Re: `Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist'

James

This is my response to your comment under my post, "What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Design" and in particular to

[Above (click to enlarge): Diagram of my version of Pascal's Wager.]

the section:

"Pascal's Wager My simplified form of Pascal's Wager that I employed in debates with atheists is:

Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can absolutely prove that his position is true. Nevertheless the consequences for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and neither will know that the atheist was right. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or Jesus will return) and both will know that the Christian was right. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have gained nothing and the Christian would have lost nothing (I personally have had a great life since becoming a Christian in 1967). But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have lost everything and the Christian would have gained everything!"

----- Original Message -----
From: james roy
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:04 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on What I believe about Creation, Evolution and Desig....

>Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist.

No. Pascal was a genius, being a "mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. ... a child prodigy who ... was a mathematician of the first order":

"Blaise Pascal [1623-1662] ... was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He was a child prodigy who was educated by his father, a civil servant. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum .... Pascal also wrote in defense of the scientific method. Pascal was a mathematician of the first order. He helped create two major new areas of research. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen, and later corresponded with Pierre de Fermat on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science." ("Blaise Pascal," Wikipedia, 23 January 2010).

Indeed according to this site, Pascal is in the top 10 of all known geniuses, with an estimated IQ of 195:

"6. Blaise Pascal IQ: 195 Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, religious philosopher, and master of prose. He laid the foundation for the modern theory of probabilities, formulated what came to be known as Pascal's law of pressure, and propagated a religious doctrine that taught the experience of God through the heart rather than through reason. The establishment of his principle of intuitionism had an impact on such later philosophers as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Henri Bergson and also on the Existentialists." ("Top 10 Geniuses," Listverse, October 6, 2007)

And, as Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, of all the arguments for believing in the existence of God, Pascal thought his Wager was the strongest:

"Most philosophers think Pascal's Wager is the weakest of all arguments for believing in the existence of God. Pascal thought it was the strongest. After finishing the argument in his Pensees, he wrote, `This is conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it.' That is the only time Pascal ever wrote a sentence like that, for he was one of the most sceptical philosophers who ever wrote." (Kreeft, P., "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, P., "Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 1988.)

I myself debated my version of Pascal's Wager against atheists on creation/evolution/design Internet discussion groups open to all-comers between (1993-2005) and no atheist ever refuted my arguments. Here they are again, point-by-point (with updates):

1. Neither the atheist, nor the Christian, can absolutely prove that his position is true.

2. Nevertheless the consequences for either the atheist or the Christian being right (or wrong) is clear.

3. If atheism is true, then both the atheist and Christian will die and neither will know that the atheist was right.

4. On the other hand, if Christianity is true, then the atheist and Christian will die (or Jesus will return) and both will know that the Christian was right.

5. Moreover, if the atheist was right, he would have gained nothing and the Christian would have lost nothing.

6. But if the Christian was right, the atheist would have lost everything and the Christian would have gained everything!"

Each of the above 6 points of my Pascal's Wager argument are patently true, given historic Christian Biblical teaching, e.g. as set forth in major creeds like the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"SECTION II.-The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. [Matt. xxv. 31-40; Rom. ii. 5, 6; ix. 22, 23. Matt. xxv. 21; Acts iii. 19; 2 Thess. i. 7-10]" (Hodge, A.A., 1869, "The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding The Westminster Confession," Banner of Truth: Edinburgh, 1958, Reprinted, 1983, p.389. Emphasis original).

that if Christianity is true, then Christians ("the righteous") will "go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord" and non-Christians ("the wicked") will "be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord."

>Basically what it says is that if you believe in God, the worst you can expect is the same as the unbeliever, but the best you can expect is eternal life. However, if you don't believe in God, the best you can expect is nothing, but the worst you can expect is eternal damnation. So therefore it's safest to believe in God.

No. Between the atheist and the Christian it is not a case of "the worst you can expect " and "the best you can expect." If Christianity is true, then according to historic Biblical Christianity (see above), Christians will receive "eternal life" and "the unbeliever" will receive "eternal damnation."

