Greetings Russell and Readers,
It is a beautiful morning and I’ve been blessed to see the sunrise once again. I’m a sunrise kind of guy. Sunsets are beautiful too, but I’d pick the morning light if constrained to choose.
I’d like to share a video that Russell shared with me. I share it because I largely agree. This is the work of an atheistic apologist in Texas explaining why Pascal’s wager is not a legitimate reason for faith. He’s right. I can not and will not base my belief on Pascal’s argument. In engaging my own metacognition I realized something. I’m less of an apologist and more of a missionary. Is that strange? A missionary to skeptics? I’ll try to share my thoughts over the months, perhaps years, as they develop. What is the relevance to the post below? I don’t feel the desire or stamina to deconstruct and argue with another line-by-line. There is nothing wrong with that approach, but I’ve realized that it will never be mine.
That makes conversations and correspondence with my friend Russell difficult sometimes, for he really seems to be a line-by-line type of guy – – perhaps a sunset kind of guy. When that happens to us we share a meal and the friendship and nonverbal communication more than bridges the gaps that our personalities and intellects construct. See you Tuesday morning Russell!
Okay – – to be honest – – I stop and gaze at a beautiful sunset. So, to pick one line to disagree with — the author states that it was a shame that Pascal stopped legitimate productivity after his second conversion experience. I’m still thinking about Pensees three and a half centuries later. I’m grateful for his contribution there even if it isn’t in the proto-STEM field.
But – – for the most part, he gets it right. Christians can and should do better than Pascal’s wager: