Note from Guru Kurt: I have been speaking big on behalf of the Father, but my voice is about to grow silent. I will speak no more to man about Him, whom I perceive may be reneging on His responsibilities. How do we know what the Father intends, except for what we have heard from the prophets? No Christian even stops to think that perhaps the Father was not behind His prophets, but that they spoke for themselves on behalf of a God they did know, but whose intention they did not fully comprehend. I can no longer bear to watch this planet fall under the dictatorship of the automobile. I could say that the car is an abomination to the Father, for it is, yet where is the muscle behind my statements? It is not present. Humanity has its way. The humans win, and are allowed to destroy earth, using up its precious oil for commuting to work and for vacations, and its precious minerals for personal transportation and frivolous communication. We will all have gone billions of places, and spoken millions of lies, but for the last billion years of earth's existence there will be no metals, and no oil, for us to use. Perhaps Isaiah was wrong, and the Father will not appear. There is "no bullet in the gun" that Jesus drew, like an old-time gunslinger at high noon. Then I lay down my pen, and close my mouth, never to open it on His behalf again. Or, it may be there is a "bullet in the gun," and that the Father will act.
A Neo-Christian Defends Pascal's Wager
To the Atheists:
I wish to defend Pascal’s wager, because it is one of the few logical
arguments used by those who believe in God. It is actually not possible to argue
with full certainty, although arguments may be devised that are persuasive, for
God’s existence on the basis of design, from causation, or any other line of
reasoning that is not based on direct experience. The Christians state that
there is only one interface between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. They
base this on Jesus’ statement that no one could come to the Father but through
him. The Hindus believe that man can realize God himself, through the process of
illumination, and become a man-God. The Buddhists say that there is no God, but
man can attain nirvana or liberation through his own efforts.
The truth is that all phenomena in the world, from cosmology to evolution,
may be explained in other ways without relying on the idea of God. The
explanations may not be as aesthetically pleasing, but because of the huge time
scales involved, and because no one was there who can remember, no one really
knows if God is responsible for the world or not. Only one who has found God,
who knows God and can literally talk to God, can make statements about God with
certainty. Jesus made claims to be the only Son of God. If this is true, then he
is the only one who is an authority on God, and everyone else is filled with
imagination. If the Hindus are right, any man can attain God and become an
authority. If the Buddhists are right, no one will ever find God. If one is
seriously interested in God, one either has to strive as the Hindus recommend or
have faith in Jesus as the Christians recommend. There is no other rational way
to speak about God, and most of what goes by the name of rational discussion is
mere wordplay.
There is a strong form of Pascal’s wager, and a weak form. All your
arguments are placed against the weak form only, for nothing may stand against
the strong form. I will deal with the strong form first, and then explain how
your objections to the weak form are also not valid.
The strong form of Pascal’s wager is based on the actual teachings of Jesus
Christ, the Nazarene. It may be reduced to two statements that he made. First,
he stated that he would come again to judge the living and the dead, casting
those that did not pass the test into fire. He also stated that all those who
believed in him and did his commands would have eternal life, in other words,
they would not be cast into this fire but would pass the test. I will put it
into a logical form.
1. Jesus has promised to return and judge mankind, sending many to hell.
2. Jesus has promised that those who believe in him and do his commands will
not be sent to hell.
3. If Jesus was the only Son of God as he claimed, then all will happen as he
has stated.
4. Therefore I should believe in Jesus, if I wish to avoid hell.
This is a loaded and deadly gun pointed straight at the heart of the sinners
among mankind. Make no mistake, this is a real threat on the part of God of
extreme violence, the likes of which the world has never seen, and will never
see again. Jesus pointed the gun and cocked the hammer. All that we await is his
return, when the trigger will be pulled. It is like the famous Clint Eastwood
scene in the movie "Dirty Harry." All the bullets appear to have been
fired in the distant past, as recorded in the ancient scriptures of the Bible.
Is there a bullet still in the chamber, or isn’t there? To quote Harry
Callahan, "I know what you’re thinking – ‘Did he fire six shots or
only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I’ve kind
of lost track myself. But, being this a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in
the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one
question - 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do you, punk?"
There is no reasoning that can escape this strong form of Pascal’s wager,
and I believe this is what he intended to say, as he was a Christian. You run
the risk of hell if you decide that Jesus was not God, or that he was not
telling the truth, which is Pascal’s valid point. The strong form of his
argument rests entirely, and I mean entirely, on the truth or falsity of
Jesus’ claim to be the only Son of God and an authority on spiritual matters.