Former atheist turned Christian Patrick Glynn confirms this: "If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing":

"Responding to the first generation of modern atheistic rationalists in the seventeenth century, the mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal offered an interesting `thought experiment' concerning religious belief. He conceived of the issue as a bet or wager. His reasoning was as follows: Revelation teaches that God rewards faithful believers with eternal happiness and that those who reject God suffer eternal torment after death. There is no way for reason, Pascal conceded to his contemporaries, to know whether revelation's claim is true. But we may consider our life as a wager (one that, in the nature of things, we can't avoid). If we bet against God, and revelation proves to be true, we will suffer eternal torment. If we bet for God, and revelation proves to have been an illusion, we lose nothing, for we shall cease to exist at death in any case." (Glynn, P., 1997, "God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World," Forum: Rocklin CA, pp.76-77).

>But how is it possible to believe in something based on its potential benefits?

We all do! We all make decisions every day based on the "potential benefits" of a thing or a course of action, weighed against its potential costs. And where the potential benefits are great and the costs low, e.g. "spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million" then "No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases." But "deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal", :

"Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new `miracle drug' that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend's life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money? And suppose it were free- wouldn't it be utterly reasonable to try it and unreasonable not to? Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do-to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true? Suppose a winning sweepstakes ticket is worth a million dollars, and there are only two tickets left. You know that one of them is the winning ticket, while the other is worth nothing, and you are allowed to buy only one of the two tickets, at random. Would it be a good investment to spend a dollar on the good chance of winning a million? No reasonable person can be or ever is in doubt in such cases. But deciding whether to believe in God is a case like these, argues Pascal. It is therefore the height of folly not to `bet' on God, even if you have no certainty, no proof, no guarantee that your bet will win. Atheism is a terrible bet. It gives you no chance of winning the prize." (Kreeft, P., "Argument from Pascal's Wager," in Kreeft, 1988).

>Belief comes out of an interpretation of evidence, and if it employs pro/con lists, those lists can only be used to establish the relative evidential merits of each possibility.

This misunderstands the background and specific purpose of Pascal's Wager, i.e. it accepts, for the sake of argument, the sceptics' attitude of his day that had lost "confidence in reason to prove God's existence" and so"The Wager appeals not to a high ideal ... but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy":

"To understand Pascal's Wager you have to understand the background of the argument. Pascal lived in a time of great scepticism. Medieval philosophy was dead, and medieval theology was being ignored or sneered at by the new intellectuals of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. Montaigne, the great sceptical essayist, was the most popular writer of the day. The classic arguments for the existence of God were no longer popularly believed. What could the Christian apologist say to the sceptical mind of this age? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the confidence in reason to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of the pit of unbelief into the light of belief? Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. The Wager appeals not to a high ideal, like faith, hope, love, or proof, but to a low one: the instinct for self-preservation, the desire to be happy and not unhappy. But on that low natural level, it has tremendous force. " (Kreeft, 1988).

That is, "Pascal prefaces his argument with" the sceptic's position that, "Either God is, or he is not. ... Reason cannot decide this question":

"Thus Pascal prefaces his argument with the words, `Let us now speak according to our natural lights.' Imagine you are playing a game for two prizes. You wager blue chips to win blue prizes and red chips to win red prizes. The blue chips are your mind, your reason, and the blue prize is the truth about God's existence. The red chips are your will, your desires, and the red prize is heavenly happiness. Everyone wants both prizes, truth and happiness. Now suppose there is no way of calculating how to play the blue chips. Suppose your reason cannot win you the truth. In that case, you can still calculate how to play the red chips. Believe in God not because your reason can prove with certainty that it is true that God exists but because your will seeks happiness, and God is your only chance of attaining happiness eternally. Pascal says, `Either God is, or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. [Remember that Pascal's Wager is an argument for sceptics.] Infinite chaos separates us. At the far end of this infinite distance [death] a coin is being spun that will come down heads [God] or tails [no God]. How will you wager?' (Kreeft, 1988).

