Anti-Anti Pascal's Wager

It's been a while.  We'll save the explanations and excuses for another time, however.

I was involved recently in a discussion on Facebook with a friend who is, for personal reasons, "taking a break from organized religion."  As part of that discussion, one individual felt the need to post this:
After the original status poster indicated that he did not ask for a debate on his status, I pulled out of the conversation, but noted that I saw problems with this approach and that it might make a "fun blog post."  So here is that blog post.

pwndleet Incorporated in Atheism: The Case Against God was "Smith's Wager," with which the author had closed a taped lecture and a later speech delivered in 1976 to the Society of Separationists. From the transcript of that speech:
As ...one final argument or satire on an argument, you may have heard of Pascal's wager at some point. Blaise Pascal was the famous French mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. He came up with this argument which consequently became quite famous, which went something as follows. Reason can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Weigh the odds. If the atheist is correct, we're going to die, nothing will happen, and nothing is lost. But if the Christian is correct, the nonbelievers are going to believe in Hell for eternity. So it seems like the practical odds would lie with Christianity. We would wager on Christianity because the practical odds are so important. If you wager on Christianity and there is no god, you don't lose anything.
The first obvious problem with this is it completely shoves aside the whole issue of intellectual integrity, as if you can just do a complete turn-about in your beliefs willy-nilly without suffering any psychological damage, which simply isn't possible. It would require such a gross miscarriage of intellectual integrity to do this kind of thing that it's inconceivable that someone with Pascal's kind of mind would even offer it.
But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager:
1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.
2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.
Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.
Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason on the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.
Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.
Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.
We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again.
[edit]See More

Firstly, let me say that I am not a huge fan of Pascal's wager as an apologetics tool.  I find it to be an interesting thought experiment, but really as far as arguments for God's existence go, it is rather weak.  It suggests that reason can not be used to defend God's existence or lack thereof.   I might suppose that Pascal was using this approach for folks who believe that to be true, but most other arguments for God's existence rely heavily on reason...if they didn't they wouldn't be very good arguments.  So perhaps this is a useful tool for someone who doubts that belief or disbelief in God is reasonable...but overall it would seem that, at least with regard to Catholic theology and Atheism, arguing God's existence is all about reason.

We should bear in mind that we are talking about God's very existence now, not necessarily his nature.  Some aspects of God's nature can be determined from reason (omnipotence, for instance) while others certainly can not (existence as a Trinity, for instance) and require revelation.

So I'd like to step through Smith's wager and poke a few holes in it then see if it still floats.

But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager:

1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.

2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.

I hold that the premises are flawed. 

Regarding the first, that the existence of "a god" can only be established through reason.  Most Catholic and many protestant theologians would say that God's existence can be established through reason.  Indeed, even St. Paul points out in his letter to the Romans (Chapter 1, verse 19-20) "Whatever can be known about God is clear to them: he himself made it so. Since the creation of the world, invisible realities, God's eternal power and divinity, have become visible, recognized through the things he has made."  The only problem with this premise is the word "only."  There are other ways in which the existence of God can be established...namely revelation.  But for the purposes of this argument I'm willing to concede the first premise.

The second is very problematic.  Now, I haven't read Smith's book, and so perhaps he actually makes this argument and makes it using some form of logic therein.  But to suggest that it be taken at face value that "we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people" is a bit presumptuous.  As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me just how many atheistic philosophers are so quick to dismiss believers as irrational people.  Some folks are just so impressed with themselves that anyone who holds a contrary viewpoint must be either stupid or irrational.  <sigh>  With this in mind, let us approach the wager Smith lays out.

Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him.

Here Smith shows his lack of understanding of the Christian God, or at least a very immature understanding.  He presents a view of the God of Christianity as the "angry old man in the clouds."  I remember being about six years old and finding this concept of God equally contemptible and highly unlikely.  That's part of why I remained an atheist for much of my youth - God was explained to me in these terms by my contemporaries, who were also six years old.  It made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now.