If you believe he was, you will heed his words of warning, follow his
well-meaning advice and avoid being cast into hell on his return. If you do not
believe he was God, you run the risk of hell because you ignore his advice and
disregard his dire warning or threat.
The weak form of Pascal’s wager is, "If you believe in God and turn
out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God
and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be
an atheist."
Notice that the name of Jesus has been replaced by the word God, and here is
where you come in with your objections, for the world is a confusing mass of
minor religions, splinter groups, cults, and even stranger beliefs, for instance
in psychic phenomena, ghosts, seances and Ouija boards. You are entering a mixed
soup of weird practices, psychotic leaders and deluded followers. The strong
form of the argument is pure and unassailable. The weak form is prey to all
sorts of objections, because mankind is on the whole self-centered, obtuse and
naïve when it comes to spiritual matters. No one knows for certain, but
everyone wants attention and develops a theory, oftentimes the more outlandish
the better. The Theosophists come to mind, who have a belief system based on
reincarnation odder than anything I have ever seen. They actually believe there
are astral states where one goes when one dies, enjoys all the fruits earned in
this life, then returns when one has run to the end of one’s accumulated good
karma. Where they get these ideas, I truly have no clue.
Nevertheless, the weak form may be defended in a way that I am sure you have
never seen. I think you will find this interesting, although it is possible you
may not. I will answer all the objections listed on your website: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#pascal.
I will precede the statements found on the web page with Atheists, and my
statements with my initials, JKJ.
Atheists:
Firstly, it does not indicate which religion to follow. Indeed, there are
many mutually exclusive and contradictory religions out there.
JKJ:
Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is reasonable to limit the
idea of "other religions" to major religions that exist in the world
today. I may state that God is behind these religions, and that is why they are
so popular. You do not have to believe this, merely agree with me that we can
eliminate all these tiny groups with ideas that are not widely accepted such as
the Theosophists, or say the followers of Sri Chinmoy or Eknath Easwaran. An
intelligent person who is looking for God will reason that if there is a God he
would provide people with a religion that everyone can follow, and that in
choosing one of the major religions he would be safer than in choosing a tiny
group of people who are perhaps misled by an egocentric man.
This first objection then becomes, Pascal’s statement does not tell which
of the major religions should be followed. I say that it does not matter,
although an especially careful person will still heed the words of Jesus and
become a Christian by following the strong form of the argument. Many Hindus,
indeed, do incorporate Jesus into their list of Avatars, as well they should. It
is upon me now to show that the major religions do not contradict one another,
as the atheists claim, nor are they mutually exclusive. For the purpose of this
essay, I will bring the three religions I have mentioned into harmony. This has
never been done. To do this, I must reveal that which has never been revealed:
Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and the other Avatars of Hinduism are one and the same
person, born again and again to lead mankind. He is the incarnation of Brahman,
the Creator of the universe, and he is leading man in specific ways to suit his
own divine purpose.
You will admit that if the same person is behind all the religions, if God
himself has given the world Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity, it should
indeed be possible to harmonize them completely. This is what I shall now begin
to do, within the space of this relatively short essay. Firstly, you must
remember that the world was not always as it is today. There was a time, in
ancient history, when there were no religions at all. Global communication did
not exist. Most people had a very poor understanding of their own local
surroundings, let alone their nation or their continent. When you asked a
commoner in ancient days how big the world was, he would respond: "Big! I
can walk for days in any direction, and I have never seen the end of it!"
Did the ancient Israelites know about the existence of the countries now called
England, Norway or France? Of course not! Society was not well developed, and
violence and disorder were widespread in many cultures. Other cultures were more
civilized and peaceful. God gave man religion almost as much to help society
develop as to show them His almighty power.
There are few concepts that incite so much violence in the hearts of
unreasonable people as the concept of God. Even today, in our so-called
civilized world, we have religious fighting in many places, always contrary to
most of both religions’ central tenets. Many wars have been fought over
religion, and much hatred exists between religions. For this reason, and because
some people do not respond well to the concept of God, God gave the world
Buddhism. Buddhism neither posits the existence of a soul nor the existence of
God. However, it contains a large body of work designed to elevate man, to
motivate him to try to enhance his spiritual nature, and this is the key.
Buddhism exhorts man to grow spiritually, but it does so without the concept of
God. It promises nirvana, the total cessation of sorrow, for all who follow the
Buddha’s noble eight-fold path, and for instance follow the gracious precepts
of the Dhammapada.