Elsewhere in his Pensees Pascal gave good reasons for believing that Christianity is true:

"To bring some men to the point of faith, Pascal knew that it was necessary to remind them of the odds that are at stake. Hence his celebrated wager, Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp. 200 ff.] in which he challenges men to gamble their lives on the possibility that Christianity might be true. We cannot see God. We cannot prove the truth of the gospel to exclude every possible doubt. We can only find out the truth of Christianity by risking our whole lives on it. ... Sometimes Pascal's teaching is classified as voluntarism, the implication being that he sets greater store by the will than by the intellect. It is even represented as a kind of self-inflicted brain-washing, in which the will to believe is allowed to banish all intellectual considerations. But this is a caricature. It neglects to mention that the idea of the wager was addressed to the sporting men of the day, reminding them of a greater game played at infinitely greater odds. It does not take into account the fact that Pascal devoted a great deal of energy to rational argument. [Turnell, M., transl., "Pascal's Pensees," Harvill Press, London, 1962, pp.231ff, 281ff., 291]" (Brown, C. , 1969, "Philosophy and the Christian Faith," Tyndale Press: London, pp.59-60).

But the problem with atheists is that they are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God to whom they will have "to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil":

"OF THE LAST JUDGMENT. SECTION I.-God hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ, [Acts xvii. 31] to whom all power and judgment is given of tho Father, [John v. 22, 27] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, [1 Cor. vi. 3; Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil. [2 Cor. v. 10; Eccles. xii. 14; Rom. ii. 16; xiv. 10, 12; Matt. xii. 36, 37]" (Hodge, 1869, p.389. Emphasis original).

that what the atheists include in their their "pro/con lists," before they even get to the "interpretation of evidence," ensures that atheism always `wins'.

For example, the evidence is overwhelming that "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!" and bears the image of His crucified and resurrected body! But atheists just reject that possibility out of hand, and chose instead the best of the remaining atheistic alternatives. This has become such an ingrained habit of thought that atheists in my experience do this automatically without even being aware of the fallaciousness of their circular reasoning.

Your own "Pascal's Wager is a completely pointless argument, and is easily rebutted by any thinking atheist" is a typical example of how atheists are so prejudiced against the existence of the Christian God that they rule out in advance as "completely pointless" any evidence for His existence. Therefore what remains as evidence in the atheists' "pro/con lists" makes it a foregone conclusion that the atheists' "interpretation of [that] evidence" is that for them atheism is true.

>If anyone thinks that God will reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome', then they're playing God for a fool.

No. The Bible says that God will reward belief in Jesus with eternal life:

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

There are no stated pre-conditions of the reasons for that belief, i.e. fear of Hell, or desire of Heaven, or love of God, etc. And as Kreeft says above:

"If you believe in God only as a bet, it is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start."

Another Christian philosopher, Nicolas Rescher also makes the point that Pascal's Wager argument is only a first step:

"The Wager Argument as a First Step No doubt God must be expected to have a value framework akin to the human in this regard; at any rate, he, like us, would prefer to be loved for himself alone rather than for strictly prudential motives. Still, the journey toward disinterested love must make a start someplace. A human lover would certainly rather have that love reciprocated for his wealth or beaux yeux than not reciprocated at all. Wisely he recognizes that the love which begins in crass considerations of personal advantage, social conformity, or parental pressure may in time be purified by habit and the natural evolution of shared concerns into genuine communion and true affection." (Rescher, N., "Pascal's Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology," University of Notre Dame Press: Notre Dame IA, 1985, p.121. Emphasis original).

>And if God sees and hears all, there's a good chance he's smarter than that.

A God who "sees and hears all" would also be able to see into an atheists' heart and know what the real motive behind that atheist's high-sounding reasons why God (who the atheist doesn't believe exists) would not "reward a belief in him that is based on the 'best possible outcome'."

The bottom line is that you have wagered everything on what you consider to be "a good chance" that the Christian God doesn't exist. But " the atheist ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable ... death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. ... It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason":