But this is a very narrow and terribly inaccurate view of God as understood by Christians (or at least Catholics).  See, we don't believe in a God who just up and punishes us simply for disbelieving in Him.  We believe in a God who loves us so much that He allows us to reject Him using the gift of free will.  We believe in a God who allows us to make choices and does not force his will on us.  As such, if in our choices on Earth we willfully reject him, He allows those choices to stand once we've left this Earth.  That is, we believe that it is not God who sends us to Hell, but we who send ourselves there.  Hell is eternal separation from God.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

And God does not hold us accountable for that which we have no control over.  If our upbringing makes us resistant to His grace, God takes that into account.  Because He knows our hearts better than we do...he made us and knows how we work and what our motivations are...more on this in a moment...

Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.

There are arguments against both of these possibilities, but since they aren't critical to dealing with this particular case we'll leave those for another time.

Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason on the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.

Here is where we get into the real meat.  This is actually the closest Smith comes to truly describing the God I believe in.  A personal God, who is just.  One who does not punish an honest error of belief.  Indeed, what does Jesus say in John Chapter 22?  "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin."  God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know through no fault of our own!  Indeed He is just. 

But this is not a free pass, as Smith seems to assert.  To carry his analogy further, while a father praises the accomplishments of his son, despite the errors committed, a good father does not praise the errors themselves.  Errors are to be corrected and learned from.  A good father might encourage his son when an error has been made ("good try, try again!") but would never tell his son to repeat that error (unless that father held the belief that the error was not an error).  And certainly, if a child made the same error over and over again, the good father would work to correct that error, using just punishments when necessary.  Indeed, a child may fear his father, especially when he knows he has done wrong and has done so willfully.

All analogies limp.  We can call God Father because that is an image that gives us the best concept of Him this side of heaven.  It is human language that serves a purpose.  When we view God as a Father figure, we must understand that he has none of the faults of our earthly fathers and that the virtues are infinitely greater.  He deals with us with wisdom beyond our understanding. 

So, does God praise the atheist's "conscientious and scrupulous use of reason" when it is used to deny His very existence?  Possibly.  If indeed that individual's understanding is the closest to the truth that he could get with the tools given to him, it is possible that God would find no fault with him and admit him to paradise.  Certainly He could reveal himself to that person at the moment of his death and allow him to make a choice for or against him. 

But we must be careful.  If we agree with Smith's proposition that God "gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world," then it is fair to say that God expects us to make use of that gift and actively seek truth.  Looking back, I can honestly say that when I was an atheist, much of my resistance to arguments for God's existence had to do with the fact that belief in God would be inconvenient for me.  That is, for a time I refused to intellectually engage the arguments for God because I was afraid that doing so would convince me, and I would have to change the way I lived.  And, for a time, even after I had engaged some of the arguments, I obstinately refused to acknowledge their efficacy, again because I did not want to admit that there was something more important than myself in the universe.  In other words, I was not being intellectually honest.  I understand this very well, and that is why it doesn't surprise me that atheistic thinkers like Dawkins and Hitchens tend to be so caustic and condescending in their writing.  Let's face it - sometimes truth is terribly inconvenient.  But God, like any good father, desires that we will fully use the faculties He has given us.

So on the one hand, I will concede that God will not punish us for an honest error of belief.  However, if our error of belief is borne from dishonesty with ourselves or a simple failure to pursue the truth out of fear or laziness, I don't think we can count ourselves as particularly secure.

Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.

What Smith describes here is certainly not the God of Christianity.  I can only imagine a handful of Christian sects who would even partially embrace this definition.  Here Smith completely departs from a semi-logical argument and sets up a straw-man which he handily knocks down.  It detracts from his entire train of reason and betrays his own concept of what he seems to think the Christian God is, fully exposing his lack of understanding. 

Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.

With all of these problems in the argument, the conclusion is not very convincing.  None of his possible outcomes accurately characterize the God most Christians believe in.  Certainly he does not address the Catholic point of view.  His assertion that the only reasonable stance is atheism is broken. 

We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again.