Hinduism, I must state, is the cradle of religion and the home of man’s
future. The people of India are by and large non-violent in their thinking. God,
at the risk of religious fighting which he knew would occur, gave his fullest
revelation to India. He has visited this country more than any other country, as
the incarnations of the authors of the Vedas and the Upanishads, Rama, Krishna,
Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and others. While it is true that man may make spiritual
progress by seeking nirvana in exclusion of God, he moves much faster along the
path of love for God as outlined in the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavatam.
Hinduism posits that man has an eternal soul that has evolved to its current
state after trillions of lower births, and that the human being can attain
God-realization by following the teachings of scriptures. His selfish ego is
extinguished, and he becomes a blissful divine force for good in the world.
Christianity is notable because it does not speak of reincarnation, and does
not mention enlightenment, both of which are present in Buddhism and Hinduism.
However, the goal of Christianity is identical with the other two: the spiritual
growth of man. Christianity offers eternal life in the form of heaven, and
threatens eternal damnation in hell. The positive precepts of Jesus, however,
are remarkably similar to those of Buddhism and Hinduism. The solution to
man’s problem is to love God in the form of Jesus, just as the solution in
Hinduism is to love Brahman in the form of Krishna or Rama. All three religions
emphasize the cultivation of a universal love for all, and all three encourage
freedom from attachment to personal possessions. In truth, any of the three
religions, if followed resolutely, result in the spiritual growth of man. This
is why I say it does not matter which religion you follow.
The stark nature of Jesus’ statements come immediately to mind, and
Christians reading this now throw up their hands! Jesus said no one could come
to the Father but through him. I say Jesus, Buddha, Krishna and Rama were the
same divine person, the actual Creator born in human form. One going by the
Buddha’s path is one who believes in Jesus. One striving for enlightenment
under a bonafide guru in India is one who believes in Jesus. This has not been
revealed to the world before, but it is true. The follower of any of the
religions will be growing spiritually. He will become compassionate, merciful,
and kind to those around him. He will be gentle and non-violent. He will not be
a murderer or commit robbery. All these people will pass the test and not be
cast into the fire when Jesus returns.
Atheists:
This is often described as the "avoiding the wrong hell" problem.
If a person is a follower of one religion, he may end up in another religion's
version of hell.
JKJ:
If, as I have stated, there is only one God behind all the religions, there
is no danger of being cast into hell for following the wrong one. There is only
one God, and there is only one hell. These have simply been described
differently to diverse cultures. The danger is in ignoring religion altogether,
as the atheists attempt to do, for if you do not grow, if you are selfish,
sinful and unrepentant, you do risk hell even under the weak form of Pascal’s
argument. I have shown you that there is a scenario in which you may be in real
trouble, like it or not. If there is one God behind all religions, then he has
given them to man as tools to use to grow spiritually. People that ignore these
tools and go their own way, without morality and decency, risk hell. Certainly
it is the sinner who will be condemned, and not the righteous, in any religion.
If you respond that you are a decent person without religion, I say this is very
good, but you are still not as good within as you would be if you followed a
religion, and you are at risk.
One must intelligently weigh the possibilities. You are countering Pascal’s
wager here with a devil’s advocate type of statement, trying to find
everything wrong that you can, no matter how weak your stance. Is there a
reasonable person anywhere who can seriously consider all the teachings of all
the major religions (as in Houston Smith’s book, The Religions of Man), and
conclude that any of the apparently different Gods, who are supposedly
compassionate, wise, and merciful, would throw the members of different
religions into hell simply for being born in the wrong place? Would he not
rather conclude that any being intelligent enough to actually call himself a God
would recognize that the world is wide, confusing, and difficult, and that
well-meaning people, even if following a different (and say misguided, for the
sake of the argument) religion, are not deserving of hell? Certainly he would. I
have stated a scenario in which you risk hell by ignoring the Christian God, and
I have now extended it to the other religions on the basis of there being one
God behind it all. There is no serious risk of being thrown into the wrong hell,
unless you magnify the differences between religions to an irrational extent, as
you are doing here. The heart of all religions is the same, but they do differ
on the surface. If you still insist there is a danger of being thrown into the
wrong hell, you must fall back on the strong form of the argument, and believe
in Jesus.
Atheists:
Even if we assume that there's a God, that doesn't imply that there's one
unique God. Which should we believe in? If we believe in all of them, how will
we decide which commandments to follow?
