Seventeenth century French mathematician and thinker Blaise Pascal had observed that it was always a ‘wiser bet’ to believe in God. If God does exist, the expected gains in believing in Him far outweigh the gains made by the atheist if He doesn’t. Pascal’s wry observation, however, hasn’t stopped Luigi Cascioli from filing a complaint against the author of a parish bulletin stating that Christ actually did exist.
Notwithstanding the fact that the issue here is more about the Son of God than about God himself, Mr Cascioli, an atheist, believes that the ‘believing priest’ has violated two Italian laws: one that protects people from ‘the abuse of popular belief’; and the other that protects them from ‘impersonation’, an act by which a person gains by attributing a false name to someone. While the first charge is self-evident, the second refers to Mr Cascioli’s belief that the Catholic Church has been ‘gaining financially’ by turning a certain non-divine bloke named John of Gamala into the divine Christ.
It turns out that the matter has gone to the courts and the bulletin’s author has been asked to prove that Christ existed. This exercise, to be conducted far from Ayodhya, will be of great interest not for believers or atheists, but for philosophers who love this kind of (pointless) jousting. There’s only one problem. It’s difficult, as it is, to prove the existence of God. But it’s downright impossible to prove He does not exist. So, under the circumstances, the easiest thing to do would be to get John of Gamala to testify in the court. John of Gamala, haazir ho?