[edit]

I would argue that Christianity, particularly Catholicism, must also be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth.  If truth exists, and can be sought, I think we would all, atheist and theist alike agree that we should use our reason to do so.  But no matter where we are in our search for that truth, we must be careful not to deceive ourselves for the sake of convenience.  We must be fully honest when applying our intellect, and that is easier said than done.  One doesn't need to go far in scientific research history to see that numbers are often fudged and false positives created in hopes of gaining financial success or notoriety.  Humans are a deceptive lot, and we are better at deceiving no one than we are at deceiving ourselves.

As always I welcome thoughts and discussion from all sides, as long as it is kept civil :)

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 39

Exodus 12

God outlines how the Passover is to be observed in order to preserve the firstborn of the Israelites from death.  I find it interesting that this final plaque comes with very detailed instructions, while the others came with few, if any, instructions, for preventing loss among the Jews.  But it is certainly fitting...this is the plague to end all plagues, to be sure, and serves not only to finally convince Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go, but also to set the stage for the messiah God promised back in Genesis.  This sweeping death calls to mind the effects of sin on the lives of all, but those who eat the passover meal (which prefigures the Eucharist) have a means to escape the wages of that sin...to have death pass over them and share in a new freedom from bondage.  Christ's sacrifice is so beautiful a fulfillment of the passover...truly this is the work of a divine author...

I am also struck by the Israelites' willingness to follow Moses' instructions...especially when we know that in a few short chapters they will become disobedient and unruly.  Again, this speaks to us...we are so willing to listen and obey one day, and then we fall and break God's command the next.  Fortunately His mercy and salvation are never far off.

Psalm 38

This psalm underscores how even the "righteous" who follow God are fallen and in need of His salvation.  We all fall short, but those who are humble enough to acknowledge it before God can overcome sin with the help of His Grace.  Hence "I confess my iniquity, I am sorry for my sin."  With Advent approaching, it is a good time to start thinking about reconciling with God as we prepare the way for the Lord in our hearts.

Matthew 21: 23-46

No sooner does Jesus enter Jerusalem triumphantly than the trouble starts.  Those in power are threatened by Him, and fear the loss of their position of power and stature.  Of course, when they try and question Him, he expertly turns it back on them, and then explains in two parables that make it painfully clear to them that He opposes them in what they are doing.  He also begins to unspool God's plan to bring all of humanity into the fold, no longer limiting His salvation to Israel.

Catechism 309-314

We get a brief treatment to the problem of evil here, summing up in a few brief paragraphs years of development in theology.  Anyone who has ever asked "Where was God when..." or "How can a good God let ...happen?" should start with this series of paragraphs.  One of the things that makes God...God...is that He can bring good out of evil.  He is not the cause of the evil, but he permits it, sometimes mysteriously, and sometimes not so mysteriously, so that greater good may be brought from this by-product of the free will He has bestowed upon his children. 

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 13-14
Psalm 39
Matthew 22:1-22
Catechism 315-324

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 38

Exodus 10-11

Locusts and darkness fall upon Egypt, and Pharaoh tries to do some hard bargaining, but ultimately has his proposals shot down by Moses and Aaron...oh, and God.  Pharaoh predictably goes back on his word even when he promises to release the Israelites from bondage.

Then the Lord reveals the final plaque to Moses...the death of all the first born of Egypt, both man and beast. 

We've heard this story before, and in the next chapter we'll see it play out.  But we keep in mind how all of this relates to Christ, and how it prepares God's chosen people to one day receive the Lamb of God.

Psalm 37

This is a great psalm to come back to.  Again we are comparing the wicked to the righteous, and what the Lord has in store for both.  Though the Psalmist makes a very clear demarcation between the two, we know that in our lives we often play both parts...we are sinful and sometimes wicked, and in need of repentance. 

I am drawn to verses 27 and 28:  Depart from evil, and do good;  so shall you abide for ever.  For the Lord loves justice; he will not forsake his saints.

So even the psalmist recognizes that we need to "depart from evil, and do good."  We would do well to heed his instruction.