JKJ:
One may follow the commandments of any of the major religions. They are
surprisingly similar, if you would bother to read them. All support peace and
goodwill among men, unselfishness, freedom from attachment to material
possessions, love and compassion. If you follow my line of reasoning, it is
indeed possible to believe in all the Gods of the major religions, in all the
Avatars, for they are non-different. Only the message varied for the sake of the
individual peoples that were visited at the time. We have a wide mix of
religions, all of them valid, because the earth supports a wide mix of
societies. Let each one choose the religion he likes, and follow it as best he
can. Let me assure you, there is only one God. He is called Brahman by the
Hindus, the Father by the Christians, and Allah by the Mohammedans. There is
only one God responsible for the formation of the universe, and for life on
earth. As Jesus, he made a specific threat, and a wise person will beware. One
is safe to follow Jesus alone, but I broaden this by stating that the true
followers of any major religion are also safe.
Atheists:
Secondly, the statement that "If you believe in God and turn out to be
incorrect, you have lost nothing" is not true. Suppose you're believing in
the wrong God -- the true God might punish you for your foolishness.
JKJ:
Here again, one is safest in following one of the major religions. God was
not pleased, for instance, with Jim Jones, or with David Koresh. Those people
and their followers really do risk punishment by the real God. I have supported
the weak form of Pascal’s argument by stating that it is possible that one and
the same God has started the main religions, and if my claim is true your
argument that the Christian God will punish Hindus, for instance, is absurd.
There is another way to approach this question, however. Let us limit our
discussion here to Hinduism and Christianity. I have never heard any claim in
Hinduism that the followers of other religions would be punished. Indeed,
Hinduism is the most tolerant of any religion on earth. Many Hindus accept Jesus
as a true Avatar, and in doing so they recognize the truth of the matter. There
are however statements in the Bible about exclusivity, and these I must explain.
I will call your attention to two of them.
In the Old Testament, one of Moses’ Ten commandments was "Thou shalt
have no other Gods before me." In the New Testament, Jesus said "I am
the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through
me." These statements, and others like them, have isolated the Christian
mind from the religious flow of the world in a way that never happened in
Hinduism. It really sounds like followers of other religions are on the wrong
side of the tracks. Yet I state that Hinduism is the truest religion! Here I
must make some statements about human psychology and spiritual growth. The
effect of these statements of the Bible, and many of the similar statements, is
to engender increased concentration and devotion in the followers of the
religion, helping them to grow and increase in virtue. You must realize that God
is extremely powerful, and statements like these convey this power effectively.
The mind is drawn upward to God by this type of language, which is also widely
used in the Koran. It was meant to be this way, it was meant to help in
spiritual growth. The God of the Bible will not be smiting any honest Hindus,
nor will Krishna smite honest Christians. However, you only have my argument for
one God behind it all, and if you are not swayed by my universal approach and
must be careful, be a Christian.
Atheists:
Consider also the deaths that have resulted from people rejecting medicine in
favor of prayer.
JKJ:
Here you are stating that if people reject medicine because of their faith,
they will indeed have lost something through their belief. Unfortunately, this
argument of yours is true. You must remember that all the major religions were
introduced at a time long before effective medicines were available, so that
health and dental care were never mentioned. This is an unfortunate consequence,
but the ones who refuse health care for religious reasons are rare. Most are
intelligent enough to accept the wonderful advances of science over disease that
have occurred, mostly in the last 100 years. It is unrealistic to think that God
would have wanted to state in scripture, for instance: "In about 2000
years, they will be able to cure diseases with little things about the shape of
pebbles. Accept those pebbles, don’t let yourself die needlessly." He
could not have said this, because of his compassion. For 2000 years people would
have suffered from disease, knowing there was a cure just out of their reach!
Instead, he relied on the common sense of man, which has mostly prevailed.
Atheists:
Another flaw in the argument is that it is based on the assumption that the
two possibilities are equally likely -- or at least, that they are of comparable
likelihood. If, in fact, the possibility of there being a God is close to zero,
the argument becomes much less persuasive. So sadly the argument is only likely
to convince those who believe already.
JKJ:
You are right that the argument is only likely to convince people who already
have a tendency to believe, but you are wrong about the reason why. I say it is
unlikely to convince people because, in a certain real sense, only the people
who are already spiritually developed enough to seek God are likely to want more
spiritual development and be able to work on this, through one of the major
religions. People who like Jesus, who are drawn to him naturally with love, find
the argument very convincing. Colder people, who are not drawn to his magnetic
personality, are less likely. As you say, this is sad, but Jesus knew this was
the case. This is why he stated that the people who would be saved on his return
had their names written in the book of life already. I think the big play is for
those people who are on the border. The warm people are saved. The cold people
are damned. The lukewarm people can go either way. When and if he returns, I
think there will be a worldwide drama, a grand contest for these people, and
there will be a chance at the end for them to turn to the true Messiah and
escape damnation.
However small the possibility of God is, hell or eternal damnation is so
awful that the prudent person, as Pascal advises, should at least make some
attempt to practice religion if he values his life. It is like the lottery in
reverse. Millions and millions of people buy lottery tickets even though they
know their odds are vanishingly small of winning. The higher the prize offered,
the less the chance of winning, but the more tickets people buy! They say that
the lottery is a tax on idiocy. Similarly, the evils of hell should be avoided
at all costs, even if it is extremely unlikely. In this backwards lottery, you
lose everything instead of winning everything. You buy a ticket every week when
you do not go to church, mosque, or temple. If Jesus comes as he promised, he
will look at all the lottery tickets for the lake of fire you have purchased and
say, "I see you ignored my advice and sinned in unrepentant impunity. I
have a place for you, where it is extremely hot and you suffer everlasting
torment. Welcome to the hell you desired while on earth!"
Atheists:
Also, many feel that for intellectually honest people, belief is based on
evidence, with some amount of intuition.
JKJ:
I submit that my hypothesis is not so unlikely as it appears at first glance.
Religion, especially religion that is widely held, is a strange phenomenon if
there is no God. The founders of the religions I have mentioned all were
unusually prolific to have been normal human beings. The teachings of the
Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Gospel of the New Testament, and the
Dhammapada are all a little too perfect. It is indeed remarkable that so many
should follow Jesus, whose recorded words were few, and who never wrote. If he
were simply a normal man who was crucified, why would so many be so excited
about it? It doesn’t make sense, yet there they are. I submit that the
luminous and vibrant quality of all the world’s scriptures, and their striking
similarity on many points, is real evidence that the same God is behind all of
them, although it does take an open mind and intuition, as you state, to see
this.
This is also a logical counter to your claim that the chance of God is
vanishingly small. If you can look at all the billions of people following the
various religions and state that there is almost no chance that any of the
religions is right, you are ignoring some very important and obvious evidence. A
truly rational person will admit that there is a real chance, not a chance
approaching zero, that there is some force behind all this. Imagine your
position if God really does exist, and if Jesus does return as he said he would.
You will look ridiculous. Archeologists, for instance, when they find a buried
city, never state, "There is a vanishingly small chance that actual people
built this city. It is equally likely that these buildings arose by chance
occurrence." Similarly, someone has left these scriptures here,
mysteriously and without a comprehensive explanation perhaps, but they do exist
in all corners of the globe. It is not logical to automatically conclude that
there is not a higher power responsible for them. This is especially true of the
older scriptures, such as the Upanishads. These were written when society was
very primitive indeed, yet they overflow with wisdom that is every bit as valid
today as it ever was. To see this, however, requires some study and effort, and
few there are willing to take an honest look. Most prefer to come to their own
conclusions, then try to defend those conclusions without examining the
evidence. There is something about the world’s scriptures that seems beyond
the abilities of the human mind to produce. The fragrance of the divine wafts to
the nostrils of the mind as one reads them. Of course, this is a subjective
opinion, but any person with some self-honesty will admit the radiant beauty of
the scriptures raises the possibility of God above zero, perhaps significantly
so.
Atheists:
It is not a matter of will or cost-benefit analysis.
JKJ:
For the person who does not value his own life or worry about his eternal
fate, for the soul that really does not care what happens when he dies, there is
no hope. This is not however intellectual honesty but the sign of an idiot.
Religion is only for people who care about themselves in a significant way. As I
said, in general those drawn to religion are already spiritually developed to
some extent. I do not think you will find religious people who would dismiss
their own souls, their own eternal fate, as "cost-benefit analysis,"
meaning that if the only benefit is eternal life, and the cost is trying to
worship God, then I am not willing to pay. These people do not want to die.
Their lives matter to them, more than any temporal thing, and the cost is cheap.
I think perhaps the writer of this comment was not being careful when he wrote.
I hope so.
Atheists:
Formally speaking, the argument consists of four statements:
There are two approaches to the argument. The first is to view Statement 1 as
an assumption, and Statement 2 as a consequence of it. The problem is that
there's really no way to arrive at Statement 2 from Statement 1 via simple
logical inference. The statements just don't follow on from each other.
