Is there a God?
|
Sunday 11th September 0847 UTC 0947
BST
31:29.101S 015:26.889E
Current COG 310 degT Speed 7 Knots
I have made 202 miles towards St Helena in the 22
hours since passing Robben Island however the lighter winds forecast have just
hit and speed has dropped dramatically.
The night was a mixed bag with a steady amount of
traffic around but none too close. The sail plan was constantly changing and the
foredeck was a busy place dealing with the pole and gybing the genoa as my
course was deep downwind and as wind strengthened to 32 knots I ran deeper and
deeper, almost dead downwind. At one point I was sailing above 12 knots steady
and surged to 13.5 on one occassion.
I took that as a signal to shorten sail.....
remembering my resolution to take the pedal off the gas occassionally to
preserve the boat. So I put in a reef in the genoa, put away the jib and as
wind and seas built shortened canvas further. However when boat speed
reached below 8 knots I couldn't stand the temptation any longer and started
building speed again gradually adding canvas. Through the night the sails
needed constant attention to squeeze optimum VMG. Oops I was not going to talk
about this kind of stuff was I?
Sleep was grabbed in short naps until this morning
when all was clear at first light and conditions and boat speed were very stable
so I treated myself to a "long lie" and slept for one hour straight from 0630 to
0730. As it is Sunday morning the long lie was followed by reading the newspaper
Wednesday's Financial Times - sad I know - and will be followed shortly by bacon
sanwiches and some "philosophy".
God. Here is an exchange I had with a friend
recently while I was at sea. I make no apologies for this it is very long and
involved so don't read it if you don't want to. But if you do clear your head
and take a little time...
Friend to Me:
Hi Folks
Hope you don't mind ... but a question that has to be answered .. does he or does he not? ...........
Bread Alone
In a powerful scenario played out in a hot, dry, and dusty wilderness, Jesus said in response to a temptation: “Man does not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4). Notice he did not say that man did not live on bread "at all," as some forms of mysticism and bodily denial might assert. He showed that man did live on bread partially, but not exclusively. In other words, we are both body and spirit, and there is a higher dimension to our existence. The New Atheists, and the old ones for that matter, would have us embrace what some have called "nothing buttery." We are nothing but our DNA; we are nothing but our social and biological inheritance; we are nothing but a random collocation of atoms, time, and chance. What is interesting in all this is that those who are saying such things use words. Indeed, they write long books, extensive articles, and scholarly tones to persuade us that we are nothing but "matter in motion." Is their use of words, their reliance on reason, their appeal to rationality, a backhanded tribute to Jesus's claim that there is something higher, more complex, and real that is indeed a major feature of what it is to be human? After all, if my delight in reading or my love of the ideas and impressions that arise from reading are mere chemical reactions with deterministic outcomes, mere responses and not real experiences, then I am left wondering if even my wondering is nothing more than a blind reaction to stimulus. I must confess: I don't buy it. If we look at the ancient Scriptures, we see an initial confrontation with several players. Adam and Eve are in an idyllic setting. God is present and in communion with them. Then the "tempter" appears and raises what will be a lasting question, one which has as much bearing on the twenty-first Century as it did when it was first stated: "Did God really say?" (Genesis 3:1). Now, whether we take this question in broad directions (Is there any God who actually speaks?) or in specific directions (Do I believe God is speaking to me now? What should I do in these circumstances? Can I expect insight from God for life?), the thought has vast consequences. Did God really say? If there is no God, if there is nothing but chance and necessity, then I must fling myself into existence with all the will and hope I can muster and simply allow the dice to land. If there is a God, however, then I not only have access to the author and creator of life, but I can meet and know a God who is called "The Good Shepherd" and reminds us that his name is Immanuel, "God with us." In this age of the saturated self, time and space are drowning in voices, noises, and insistent demands—all clamoring for our attention. We might feel at times as if we are suffocating or simply being squished by blind forces that have no consideration or compassion, and we wonder if we can survive. Did God really say? Did God say anything that could help? In a very powerful story told in Genesis 21:8-20, Hagar, who gave birth to Ishmael by Abraham, was sent away as a result of internal family strife and hostility. Abandoned with a young boy, wandering in a wasteland, she collapsed in hopeless despair. We surely feel her sense of utter desperation and loss. Yet into this bleak, dark, and hopeless scenario, God speaks. And his words are words of hope and words of life. Hagar hears what is being communicated and responds. Of course, it could all be false. It could all be a construct. It could all be nothing but wishful thinking. Perhaps it is all imagination or the work of religious deceivers across time who have created these moving stories to distract us. Perhaps man really does live by bread alone, and what we need to do is simply accept it and get on with life as it is. Or perhaps—perhaps—there is a God, and God is, as Francis Schaeffer said, there and not silent. The choice is real and it is unavoidable. Jesus offers a way and an alternative to the bleak vision of life bound by time, chance, and necessity: Humanity does not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. My Answer to Friend: Thanks for your thought provoking mail - but surely
you know the answer to the question yourself and don't me to provide you with an
answer?
Puzzled Friend to Me:
Thanks for your response. Interesting ‘take’ on it! I guess we all
have to make up our mind on what is essentially life’s greatest question.
Pascal, the famous French mathematician, philosopher and physicist ( and
probably the founder of the modern day computer) was troubled by this question
and his writings include his reasoning on what at one time was a great dilemma
for him. The basis of it is included below. Pascals wager The wager is described in Pensées
this way: If there is a God, He is
infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no
affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He
is.... ..."God is, or He is not." But to which
side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite
chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this
infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?
According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according
to reason, you can defend neither of the
propositions. Do not, then, reprove for error those who
have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for
having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads
and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The
true course is not to wager at all." Yes; but you must wager. It is not
optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you
must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose,
the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your
knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and
misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other,
since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your
happiness? 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. Wager, then, without hesitation that He
is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but
I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain
and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still
wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you
are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are
forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is
an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness.
And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would
be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would
act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three
at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there
were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But 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.[4] Pascal begins by painting a situation where
both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human
reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two
options, one must "wager" by weighing the possible consequences. When it comes
to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is
impossible because we are already "embarked", effectively living out the
choice. We only have two things to stake, our
"reason" and our "happiness". Pascal considers that if there is "equal
risk of loss and gain" (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to
address the question of whether God exists or not. That being the case, we then
human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting
happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God
exists and likewise in believing that God does not
exist. He points out that if a wager was between
the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then
a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three
lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply
unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the
possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists,
since "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing", meaning one
can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than
if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose,
you have either gained nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably
annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the
opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live
apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, "It is to the glory
of religion to have for enemies men so
unreasonable..." Analysis with
decision theory
The possibilities defined by Pascal's Wager
can be thought of as a decision under
uncertainty with the values of the following decision
matrix. (Pascal did not mention hell, nor did he address what the outcome would be of "God exists +
Living as if God does not exist," the prospect of infinite gain being sufficient
to make his point.)
Given these values, the option of living as
if God exists (B) dominates the option of living as if God does not exist (~B),
as long as one assumes a positive probability that God exists. In other words,
the expected value gained by choosing B is greater than or equal to that of
choosing ~B. In fact, according to decision theory, the
only value that matters in the above matrix is the +∞. Any matrix of the
following type (where f1, f2, and f3 are all
finite positive or negative numbers) results in (B) as being the only rational
decision.[9]
You see my answer to you may
have appeared very simple - perhaps even tongue in cheek - however the answer is
carefully considered at once straightforward while disguising a complexity.
When I say "surely you know the
answer yourself" am I playing games pretending that your question was asking me
for an answer to a question you need answered? Or does it imply that I thought
and hoped that you will have a full understanding and personal definition of God
which will be big and not narrow and therefor might be able to identify with or
accomodate my view without challenging it?
My answer in its simplicity you see
avoids being drawn into a debate about narrow definition which is the slippery
route to man made religion. Interpretation, reinterpretation, defining and
redefining of a given "religion" or denomination. Religion which all too
often, sadly grows ever narrower, fractious and confrontational.
You may know I am the member of no
organisation at all. Not one. It is unlikely I ever will be. I don't herd.
I see that religion helps many people to find faith who may not otherwise be
able to, so it serves a great purpose. Unfortunately it also serves a great ill
in the world as religious leaders embark on their own narrow minded
powerstruggle, often local, sometimes national and occasionally international.
Sometimes that manifests itself in breaking open a church door to take "control"
of it and sometimes it manifests itself in mass genocide. None are acceptable
though it appears inevitable by product of "religion".
Pascal's Wager
You should read the Life of Pi which
is I suppose a modern version of Pascal's Wager and extremly cleverly written.
Both make the play that one might as well believe in God as what better answer
is there?
Two points to make here:
I think if one weighs this into Pascals Wager - that if one is to
believe that the only understanding of "God" can be gained through one of
the worlds existing religions - then one can see the formula changes, as
there is a very real and significant potential loss on the downside. Pascal
however does not factor in "religion" to his wager (other than his reference
"It is to the glory of religion to
have for enemies men so unreasonable...")
Finally the assumption that in the
"God exists (G) God does not exist (- G)" that Disbelief means -1 (immoral
consquences) is fundamentally incorrect in my view. There are millions of people
in the world who have good morals and follow "good" lives ( I have met many
of them ) who may not believe the God of Pascals Wager or any "God" for that
matter exists, just as there are many who do believe that "God" exists and
who are religious that are patently bad people. In my experience
people are fundamentally good and have similar moral
standards regardless of their belief in whether "God" exists or
not.
Sorry you asked the question
yet?
Exhausted Friend to Me: Just received your email as I am settling into bed- many thanks. I will need time to consider your response - I am having a quiet chuckle to myself and will respond in due course! Who knows what I have let myself into? Tomorrow you may be happy for us to revert to Sailing Statistics perhaps? If not we can disect one chunk at a time of this monster blog! Now that we have that lot sorted out I can have my bacon sandwich....... |