Matthew 21:1-22

Jesus enters Jerusalem triumphant, as was fortold (as Matthew astutely points out).  He is recognized as the messiah, the Son of David, by the people.  The same people who will soon deny him.

Jesus then cleanses the temple of the money changers and sellers of pigeons, accusing them of making the temple a "den of robbers."  I wonder how often we do the same with our petty squabbles and politics which sometimes make life in any church ministry unpalateable. 

Jesus heals the blind and the lame, and then children begin to cry out "Hosanna to the son of David!"  So "out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast brought perfect praise.  Considering that my youngest is presently very challenging in church, this is somewhat comforting.

We then find Jesus having an altercation with...a fig tree?  The fig tree loses, and Jesus uses it to teach a lesson on faith.  Certainly it is a warning to us as to what can happen to us if we do not bear fruit for Him.  We, too, can wither in our spiritual life and find ourselves unable to do anything good.

And, if we have faith in Christ, then certainly we CAN do all things.

Catechism 302-308

God has a plan, and this plan is both a grand scheme which works for the good of all creation, as well as an individual scheme, which applies to each of us.  I had a discussion with an aquaintance on a recent business trip where we discussed our tendancy not to worry about our day to day needs.  I identified myself as a man of faith, and she identified herself as a woman of no faith.  But even so, she had come to realize that her base needs are always met, even when she is unsure of how that will come to be.  It goes to show that some of God's truths transcend faith and can be grasped by anyone who has lived in this world long enough to see "how things work."

God uses our cooperation, given in free will, to unfold his plan in history.  This is awesome when we think about it.  We can cooperate with God in our intelligence and will to do his work in his vineyard.  We are most free when we are able to choose the good.  Ironically, we are most captive when we find ourselves choosing things contrary to the good.  We think we are free in that case, but we really aren't.  After all, if we cut ourselves off from God, there is very little we can do.

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 12
Psalm 38
Matthew 21: 23-46
Catechism 309-314

Another Catholic Dude experiences single fatherhood...

You may be wondering where I went.  Perhaps you assumed I ran out of steam with my Bible and Catechism in a year quest.  Maybe you thought I was another one of those bloggers who goes strong for a month and then falls off the face of the earth.  Or maybe you didn't even notice I'd gone.  It's ok, whatever it was, I forgive you.

For the record, I was off blog for three reasons.

Firstly, during the time I usually use to blog, I was trying to get ahead of my work a little bit in anticipation of taking some time off from work, and by evening I was assisting my beautiful wife with the creation of some Halloween costumes for our children.

Secondly, that beautiful wife of mine was on a business trip out of the country for 8 days.

Thirdly, after she returned (and I returned to work), the time I usually use to blog was used to catch up on work.  Hence, one full month away from the blogosphere...

"Wait a minute!" you ask.  "Isn't your wife a stay at home mom?" 

Yes.  Yes she is.  And for those of you who know what stay-at-home moms do, you know she has a very demanding job.  I've always known that her job was just as demanding, if not more, than mine.  And so, when she expressed some frustration one day over the frequency of business trips I had to take, and how doing so enabled me to get a break from the kids for a period of time, I suggested that she use some of my frequent flyer miles to take a business trip of her own. 

So, after a good deal of planning, preperation, and some anxiety on all fronts, a car arrived in front of our house at 4:45 AM on a Monday morning to take her to the airport.  The well rehearsed roles were reversed...I was watching her drive away into the darkness and facing a week at home with the kids without my helpmeet while she was heading into the unknown and starting to miss her family by the time she got to the airport.

I had no delusions as to the difficulty of the task I had undertaken.  I had reviewed the kids' schedules multiple times, put together a "to do" list (which included construction of my eldest child's Halloween costume), and even planned a tentative menu for the week.  I was really looking forward to having extra time with the kids, but I knew that this was going to be a busy and tiring week.  I was pretty sure I was prepared for it.

Or was I?