JKJ:
To move from statement 1 to statement 2 requires either direct belief in one
of the religious traditions that speaks of hell, or accepting my claim that the
same God is behind all the religions, and his goal is the spiritual growth of
man through various means. However, the point of Pascal’s wager is not actual
proof, but showing the possibility that a real danger exists. Therefore, actual
belief is not required. All that must be admitted is that you understand the
claims of the Christians, for instance, that hell is real. The proper way to
state number 2 is, "It is possible that not believing in God is bad for
one’s eternal soul if God does exist." Your first point is invalidated by
re-writing statement 2 in this way, for it now stands on its own. If this is not
clear, one may support it by adding, "Some of the religious traditions of
the world, which are followed by vast numbers of people, state that non-belief
in God is bad for the eternal soul. The possibility exists that not all of these
people are wrong, and that at least one of these religions is correct."
Atheists:
The alternative approach is to claim that Statements 1 and 2 are both
assumptions. The problem with this is that Statement 2 is then basically an
assumption which states the Christian position, and only a Christian will agree
with that assumption. The argument thus collapses to "If you are a
Christian, it is in your interests to believe in God" -- a rather vacuous
tautology, and not the way Pascal intended the argument to be viewed.
JKJ:
In re-writing statement 2, I have invalidated this point as well. By adding
"It is possible…" to the beginning, the statement is no longer
strictly Christian, but applies fully to all people in the world, those outside
religion and those inside religion. Indeed, an outside observer of religion
should find the argument more compelling. Your reasoning is quite sloppy here.
Atheists:
Also, if we don't even know that God exists, why should we take Statement 2
over some similar assumption? Isn't it just as likely that God would be angry at
people who chose to believe for personal gain? If God is omniscient, he will
certainly know who really believes and who believes as a wager. He will spurn
the latter... assuming he actually cares at all whether people truly believe in
him.
JKJ:
You are correct, and this is why I was careful to include obeying the
commandments of Jesus along with belief in my statement of the strong form of
Pascal’s wager. Jesus did say that mere belief was not enough, that people
must do his commandments too. The Hindus also have a version of hell, but this
is reserved for evildoers. The weak form of Pascal’s wager that I found on
your website should perhaps be expanded to include following commandments too.
However, there is another thing you are overlooking, and that is the psychology
of the human mind. Someone who truly believes in Jesus, who truly believes in
Krishna, will begin to have affection for the incarnation. This affection
naturally leads him to amend his life in accordance with the teachings of the
Avatar. If you love someone, you will listen to him and want to be like him.
This is the real purpose of belief, that it leads naturally to spiritual growth,
and all these Avatars gave profound (and similar) teachings for man to follow.
For this reason, belief is enough. Action follows true belief. This is a
psychological fact and a verifiable matter of experience. Just ask any Christian
that faithfully attends church, a Mohammadan who attends the mosque, or a Hindu
who attends the temple. Or, try it yourself if you feel I am wrong. Anyone who
believes, who starts reading the Bible and going to church, even out of personal
gain, will gradually be drawn into a process of spiritual growth, and will
become a much better person. When Jesus returns, he will be looking at the heart
of everyone as you state, not judging them on their stated preferences. People
will grow in proportion to the amount that they truly believe, but even those
whose belief is shallow will find that belief deepening through the process of
worship and study of scripture. Those coming in on Pascal’s wager will find
themselves eventually among the blest. That is, if it is not already too late,
and Jesus is not returning very soon, as he well may be.
Atheists:
Some have suggested that the person who chooses to believe based on Pascal's
Wager, can then somehow make the transition to truly believing.
Unfortunately, most atheists don't find it possible to make that leap.
JKJ:
I have explained how this transition is not only possible, but inevitable if
you follow the practices of any of the world’s major religions. It is not an
intellectual leap, but an experiential one. Although it is a matter of the heart
and spirit, which atheists detest, yet a rational being still possesses both of
these, although he may choose to deny it. It is a logically and rationally
verifiable phenomenon that people who believe in Jesus or Krishna are able to
grow through this belief into better and happier human beings. The intellect may
not be separated from the experience of life. As I state, it is not an
intellectual leap, or a leap of faith, but a verifiable experience.
It is like watching a swimming meet. You see the swimmers on their starting
blocks, and you have heard that people that swim get wet. Having never seen a
pool or other large body of water, you have a firm belief that it is not
possible to go from the non-wet state to the wet-state simply by jumping in.
Your claim about failing to make the intellectual leap here is tantamount to
deciding, before the race begins, "I will go home now and not watch. It is
not possible that these people will become wet. I would not become wet were I in
their position." If you are intellectually honest, you will admit that
there is a possibility that one may go from the non-wet state to the wet-state
by jumping into a pool of water. You stay to watch. You see the race begin, and
as the people are splashing about you think, "It sure looks like they might
be getting wet. That is a lot of splashing going on. Look at that one’s head,
how it glistens! Looks like water to me." Then the race is over, and they
get out of the pool. You see a clear fluid dripping from their bodies, and you
become very excited, for it looks like real water! You go over to one of the
racers, and shake his hand just to be sure, and lo! It is water!
