The Seminarian Wager
We have seen discussed on several different blogs Pascal’s Wager. The contemporary atheist/agnostic response has been to generate their own version, or a “De-Conversion Wager” (it’s on the side-bar, scroll down a bit to read it). In each of these Wagers there are strong points and weak points to the logic behind them. So in our desire to affirm the strengths and challenge the weaknesses, we have come up with our very own “Seminarian Wager.” While this is far from a final product (the language of it may get massaged around a bit), at the very least the concept should come through. Without further ado, our wager:
Everyone has faith. Regardless of how our faith developed, we should be willing to critically analyze those beliefs. While analyzing the validity of our faith, we should also be willing to analyze the validity of our doubts and cultural preconditions. If we are willing to do this, we wager that over time, the roots of our faith will strengthen toward truth, and will not be uprooted during challenging times. This site aims to provide worthwhile discussion regarding a critical evaluation of both religious belief and modern doubts.
Posts
sounds like quite a wager. so you’re willing to analyze yet will still be rooted… does this mean you won’t change on certain issues, or what exactly?
Luke,
“so you’re willing to analyze yet will still be rooted”
I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are of the opinion that analyzing your own beliefs is impossible without being uprooted. Am I correct in drawing out that assumption from your response?
no… i’m trying to figure out what exactly your purpose is, i’m a little unclear here. analyze faith and doubt, got it… just don’t get the uprooted part. like “there’s no way we will become atheists” or is it “our minds are made up, but we’ll discuss it” or “we’ll consider things…” just phrased strangely. trying to get the exact meaning, no couched motives.
Luke,
Gotcha. It was late when I was reading your comment so I wanted to make sure I was understanding you.
“While analyzing the validity of our faith, we should also be willing to analyze the validity of our doubts and cultural preconditions”
It has been my experience (not speaking for the other contributors) that a great many people seem to be stuck doing one thing or the other, but not both. Our gamble (as I see it) is that if a Christian who has never examined their beliefs critically does so, they will have a richer and deeper faith. Also, if someone who has de-converted from Christianity having never critically examined their doubts does so now, they will once again find faith in Christianity.
Does that help to clarify? Would there be a better way to phrase our wager to make that come across more clearly? As I said, the language of the thing is still being hammered out. Let me know your thoughts.
“Our gamble (as I see it) is that if a Christian who has never examined their beliefs critically does so, they will have a richer and deeper faith. ”
i whole-heartly agree! i’ve only found my faith through doubt! explained like this, i’m all on board!
this is the foundation of my future ministry, so i hope to be of some help in this endevor! RAWK
‘the one end that includes all the others is the love of God.’ -thomas merton
my experience — part of my personal witness — is that as we deconstruct and reconstruct anything, everything we believe, the God Who ordered the universe in all its splendor overwhelms us yet even more…with the delicate and subtle art of teaching us to fear not, to persist, to endure, and in all of these things ultimately to trust in Him that our souls might be put to ease. And in trusting Him we experience the wisdom and peace of God, a deeper peace, indeed the only peace that can settle into our violent hearts.
my words could certainly be sharpened here, but as far as I can gather, it is as precise as I can be to say this: I assume that God exists…it IS an assumption, albeit confirmed and enriched by my experiences and reasoning (paltry though it might be!). It is thus accurate to say that it is the most important wager of all, to risk our hearts and minds on the truth of Jesus Christ and the rescue of God.
about a week ago I went for a run. under a clear, sunny sky a cool rain started, refreshing me and keeping a pathetically dehydrated me going
but it’s strange; the inclination is to reason it away. after all, what do i know of meteorology or rainfall? i’ve had my share of philosophical problems with the sovereignty of God (haven’t we all?) atop rusty apathies considering a God Who has intervened in quite some time (even if I’ve forgotten since last week already)…
but something happens to you deep within…you are shaken and never left the same if you risk the implausible that God smiled for a few moments upon one of His little ones and sent some welcomed nourishment.
whether a weathery (sounds cool) reason was there or not, and I sincerely doubt it, that wager is the most important thing around.
may the Christ be in your hearts!
-chris
Chris,
You will be pleased to hear that I just received in the mail “Judaism in the beginning of Christianity” by Neusner, The Prophets (2 volumes) by Heschel, and the entire JPS Torah commentary series. I am only a 1/3 of the way through Neusner’s book, but I will get to Heschel shortly.
I have yet to get to Erhman’s stuff, as per Luke’s recommendation, but it is next on the list:)
(Dearest) Mike,
You always swear to your first love, but I can’t imagine a greater book on the subject than Heschel’s The Prophets, and I am very happy to know that you will behold it…we will have spirited conversations!
I’m after Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses which boasts some pretty serious claims to take down a lot of NT higher crit. Ehrmann is a very good historian, but his nudges might just be toward a theology without consistency or coherence…nevertheless, I will claim him since I’ll be attending his alma-mater (although according to the bookstore employees, the school might not claim him!…).
In any case, I’ve got a buddy heading up to Covenant that I ran into last night. He’s doing the 2 year counseling program, and I hope that you’ll run into him before long. His name is David Stair and he is a lion. I’m pretty sure that’s about as pithy as I can be on that.
lol (lots of love),
christopheles
p.s. Pflueger had a few books by Neusner, and constantly recommended him, but I’ve never cracked a book — let me know how it is! The books he had were Jewish-Christian dialogues — the sweetness!
Christopheles-wasnt that a character in Cats?
so much better! after a quick wikipedia search, apparently Christopheles is a minor character in the Sonic the Hedgehog comic series. this is exceedingly important.
one of my brother’s friends used to call me Christopheles way back in the day. i’m sad that there is no such character in Cats (unless spelled differently, perhaps Krisstofleas) to the wisdom of wikpedia.