Well, despite the fact that I knew what I was getting into, I still learned a few things.  But this isn't a parenting blog, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail there.  Overall it was a very positive experience and it gave me an even deeper appreciation for what my wife does on a daily basis, especially when I have to travel for work (which I have to do twice this month...)

I look back on the entire experience now and see moments of triumph (finishing the epic costume on time, not missing any of the kids' activities, successfully navigating Halloween, getting my daughter's room completely cleaned, cooking meals most nights, etc.) as well as failures (Losing my temper and acting more like a child than my children on two occasions, not getting everything on my to do list done, not catching up on my blog, not getting adequete sleep, etc.).  But one thing that really sticks out in my post mordem is not finding the time to pray outside of mealtime and just before bed. 

Going into the week, I had planned to gather the kids and pray together every night.  It never happened, though, because I was so focused on the tasks I wanted to complete while I was home from work.  The kids got their homework done, and I got them to their activities to be sure, but once everything was done and we turned to the ritual of getting them to bed, I completely forgot about my resolution and simply looked forward to getting them into bed and out of the way so I could work on MY projects. 

How often do we do this as Christians?  How often do we let our own ambitions come between us and time with our Savior?  I imagine it happens a lot.  It was happening in my life before my wife's trip, and continued to happen after she returned.  But looking back on it now shines a spotlight on it and makes me think more deeply about it. We NEED to set aside time with Jesus outside of Sunday Mass and prayer before meals.  To paraphrase Archbishop Fulton Sheen:  "If you don't have time to spend half an hour in adoration each day, you need to spend an hour..."

Still, it's much easier said than done.  How do I bring family prayer into my house and make it meaningful for everyone?  With a nearly 23 month old hellion running about?  All things are possible in Christ...I'll be looking to Him to guide me...

Now it's time to get back to the scriptures.

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 37

A few days behind...but I'm going to catch up.  I've decided not to do the two-fers anymore, though, but to post each day separately.

Exodus 9:

More plagues...plague, boils, and fiery hail rain down. 

Still, Pharaoh's heart is hardened.  As I read this passage, it reaffirms what I wrote on day 36, because it says that Pharaoh "sinned yet again," which implies a choice.  Pharaoh's free will is intact.  He could, in fact, have chosen to let Moses and the Israelites go at any time, but did not.  Now God could have given Pharaoh graces to make him more likely to choose the good of releasing the slaves, but ultimately Pharaoh has already rejected the grace of God, and so his heart is hardened and he chooses to do as he wishes.

I find not a little humor in the fact that the "magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils."  Scripture makes a point of putting the magicians out here, as if to say "look what happens when you try to be like God..."

Also I think that the Lord's short discourse on why He doesn't just wipe out the Egyptians entirely is revealing.

Psalm 36:

A study of contrast here, the first part dealing with the wicked and the second part dealing with God's treatment of those who follow Him.  What I really like here is the second to last verse, though, where the psalmist asks God to "Let not the foot of arrogance come upon me, nor the hand of the wicked drive me away."  In his humility, he recognizes that He needs God to keep from being like the folks in the first part of the psalm.

Matthew 20:17-34

Here, Jesus tells the twelve what is going to happen to him.  They don't appear to protest this time around, so perhaps they have become used to hearing it, even though they clearly don't understand it.

They we get the mother of the sons of Zebedee asking that her son's be at Jesus' right and left hand in His kingdom.  It is pretty clear that dear old mom is still thinking along the lines of an earthly kingdom, so it is a shock when Jesus indicates that it is not His place to grant this request.  Jesus then goes on to speak about servitude, and of the importance of being humble.  Very similar to the "first shall be last," this proclaims that the Son of man came to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

This chapter ends with the healing of two blind men.  They are persistent and continue to call after Jesus even when they are told to quiet down by "the crowd."  How often are we told to quiet down by "the crowd?"  Sometimes following Jesus means being unpopular.