Similarly, religion is intended for making warm human beings out of cold
ones, for making lovers out of haters, for making good, happy people out of bad,
miserable ones. Christianity especially caters to the lowest and the lost, the
sinner and the weak. All may eat at this table, where compassion, mercy, and
forgiveness are handed out freely like bread to all hungry seekers of truth.
Religion is not for perfect people, it is for the spiritually needy. All
religions foster spiritual growth, but it does take a certain amount of innate
wisdom to realize that one is in need of growth. All do not have this wisdom,
but this does not invalidate Pascal’s wager in even the weak form. If you are
unwilling to even try what I have suggested, you still run the risk of hell.
Simple unwillingness to try something, as you present it here, does not
constitute a rational argument against that thing.
Atheists:
In addition, this hypothetical God may require more than simple belief;
almost all Christians believe that the Christian God requires an element of
trust and obedience from his followers. That destroys the assertion that if you
believe but are wrong, you lose nothing.
JKJ:
Christians are right to believe this, for Jesus said it in as many words.
However, as I stated above simple belief is enough. Instead of standing on the
starting blocks, the swimmer has taken the plunge into the pool, and as I say he
has a choice of pools. The water is the same in each. In all religions, the
practitioner will find his life improving, his happiness growing, and his
feelings of insecurity about his eternal fate resolved. I am not sure I
understand the assertion that this extra requirement, which follows naturally
from belief as a tail follows a horse, invalidates Statement 3 in your tautology
that one is not harmed by belief. It is nonsensical, for in any case no new harm
is introduced by belief that was not there before. God would certainly not
punish people for doing what he actually asked them to do more than he would if
they did nothing at all, as you seem to claim here. It is like a James Bond
movie where Mr. Bond is picked up by an airplane hook as it flies by. At the
moment before the hook has engaged his upraised bungy cord it is ludicrous to
say, "Look, he is not in the air. He has been harmed by holding up his
bungy cord! The pilot will be very angry with him!" He has not been harmed.
He is the same as he ever was, only he is holding up a bungy cord as the pilot
told him to do. Now, when the airplane hook engages, the bungy cord tightens and
he flies into the air. Then it is you discover the reason for his otherwise
strange actions. He saw the plane coming. You, perhaps, were not looking. Jesus
knew that simply telling people to believe in him was sufficient to draw them
into a magnificent process of expanding their souls, to becoming better and
happier people.
Atheists:
Finally, if this God is a fair and just God, surely he will judge people on
their actions in life, not on whether they happen to believe in him. A God who
sends good and kind people to hell is not one most atheists would be prepared to
consider worshipping.
JKJ:
You are fully correct in this assertion, but it does not invalidate
Pascal’s wager. I have stated that the criterion for being sent to hell is not
in fact belonging to any religion, but the spiritual size of the soul in
question. The bigger the soul – the more kindness, compassion, love, and
friendliness the person has, the better he is able to live in harmony with all
those around, and the more tolerant he is of other people’s views and beliefs,
the more likely it is that he will pass the test that is to be administered.
There are indeed many atheists who will pass this test, for they at least care
enough about the question, and are daring enough to try to rationally think it
through. God appreciates this kind of daring, that will even look him in the
face and say, "I haven’t seen you. I don’t have any direct evidence for
you. Therefore I don’t believe in you." For in truth, there is no solid
basis for believing in God except through reading the scriptures, or through
direct experience. We do not live in a society where direct experience is
thought possible, as is the case in India. As you would certainly agree, any
loving God will have compassion and not blame you for not trying to attain him,
but rather taking a rational position against him under these circumstances.
Thus you see, even today society is still fractured enough that there is no
global religion possible, and God sees this. Indeed, the onset of science has
made many of the old revelations seem like mythology, which in many cases they
were.
You must understand God’s position, though, as a supreme psychologist. He
tells the truth, but sometimes, especially in primitive societies, the truth
must be told in such a way that people can relate to it. There must be an impact
on people’s minds, they must be drawn up and realize that there is indeed a
mighty being looking over their shoulders. The mythology in religion was put
there for just this reason. To give one brief example, the Bible states the
world was created in just seven days. This is a myth, but imagine the state of
those people! They had never heard of galaxies. They had never heard of atoms.
