day to baffle his most contentious critics of sound thinking of his faith. And it is out of this unfinished innovation he comes to the conclusion of Pascal’s Wager. Perhaps, it is those of faith, who do not shut their brains off and do not deny their faith who are actually completing Pascal’s Pensée.

My Tik Tok on Pascal answering Criticism

@simplyvinnieblogs #stitch with @atheistnextdoor #pascal #theism #churchtiktok #askapastor #interpretation #hermeneutics #jesussaves #churchtok ♬ original sound – Vinnie

A Harvard Philosophy Scholar Vs Pascal

On TikTok @simplyvinnieblogs

Join my Facebook to find more

spiritual growth resources!

SIMPLY DEVOTION PODCAST ON DEMAND 

Related Articles:

Kierkegaard: A Single Life [Reflective Review]

Simply Faith–not Simple Faith

Answering The Angry Atheist

The post All Bets Are On God! appeared first on Simply Vinnie - Unpacking The Complicated.