Catechism 295-301

More on creation - God creates by wisdom and love, out of nothing, an ordered and good world.  As Catholics, we believe that the material world is a good thing, and often the Church has had to defend and put down as heresy teachings which said that matter is evil.  It is through matter that we experience the world, and our God himself took on matter to come to us in the incarnation.  Some time ago, I subscribed to the belief that matter was, at best neutral, following the Yoda-ism "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."  But I've come to see that we indeed are matter just as much as we are spirit, and that matter is anything but crude. 

So God upholds and sustains His creation.  Has our world fallen?  Certainly.  But, to grab another star-wars-ism:  There is still good in it.  God does not abandon his creation...quite the opposite...He loves it.

"Tomorrow's" readings:

Exodus 10-11
Psalm 37
Matthew 21:1-22
Catechism 302-308

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 36

Exodus 7-8

Here come the plagues...blood, frogs, gnats, and flies in these two chapters...

Two things jump out at me.  (No, not the frogs...)

The first is the hardening of Pharaoh's heart.  Often folks ask how an all good God could harden Pharaoh's heart, apparently just so he could make him suffer?  Is God robbing Pharaoh of his free will?

Remember that we need to look at the whole of scripture, especially when we try and figure the mind of God.  We know that God is all good and does not do evil, and we know that free will is a gift we have.  To take one's free will is indeed an evil, so God would not do this.  But we do know that God allows evil, since it is a byproduct of our free will, though he often (and some might argue always) uses that evil to bring about a greater good. 

It follows, therefore, that God does not take Pharaoh's free will.  But if that is the case, how do we make sense of this?

We need to remember that to do the will of God, in our concupiscence, requires God's grace, which he freely gives us.  God's grace is a gift...and gifts can be refused.

Have you ever refused a gift?  I was in a situation once at work where I was offered a gift of substantial value by a client.  Accepting the gift would have been a breech of our code of ethics, so I was forced to graciously decline it.  Even after I declined it, though, the would-be giver offered it to me again.  I had to decline it again, and ultimately a third time.  But after the third time my client relented, and ceased offering me this gift.

God, likewise, in respect of the free will he gave us, will stop offering us His gifts if we refuse him constantly and make it clear that we don't want them.  This would seem to be the case with the Pharaoh, who declares at one point "I do not know the Lord..." and in so doing so intimates that he does not wish to know the Lord.  So perhaps it is that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart by God is a withdrawal of God's offer of grace.  Certainly, Pharaoh acts in a very deceptive way moving forward. 

The second item which I find curious is the "secret arts" of the Pharaoh's wise men or magicians.  Are their replications of the miracles and plagues mere prestidigitation, or are they more sinister in nature?  It is hard to say from the scripture...but I guess in the end it isn't important.  We know what is from God and what is not.  We also know that after the gnats, the Pharaoh's wise men couldn't keep up with God's works.

Psalm 35

This psalm is a plea to God to bring down one's foes.  It's a pity party of sorts, but it is punctuated with heartfelt moments of praise between the call to God to smite those who grieve the psalmist.

Matthew 20:1-16

We ended chapter 19 on a "first will be last, and the last first," and now Jesus goes on to explain himself with (wait for it...) a parable.

So often we are jealous of others for what they receive as a benefit of generosity.  We feel vindicated in doing so, because "They didn't earn that" or "They didn't deserve that, but got it anyway."  Rather than be happy for those who benefit, we try and tear them down.  The laborers hired early in the day here do just this, but the master explains that he is free to do with his money what he will, and if he wishes to pay those who came late the same as he agreed to pay those who came early as a sign of his generosity, he is free to do so.  It all comes down to the agreement...if the terms of the agreement are met or exceeded, then what complaint is there to levy?

It seems to tie back to the reading from Exodus.  God is free to do with his grace as he wills.  He gives us each at least enough to hear him...but he can choose to give abundance or not as he wills and as he sees fit.  I, for one, think he's probably got a better idea of where it is needed at any given moment in history than I do.

This time we end with a "last will be first, and the first last."