"But that is not all that is lost for the atheist. One other aspect must be stated: if the atheist is wrong, there is no recovery of that which he has lost. This was precisely Pascal's wager: Should a man be in error in supposing the Christian religion to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake. But how irreparable is his loss, and how inescapable is his danger should he err in supposing it to be false. [Pascal, Pensees] ... Pascal ... had everything the Christian faith promised to him, including the climactic hope beyond the grave. Should, however, death be the end, he did not sense any loss, for contentment in life was still his. .... The atheist, on the other hand, having rejected God ... If, after death, he should find out that there is a God, his loss has been irreparable; for not only did contentment and peace elude him in this life, but death has opened the door to an ultimate and eternal lostness. All judgments bring with them a margin of error. But no judgment ought to carry with it the potential for so irretrievable a loss that every possible gain is unworthy of merit. The atheist makes precisely such a hazardous judgment. It is an all-or-nothing gamble of himself, thrust into the slot machine of life. It is a faith beyond the scope of reason. The atheist risks everything for the present and the future, on the basis of a belief that he is uncaused by any intelligent being. Man just happens to be here. He is willing to live and die in that belief-a very high price to pay for conjecture." (Zacharias, R.K., 1990, "A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Third printing, 1994, pp.165-166).

The fact is, as Pascal realised, it is not the lack of "reason" that prevents an atheist from becoming a Christian, but the atheist's "passions" supported by his atheistic lifestyle. Pascal's practical advice to the atheist is to not "Concentrate ... on .... proofs of God's existence but ... diminishing your passions." And one practical way to do that is for the atheist to change their atheistic lifestyle and start behaving "just as if they did believe":

"Because the whole argument moves on the practical rather than the theoretical level, it is fitting that Pascal next imagines the listener offering the practical objection that he just cannot bring himself to believe. Pascal then answers the objection with stunningly practical psychology, with the suggestion that the prospective convert `act into' his belief if he cannot yet `act out' of it. If you are unable to believe, it is because of your passions since reason impels you to believe and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence but by diminishing your passions. You want to find faith, and you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and you ask for the remedy: learn from those who were once bound like you and who now wager all they have... . They behaved just as if they did believe. .... living the Faith can be a way of getting the Faith... As Pascal says: `That will make you believe quite naturally and will make you more docile.' `But that is what I am afraid of.' `But why? What have you to lose?" (Kreeft, 1988)

For example an atheist could do what I, a former atheist, did 40+ years ago. Start going to church, make friends of Christian people, join in singing Christian hymns, listen to the Bible being preached. In short meet God half-way. The Bible promises that if you "Come near to God ... he will come near to you" (James 4:8)

Millions of Christians down through the ages (including me), have tried coming near to God and found that His promise is true that He will then come near to you. But if you are not willing to meet God halfway, then He will never meet you half-way. Then if Christianity is true (as Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks and The Shroud of Turin prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is) and you are still a non-Christian when you die, then you will find out, too late, that you bet your life on a losing `horse' and lost everything:

"Pascal states the argument this way: `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 avoid: error and wretchedness. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is one point cleared up. But your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist. If God does not exist, it does not matter how you wager, for there is nothing to win after death and nothing to lose after death. But if God does exist, your only chance of winning eternal happiness is to believe, and your only chance of losing it is to refuse to believe.' As Pascal says, `I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.' If you believe too much, you neither win nor lose eternal happiness. But if you believe too little, you risk losing everything.'" (Kreeft, 1988).

Your wager-your consequences.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!

Re: Baxter, Darwin, predestination, damnation, etc

Tom

I have just realised that I never answered your comment in May 2009 under my post,

[Right: "The Reformed Pastor" (1656) by Richard Baxter (1615-1691). See below]

"Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does he explain the transition from a more "primitive" blood-clotting system?" after promising to do so in a separate post. My apologies. I was reminded by someone else's comment on your comment. Although you probably have long since stopped checking, I will now answer your comment. Your words are in bold to distinguish them from mine.

----- Original Message -----
From: tom quick
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:56 AM
Subject: [CreationEvolutionDesign] New comment on Re: If Behe believes in common descent, how does h....

>I'm not a biologist. I'm a chemical engineer who reads Packer and Proust.

Presumably that is J.I. Packer (1926-), the evangelical Christian theologian, some of whose books I own and have read. I am unfamiliar with the works of Marcel Proust (1871-1922) so I won't comment on him.

>But a few months ago I saw the great joust on PBS over irreducible complexity in Pennsylvania.

Being an Australian, I did not see that program. I have taken a `sabbatical' from Creation/Evolution/Design, my interests having shifted over to my other blogs The Shroud of Turin and

[Above (click to enlarge): Negative of a negative and therefore positive photograph of the face of the Man on the Shroud of Turin: Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara: London, p.28:

"`Were those the lips that spoke the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Rich Fool?'; `Is this the Face that is to be my judge on the Last Day?'" (Wilson, I. , 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.189).]

