Pascal and Deconstruction

 

Order.—Men despise religion; they hate it and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true. --Blaise Pascal, Pensees 187

This I read as an outline for Pascal's apologetic endeavor. 

 "I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?" Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?"

True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. "But this is what I am afraid of." And why? What have you to lose? --ibid., 233 in part.

This is the conclusion to Pascal's Wager: not "therefore, believe" but "therefore, 'endeavour...to convince yourself'."

What has this got to do with deconstruction or a liminal Christianity? A great deal! First of all, Pascal admits what the deconstructing Christian feels: that Christianity needs to be shown to be venerable before we can hope to see proof of it. Second, he admits that we cannot directly will belief in what we are not convinced of, yet he asks us to consider more than mere rational proof. Again, the deconstructing Christian may have come to deconstruct, not through rational proof, but through the heart's reasons--being hated by those who claim the name "christian" or seeing such people hate their siblings.

Pascal's epistemology is deeply in-line with a deconstructive Christianity which seeks to legitimate the heart's reasons and understand how our human needs are met or thwarted in the Gospel.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Way, The Truth, and The Life

 The pursuit of truth is good, but what is it? For a Christian, one criterion for an adequate notion of truth would be that it sheds light on what Jesus meant by calling himself "the truth." A correspondence theory of truth, so far as I can see, fails this criterion. If you disagree, take it as a challenge: how is Jesus the ultimate correspondence with reality? On the other hand, on a pragmatist notion of truth, Jesus being the truth is much like his being the way: he is the one who makes possible adequate navigation through life, especially as regards its ultimate problems. On a pragmatist account, what we call truth is provisional: it is a manner of articulating reality which has enabled us to make our way through life the best. For a Christian, Christ is the truth because he is the center of how we navigate reality. This is quite similar to Lewis's comment about knowing the Son is risen as he knows the Sun is risen: by seeing all things through the light that brings. T...
Read more

Against Complementarianism

The conversation about complementarianism, egalitarianism, and women in the church has been revived lately, in no small part due to historical and sociological reflection. As a debate, I think, there are at least 3 dimensions to consider--all overlapping. There is the recently highlighted historical/sociological one about what the tradition, in fact, is, and how different views have actually played out in Church history. There is--the conclusive and most important one--the biblical interpretive dimension about what the Bible actually says. There is also what we might call the systematic theological or the philosophical dimension of how all our views hang together around our views of women in the church. On the conclusive matter of Biblical Interpretation I will refer you to William Witt’s Icons of Christ . I will also note that these other two dimensions help us to read well and correctly, and help to highlight red flags and enable us to ask better questions. On history, I will refer ...
Read more

What is the Gospel?

In the last post, I raised eyebrows at 9 Marks's presentation of the Gospel. I didn't go into it too far, but I did say that the Fall is not a part of the Gospel, and that Jesus died to save us from our sins is basically it. There is more to be said here. Insofar as many who identify as "deconstructing" are struggling with this, I figure my view on things is unlikely to hurt and might even help. So, first, how do we know what the Gospel is? Well, the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? I don't want to get bogged down in the details of epistemology here, but let's start with what I take the Gospel to be. Good News The name about sums it up, in a lot of ways: The Gospel is the  good news or Good News full stop. It is good news par excellence , the best possible news. If you hear it, and that is not how it strikes you, then you have not actually heard it. Either they said "another gospel" or you misheard--and, these days, I'd predict the former...
Read more