Catechism 290-294

The world exists for God's glory.  That's pretty simple, and yet terribly profound.  The work of the Trinity is to create, and yet He doesn't create out of necessity, but out of desire.  It is in His nature to create, to be "creative," since he is pure being, his "words" manifest in an existence all their own, yet completely dependent upon Him.  Existence of the universe does not increase God's glory, but proclaims it with every covalent bond that forms or electron that flows.  From the tiny quark to the vast milky way, the glory of God rings out just as strong, for it was an infinite God that created all of this ex-nihlo.

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 9
Psalm 36
Matthew 20:17-34
Catechism 295-301

Bible and Catechism in a Year: Day 35

Exodus 5-6

The well known story of Moses continues as Moses goes to Pharaoh, but Pharaoh simply makes things worse for the Israelites by forcing them to gather their own straw for the bricks they were responsible for making.  I wonder if there is a special symbolism to the straw...

In any case, Moses goes back to God to ask him "What's up with that?", and God reiterates that he will deliver His people, and give them the land promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

"I will take you for my people, and I will be your God..."

Today, this applies to us all.

Psalm 34

I became aware as I read this psalm that I actually am familiar with more psalms than I thought I would be just from their use in the Catholic liturgy.  Yes, they are often only parts and sometimes in the past they have been greatly paraphrased, but much of the content is there.  In this Psalm there is a lot of wonderful language about the Lord hearing the cry of the poor and answering the seeking of David.  He is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.  There is also instruction for us:  Keep your thougt from evil, and your lips from speaking deceit.

There is also a beautiful ambiguity, though I am unsure if it is due to translational issues:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous; but the Lord delivers him out of them all.  He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken.

It is unclear if it is the Lord who keeps all his bones with not a one being broken, or the righteous.  But if it is speaking of the Lord, that is, God, this is a lovely foretelling of the crucifixion (wherein none of Christ's bones were broken) as well as the resurrection and ascension (for he keeps all of his bones, as he keeps his body for eternity).  Even if it refers only to the righteous, it still applies, for we, too, shall share in the resurrection.  It is a beautiful bit hidden in the old and revealed in the new...

Matthew 19:16-30

I've never realized before just how jam-packed Matthew is...but I'm starting to see it now.

Here we have a well-to-do individual asking Jesus what he must do to have eternal life.  Jesus shocks him by suggesting that there is more to it than just keeping the commandments, and gives him a radical command to sell all he has, give to the poor, and follow Him.  When this individual goes away sad, Jesus turns it into a teaching moment, but clarifies when his analogy breaks down.  He also praises the disciples sacrifices (and, by extension, ours), saying that what we leave will be repaid a hundredfold in our eternal life with God.  It is important to note, with all due charity to my protestant brethren, that when asked what one must do to have eternal life, Jesus does not say "Accept me as your personal Lord and savior, and believe."  Rather, he requires action.  Of course, we understand that our actions are faith, in a way, in that they are a response to God's action.  The action itself, independent of the impetus (grace) given by God does not save.  But we can resist the grace God gives us.  This is why we ascribe our salvation to Faith working through Love. 

Catechism 282-289

There is some profound stuff on creation here, and man's fundamental questions which lead us to search for God, and how many different peoples have attempted to answer those questions.  It is reiterated that our intellect is capable of knowing of God's existence through his works.  But a response to Him requires more than just the intellect, but the engagement of the will as well.

We are taken back to Genesis and the first three chapters.  We don't have to view these chapters as being literal in a historical sense, but we need to look at what the author is trying to tell us...it isn't supposed to be a science lesson, after all, but a lesson regarding "the truths of creation - its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation."

Atheistic materialists like to attack Genesis by pointing to scientific evidence that appears to contradict, say, the age of the earth, or the existence of animals which went extinct prior to man's appearance, or the lack of an earthly 'Garden of Eden.'  But when we understand these texts in their literary context as well as their purpose, we see that there is no contradiction or conflict between them and what science tells us about creation. 

Tomorrow's readings:

Exodus 7-8
Psalm 35
Matthew 20:1-16
Catechism 290-294