Jesus is Jehovah! The Shroud of Turin indirectly defeats atheistic evolution (i.e. Darwinism) because the evidence is overwhelming that it is the burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His flogged, crowned with thorns, crucified, dead, buried and resurrected body! See my post, "The Shroud of Turin is the Burial Sheet of Jesus!"

>Judging from the minutiae under discussion, the discussion seemed less relevant compared to the superior attitudes shown by the so-called scientists.

This is a problem for Irreducible Complexity (IC). The average person (including even the average scientist) probably cannot understand "the minutiae" or is bored by it.

But the average person can understand that an arrogant attitude is probably a mask to cover an underlying insecurity about the correctness of one's position.

>So I took it upon myself to read a good bit of Dobzhansky and Darwin (Origin of the Species) in order tho try and learn what made these scientists so pontifically wise.

You don't mention what book(s) by Dobzhansky, i.e. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) the leading founder of the Neo-Darwinian Modern Synthesis you had read. I have many of Dobzhansky's books.

There is no doubt that Dobzhansky and Darwin were wise, and they certainly knew their biology. The problem was their naturalist (anti-supernaturalist) and therefore anti-Christian philosophy. If Christianity is true (which Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks and the Shroud of Turin (to mention only two of many other Christian lines of evidence) prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is, then Naturalism and Darwinism are false!

>... In the greater sense what does it matter? On the one hand, selection occurs. It's the basis of agriculture as we know it. But it's in the past, and there's nothing useful gained in debating it, that I can see. On the other hand, what makes Darwin worthy of such laud and honor?

Darwin is indeed "worthy of ... laud and honor" but only to the extent that he was a great scientist who discovered truth about the natural world that God put there in the first place.

But the operative word is "such laud and honor." Darwin is lauded and honoured by those with the same anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy that he had because they falsely think that Darwin confirmed there was no need for God in creation and therefore Christianity is irrelevant.

But Darwin assumed as a first principle of his theory that there was no Christian God who could or would intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent. Both he and his modern disciple Dawkins admitted, that if there was such a God who did intervene supernaturally in chains of common descent, then it "was not evolution at all":

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin, F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249. Emphasis original)

but a form of "divine creation":

"At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, 1986, pp.316-317. Emphasis original)

>Now for Packer. I'm in the middle of reading his PhD thesis on Baxter.

I assume you mean Packer's PhD thesis on Baxter which has been published in a book, Packer, J.I., "The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter," Paternoster, 2003. There is an online review of this book which I don't agree with, having read Packer's Introduction to Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," in which Packer is well aware of Baxter's faults.

>I often see Baxter seeking a unity - trying to reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination making God the author of evil), or trying to thread a line between Antinomianism and legalism. Controversial in his time, tremendously well educated, yet bound to overreach. A hundred years later what he did was forgotten in the details, but remembered in a holistic sense, and he became a touchstone for both Wesleyans and Unitarians.

Although I own Baxter's "The Reformed Pastor," I haven't read it (except now the Introduction by Packer). I am not really up on Baxter or his attempts to "reconcile the incongruities of Calvinism (such as double predestination ...)." But I am aware that Baxter was a 17th century Puritan who by pastoral visitation converted almost an entire town (Kiddderminster) to Christianity!

But I myself am a life-long Calvinist and I don't believe in "double predestination" i.e. God not only positively predestined some (the elect) to salvation (which I do accept) but also God positively predestined the rest (the reprobate) to damnation. I regard that position as hyper-Calvinism, even though it may well have been what "Calvinism" meant in Baxter's day (i.e. it was the majority position).

The Calvinist position which I hold (because I believe it is the Biblical one) is single predestination, i,e. God only positively predestined some (the elect) to salvation and so negatively passes over the rest (the reprobate) leaving them to the consequences of their sin, which is damnation.

This is the view Calvin held,as evident in that

[Left: John Calvin (1509-1564): Wendel, F., "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (1963)." ]

while he calls "predestination the eternal decree of God by which he ... ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation," he clarifies the latter as being that God "lets go of the others and leaves them":

"But Calvin gave forcible emphasis to the distinction between predestination and foreknowledge. `We say rightly that [God] foresees all things, even as he disposes of them; but it is confusing everything to say that God elects and rejects according to his foresight of this or that. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things have always been and eternally remain under his observation, so that nothing is either future or past to his knowledge: he sees and regards them in the truth, as though they were before his face. We say that this foreknowledge extends throughout the circuit of the world and over all his creatures. We call predestination the eternal decree of God by which he decided what he would do with each man. For he does not create them all in like condition, but ordains some to eternal life, the others to eternal damnation.' [Inst. III, 21, 5] The distinction was vital to him, for we find him frequently returning to it even in his sermons, in order to throw into relief the absolutely gratuitous nature of election. Election, like reprobation, is an entirely free act of the divine will. `If we ask why God takes pity on some, and why he lets go of the others and leaves them, there is no other answer but that it pleased him to do so.' [Sermon on Ephesians 1.3-4]" (Wendel, F., 1963, "Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought," [1950], Mairet, P., transl., Fontana: London, Reprinted, 1965, pp.272-273).

That is, God actively predestines the elect to salvation but passively passes over the non-elect or reprobate. God does not actively elect the reprobate to damnation. Note that if any of the reprobate wanted to be saved God would not reject them:

Rev 22:17. The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

Jn 6:37. All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.

This is confirmed by leading Reformed (Calvinist) systematic theologian, Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), that "Predestination includes two parts ... election and reprobation" with "Election" being . "the election of individuals unto salvation" and "Reprobation" being "God's eternal purpose to pass some men by":

"Predestination. Predestination is the plan or purpose of God respecting His moral creatures. It pertains to men, both good and bad, to angels and devils, and to Christ as the Mediator. Predestination includes two parts, namely, election and reprobation." (Berkhof, L., 1960, "A Summary of Christian Doctrine," Banner of Truth Trust: London, Third Impression, 1968, p.43)

"Election. The Bible speaks of election in more than one sense, as (1) the election of Israel as the Old Testament people of God, Deut. 4:37; 7:6-8; 10:15; Hos. 13:5; (2) the election of persons to some special office or service, Deut. 18:5; I Sam. 10:24; Ps. 78:70; and (3) the election of individuals unto salvation, Matt. 22:14; Rom. 11:5; Eph. 1:4. The last is the election to which we refer in this connection. It may be defined as God's eternal purpose to save some of the human race in and by Jesus Christ." (Berkhof, 1960, pp.43-44)

"Reprobation. The doctrine of election naturally implies that God did not intend to save all. If He purposed to save some, He naturally also purposed not to save others. This is also in harmony with the teachings of Scripture, Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:13, 17, 18, 21, 22; 11:7, 8; II Pet. 2:9; Jude 4. Reprobation may be defined as God's eternal purpose to pass some men by with the operation of His special grace, and to punish them for their sin. It really embodies a twofold purpose therefore: (1) to pass some by in the bestowal of saving grace; and (2) to punish them for their sins." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44).

The bottom line is that "all men have forfeited the blessings of God" by their sin and God does not "owe... man eternal salvation":

"Objection to Predestination It is sometimes said that the doctrine of predestination exposes God to the charge of injustice. But this is hardly correct. We could speak of injustice only if man had a claim on God, and God owed man eternal salvation. But the situation is entirely different if all men have forfeited the blessings of God, as they have. No one has the right to call God to account for electing some and rejecting others. He would have been perfectly just, if He had not saved any, Matt. 20:14, 15; Rom. 9:14, 15." (Berkhof, 1960, p.44. Emphasis original).

