We all make decisions daily about how to invest our time, talent, and treasure (T3). But beyond the daily investment decisions of life, each person makes a bet in life—a bet that puts at risk one’s eternal state. The bet is simply the answer to the question, who is God? Everyone answers the question, either wittingly or unwittingly, and then everything else is the logical consequence of one's answer.
The redoubtable French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623–62) famously reasoned that relative to theism or atheism there was only one rational choice. His argument became known as Pascal’s Wager and is stated as follows.
. . . humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or that he does not. Based on the assumption that the stakes are infinite if God exists and that there is at least a small probability that God in fact exists, Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).1
In other words, to bet that God does not exist has perhaps some benefits in terms of pleasures for this existence and extreme risk for eternity. To bet that God does exist has extreme benefit for eternity and perhaps a little risk of giving up some momentary pleasure. Why then would anyone bet against the existence of God?
To invest one’s T3 well requires clarity regarding Pascal’s Wager. The world today, however, seems to be increasingly unclear on this point.
In a speech presented last year, economist and wealth manager Fernando del Pino noted five common assumptions, which he called experiments, operative today, particularly in the Western world. One of these experiments is presuming to live without God.2 The Western world is betting on atheism and therefore betting against the existence of a personal God. By personal God I mean a God who created the universe and is personally engaged with His creation. (Some who embrace the experiment of living without God would argue that God exists but is impersonal and therefore disinterested and unengaged in the world. Such people claim to be theists but nevertheless live like atheists.)
Mr. del Pino points out that the atheistic presupposition of the Western world is unprecedented since the advent of Christ. The atheistic view implies there are no transcendent standards to govern human behavior. By transcendent standards, I am referring to timeless universal standards (values and principles) governing human existence that emanate from God who transcends the physical space-time universe. Historically, the Western world largely believed in the personal Creator revealed in the Bible and built much of its cultural standards on Scripture, such as, the Ten Commandments.3
Today, there is an increasing disconnect from any transcendent biblical standards of right and wrong or good and evil. For example, the cultures of the Western world no longer accept biblical standards of sexual morality, marriage, divorce, and gender identity. The atheistic view presumes that humans can redefine these definitions and any other definitions of human behavior as they wish. In other words, cultural values and principles are now viewed as relative and therefore not based on transcendent absolutes.
Interestingly, the pedestrian idea of "relative" seems to be rooted, to some degree, in Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity. It is commonly assumed that Einstein’s theory implies there are no transcendent values or principles, which is not true. Einstein’s theory is built on an absolute transcendent principle, namely, that the speed of light is constant and independent of an observer’s frame of reference. This means the speed of an observer relative to a light source does not alter the speed of light measured by the observer. This is a remarkable non-intuitive absolute reality of the universe, which is a metaphor for Christ. Scripture refers to Christ as the light of the world.4 Therefore, the theory of Special Relativity is based on the existence of an absolute reality. An atheistic worldview does not embrace such a reality, but a theistic worldview does.
Consequently, the work of two of the great thinkers of history, Pascal and Einstein, seems to intimate the existence of a personal God. And if a personal Creator exists, it follows that He alone has defined the transcendent values and principles or absolutes to govern human beings.
If one accepts this conclusion, then the question is how mankind would discover these transcendent values and principles. Historically, the Bible has been accepted as the best source of revelation on this matter. But as del Pino noted in his presentation, in the culture of the Western world today there is a big experiment in play that, in the name of freedom and progress, mankind is choosing to deny the existence of a Creator who would be the source of transcendent values and principles and assuming the freedom to define cultural norms. Mankind is now playing the role of God, just as the nation of Israel did many years ago.5
Mankind’s version of playing God and redefining cultural norms appears to be driven by an insatiable appetite for pleasure, comfort, and convenience. To attain these, it is assumed that mankind must be freed from the historically accepted transcendent values and principles of Scripture that are viewed as intolerant, repressive, and limiting. Therefore, biblical norms are being repressed and limited with increasing intolerance.
In the name of progress and individual rights, mankind is making a bet against the odds. By choosing perceived momentary benefits, mankind is ignoring the risk of being wrong about the God hypothesis. But if mankind is wrong, the consequences, as Pascal noted, will be eternal loss.
This should challenge each of us to reconsider the bet that we want to make in life. Do we bet against the odds or not? Today Western culture is betting against the odds. Everyone, wittingly or unwittingly, takes a position on the bet: Does a personal Creator, who defines transcendent values and principles for His universe, exist or not? Then, based on your bet, you will live and make choices.
Interestingly, Mr. del Pino, a wealth manager, seemed to recognize a negative financial implication to the experiment of trying to live without God. Perhaps he was emboldened in his view by studying the nation of Israel, which also tried to redefine the values and principles of its culture. (Though Israel did not technically embrace atheism, it did assume to live independent of biblical revelation, which is the essence of atheism.) The end result of Israel’s experiment was familial, social, business, financial, and political calamity.6
Like ancient Israel, the Western world has chosen to experiment with living without God and therefore assuming the right to redefine cultural norms. This is an irrational bet against the existence of the personal God, who has set the ethical standards for His creatures and holds mankind accountable to His standards. Choosing to bet against God emboldens the Western world to presume the right to redefine ethical standards on issues such as sexual morality, marriage, divorce, and gender identity. If this experiment continues, will the end be the same as experienced by ancient Israel—familial, social, business, financial, and political calamity?7
If indeed the Western world is on the same path as ancient Israel, is there any basis for believing that the experiment today will produce different results? Or will the old adage stand? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-2.
2 https://magallanesvalue.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/The-Five-Experiments.pdf.
3 Exodus 20.
4 John 8:12.
5 Deuteronomy 12:8.
6 Deuteronomy 28.
7 ibid. 
.png)