God could not say, "I created over 100 billion galaxies to form this
universe, each of which contains 100 billion or more suns. Each piece of matter
the size of a pin contains over 100 million atoms. All this did however take me
some time." To us this sounds awesome, but it would have been completely
meaningless to the ancient Israelites, who barely knew the meaning of one
thousand, let alone a billion. Therefore he said that he made it in seven days,
and the Israelites received a picture of an awesome God, a mighty spiritual
power, that made sense to them.
However, Pascal’s wager is still valid, and you take a stand against God at
your own risk. This final statement of yours demonstrates that you understand an
almighty being should be at least as kind, compassionate, intelligent and
understanding as the best human that you know. This is excellent reasoning, and
100 percent true. Any being that made me must be at least as smart as me, if not
infinitely smarter. You do not know everything about God, however, and you do
not know everything about humanity. The Bible states that man is fallen. This is
the same thing that the Hindus and Buddhists mean when they say that man is
immersed in ignorance and selfishness due to the process of evolution, as a
heritage from when we were in animal bodies.
Ask yourself one question. If a man were to come up to you tomorrow, not an
especially handsome man or an eloquent man, but a quiet man, a man that does not
act like an insane man, but who tells you, "I was Jesus, and I am now
returned." What would be your reaction? I can tell you. You would
immediately dial 911 and summon the police to haul away this crazy person. You
see, God has a problem. This would be the reaction of every single person on
earth, without exception. For you see, in their hearts, although not in their
deepest hearts, all mankind has a hatred for the real, living God. Even a man
doing this in a Christian church would see the white truck coming quickly. God
is not allowed to come as a person like us, as Jesus himself came, but must come
on a cloud, performing miracles. He cannot enter into any rational discussion
with man. So you see, if God were to offer the hand of friendship to man in a
humble yet rational way, it would be harshly rejected.
Now I ask you, if you offer a hand of friendship to someone, and your hand is
cut off, if they turn their back on you completely and refuse to acknowledge
your presence, what are your options? You have made these people, and yet they
have rejected you. You are responsible for their very lives, and the planet
whose resources they are quickly squandering. You may even have important
information to give them about conserving those resouces. There may be some
action that you require to save the planet for future generations. What do you
do, if you are God? I will tell you this too. You use your power, and you show
them their place. This is what all the prophecies about the end times in the
Bible are all about, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation, and this is
the warning that Jesus gave. Religion, any religion, is a path that man may
follow to optimize his chances of not being thrown into hell when Jesus returns.
Out of compassion, as many will be saved as possible, but religion is really
man’s best hope. Man ignores religion at his own peril, and this is the thrust
of Pascal’s wager, which as I have shown is a logical position in either its
strong or its weak forms.
In conclusion, Pascal’s wager in the strong form is unassailable, and if
Jesus was God as he claimed, atheists are in great danger indeed. The weak form,
where Jesus is replaced by a generic God, is also valid when one allows that
there is a possibility that not believing in God is bad for the soul. If this
possibility even exists, then one runs a risk by not so believing. The question
of which God to believe in is resolved by noticing the possibility also exists
that the same God is responsible for all the major religions, and that he just
did not tell every culture the same thing, but tailored his message to suit
individual peoples. In any case, the denouncing of other religions is only
prevalent in Christianity and Islam, and I have stated a reasonable
psychological basis for this phenomenon, and there is no real danger of being
thrown into the wrong hell. A truly concerned person not persuaded by my case
will resort to the strong form of the wager and believe in Jesus, who is the
only one who has said he will return and commit major violence upon the peoples
of earth.
I must also state here that avoiding hell is not, and was never intended to be, the main reason people should join religion. Religion not only threatens hell, but also promises heaven or happiness. A truly introspective person will realize that there is something within him that he would like to see continue after death, that 100 years or less on this planet is simply not enough. Without some basis for belief in immortality, life is poor stuff indeed. Religion is designed to supplement the life of man by providing a solid moral basis for society and increasing the happiness of all around by such precepts as doing unto others as you would have others do unto yourself. Indeed, this precept alone can be shown to be a full and complete basis of all moral life. However, the possibility exists that there is a God who is the ultimate authority, and while he appears kind in offering us words of love and compassion, we do not know his full nature. The Bible hints at a much darker side, a wrathful and angry side, and while it may be argued that this is righteousness, the sufferers in hell might not appreciate our arguments. A wise person will side with Pascal, agree that there is a possibility of danger here, and try religion, as I have stated. He will get up on the starting block, jump into the pool, splash around with some friends, and find himself getting wet with goodness, joy, and the real hope of immortality. Top
-Guru Kurt