But as for damnation, since having read Clark H. Pinnock's "Conditional View" chapter in "Four Views of Hell," 1997), I am persuaded by the weight of Biblical evidence that Hell is not everlasting conscious punishment, i.e. "the experience of endless torment ... eternal punishing" but rather it is "a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed" and which finally, after each person receives no more and no less than the just punishment due for their sins, terminates in "annihilation":

"Nevertheless, the Bible does leave us a strong general impression in regard to the nature of hell-the impression of final, irreversible destruction, of closure with God. The language and imagery used by Scripture is so powerful in that direction that it is surprising that more theologians have not picked up on it before now. The Bible uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it; linking together images of fire and destruction suggests annihilation. One receives the impression that `eternal punishment' refers to a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment (i.e., eternal punishing). Although there are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the nature of hell, the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does not teach it. Contrary to the loud claims of the traditionalists, it is not a biblical doctrine. .... The Bible gives a strong impression to any honest reader that hell denotes final destruction, so the burden of proof rests with those who refuse to believe and accept this teaching." (Pinnock, C.H., "The Conditional View," in Crockett, W.V., ed., "Four Views on Hell," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, Reprinted, 1996, pp.144-145).

In "the Old Testament ... the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine":

"The Old Testament gives us a clear picture of the end of the wicked in terms of destruction and supplies the basic imagery of divine judgment for the New Testament to use. In Psalm 37, for example, we read that the wicked will fade like the grass and wither like the herb (v. 2), that they will be cut off and be no more (vv. 9-10), that they will perish and vanish like smoke (v. 20), and that they will be altogether destroyed (v. 38). One finds the same imagery in an oracle from the prophet Malachi: `Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,' says the LORD Almighty. `Not a root or a branch will be left to them' (Mal. 4:1-2). While it is true that the point of reference for these warnings in the Old Testament is this-worldly, the basic imagery overwhelmingly denotes destruction and perishing and sets the tone for the New Testament doctrine." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).

Also in "the New Testament ... Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction":

"Turning to the New Testament, Jesus' teaching about the eternal destiny of the wicked is bold in its warnings but modest when it comes to precise description. Refraining from creating a clear picture of hell, he did not dwell on the act of damnation or on the torments of the damned (unlike the Apocalypse of Peter). Jesus' words on the subject are poised to underline the importance of the decision that needs to be made here and now and not to deal in speculations about the exact nature of heaven and hell. He did not speak of hell in order to convey information about it as a place beyond present human experience and then use that data to press the decision the gospel calls for. At the same time, Jesus said many things that support the impression that the Old Testament gives of hell as final destruction. Our Lord spoke plainly of God's judgment as the annihilation of the wicked when he warned about God's ability to destroy body and soul in hell (Matt. 10:28). He was echoing the terms that John the Baptist had used when he pictured the wicked as dry wood about to be thrown into the fire and chaff about to be burned (Matt. 3:10, 12). Jesus warned that the wicked would be cast into hell (Matt. 5:30), like garbage thrown into gehenna-an allusion to the valley outside Jerusalem where sacrifices were once offered to Moloch (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6) and where garbage may have smoldered and burned in Jesus' day. The wicked would be burned up just like weeds thrown into the fire (Matt. 13:30, 42, 49-50). Thus the impression Jesus leaves us with is a strong one: The impenitent wicked can expect to be destroyed by the wrath of God." (Pinnock, 1992, p.145).

As did the "apostle Paul create... the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners":

"The apostle Paul creates the same impression when he wrote of the everlasting destruction that would come upon unrepentant sinners (2 Thess. 1:9). He warned that the wicked would reap corruption (Gal. 6:8) and stated that God would destroy the wicked (1 Cor. 3:17; Phil. 1:28); he spoke of their fate as a death that they deserved to die (Rom. 1:32), the wages of their sins (6:23). Concerning the wicked, the apostle stated plainly and concisely: `Their destiny is destruction' (Phil. 3:19). In all these verses, Paul made it clear that hell would mean termination." (Pinnock, 1992, p.146).

Likewise the apostle "Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' " and "throughout ... the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. ... final destruction":

"It is no different in any other New Testament book. Peter spoke of the `destruction of ungodly men' (2 Peter 3:7) and of false teachers who denied the Lord, thus bringing upon themselves `swift destruction' (2:1, 3). He said that they would be like the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that were burned to ashes (2:6), and that they would perish like the ancient world perished in the great Flood (3:6-7). The author of Hebrews likewise referred to the wicked who shrank back and would be destroyed (Heb. 10:39). Jude pointed to Sodom as an analogy to God's final judgment, being the city that underwent `the punishment of eternal fire' (Jude 7). Similarly, the apocalypse of John speaks both of a lake of fire that will consume the wicked and of the second death (Rev. 20:14-15). Throughout its pages, following the Old Testament lead, the New Testament employs images of death, perishing, destruction, and corruption to describe the end of the wicked. A fair person would have to conclude from such texts that the Bible can reasonably be read to teach the final destruction of the wicked. " (Pinnock, 1992, pp.146-147).

See also Pinnock, C.H., 2005, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," 11 May; and Fudge, E., 1984, "The Final End of the Wicked," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 27.3, September, pp.325-334 (PDF).

>I see similar overreaching with Darwinism, as well as that halo effect a century after. Darwin's Origin of Species collection of animal stories implies evolution in a macro sense.

This is another point about Darwin being "worthy of such laud and honor." Darwin's observations only helped establish one mechanism (the natural selection of chance variations) of micro-evolution, i.e. change at or within the species level. Darwin then (as Darwinists have continued to do), pursuant to his (their) anti-supernaturalist and therefore anti-Christian philosophy, extrapolated his limited observations to the whole of nature, past and present.

>This is what launched Jack London and Adolph Hitler, and it carries the poison of racism. Yet all this detail is forgotten, and Darwin has now become a friendly bust in the bourgeois "scientist's" library. He is given credit for scientific advances in genetics and biology which occurred in spite of him (Dobzhansky points out that he was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900, and is immortalized in the selection coefficient named for him).

Darwin has been largely superseded and even discarded as wrong in biology. But Darwin's value is as a token symbol, indeed a totem, in anti-supernaturalism's war against God and especially Christianity with its God who supernaturally intervenes in His creation.

But I would be interested in a reference to where "Dobzhansky points out that he [Darwin] was generally discarded as useful to science by 1900."

>So what hath Darwinism (aka Origin of Species) wrought? Death camps, gulags, modern racisms, World War 2, etc. - in short, a collection of nihilisms.

It has been so swept under the carpet that it is not realised that Darwin gave scientific support to not just racism but racial extermination, when he predicted that "A some future period .. the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world:"

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242)

In the above, Darwin, writing in 1871, especially singled out the "Australian" aborigine as lying between " the Caucasian" and "the gorilla" and so he provided scientific support for the then British Government's (there was no Australian government until 1910) policy of exterminating the Australian aborigines.

>While it is claimed now that Darwinism answers everything (and it goes without saying that those nihilisms should be ignored for the sake of polite conversation with the "scientists"), in reality it answers nothing.

When it is said, or implied, that "Darwinism answers everything" what is meant is that Naturalism, i.e. "nature is all there is" (Wikipedia), there is no supernatural, no God, and Christianity is false, is itself false. That is because :Christianity is true as proven by: 1) the resurrection of Jesus; 2) Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks (Dn 9:24) and 3) the Shroud of Turin, which all defeat all naturalistic explanations. .

I'm happier with what Christ has wrought: hospitals, an end to slavery, literacy and schools, etc. And always hope.

You could have added science itself, because as the non-Christians Alfred North Whitehead and Loren Eiseley admitted, "it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself".

"Although we may recognize the frailties of Christian dogma and deplore the unconscionable persecution of thought which is one of the less appetizing aspects of medieval history, we must also observe that in one of those strange permutations of which history yields occasional rare examples, it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself. Many things undoubtedly went into that amalgam: Greek logic and philosophy, the experimental methods of craftsmen in the arts as opposed to the aristocratic thinker-all these things have been debated. But perhaps the most curious element of them all is the factor dwelt upon by Whitehead-the sheer act of faith that the universe possessed order and could be interpreted by rational minds [Whitehead, A.N., "Science and the Modern World," Mentor, 1948, pp.4-15]. For, as Whitehead rightly observes, [Ibid., p.17] the philosophy of experimental science was not impressive. It began its discoveries and made use of its method in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a Creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation. The experimental method succeeded beyond men's wildest dreams but the faith that brought it into being owes something-to the Christian conception of the nature of God [Ibid., p. 14]. It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today-is sustained by that assumption." (Eiseley, L.C., 1958, "Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It," Anchor Books: Doubleday & Co: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1961, p.62).

:Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).
My other blogs: The Shroud of Turin & Jesus is Jehovah!