God Owes Us Nothing: A Brief Remark on Pascal's Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism

by Leszek Kołakowski

God Owes Us Nothing reflects on the centuries-long debate in how do we reconcile the existence of evil in the world with the goodness of an omnipotent God, and how does God's omnipotence relate to people's responsibility for their own salvation or damnation. Leszek Kolakowski approaches this paradox as both an exercise in theology and in revisionist Christian history based on philosophical analysis. Kolakowski's unorthodox interpretation of the history of modern Christianity provokes renewed discussion about the historical, intellectual, and cultural omnipotence of neo-Augustinianism.

"Several books a year wrestle with that hoary conundrum, but few so dazzlingly as the Polish philosopher's latest."—Carlin Romano, Washington Post Book World

"Kolakowski's fascinating book and its debatable thesis raise intriguing historical and theological questions well worth pursuing."—Stephen J. Duffy, Theological Studies

"Kolakowski's elegant meditation is a masterpiece of cultural and religious criticism."—Henry Carrigan, Cleveland Plain Dealer

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Religion, History, 20th Century

248 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Distinguished Polish philosopher and historian of ideas. He is best known for his critical analysis of Marxist thought, especially his acclaimed three-volume history, Main Currents of Marxism. In his later work, Kolakowski increasingly focused on religious questions. In his 1986 Jefferson Lecture, he asserted that "We learn history not in order to know how to behave or how to succeed, but to know who we are.”

In Poland, Kołakowski is not only revered as a philosopher and historian of ideas, but also as an icon for opponents of communism. Adam Michnik has called Kołakowski "one of the most prominent creators of contemporary Polish culture".

Kołakowski died on 17 July 2009, aged 81, in Oxford, England. In his obituary, philosopher Roger Scruton said Kolakowski was a "thinker for our time" and that regarding Kolakowski's debates with intellectual opponents, "even if ... nothing remained of the subversive orthodoxies, nobody felt damaged in their ego or defeated in their life's project, by arguments which from any other source would have inspired the greatest indignation."

Reviews

[Lance Kinzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating consideration on the Jansenist vs. Jesuit controversy and its impact on the theology of Pascal. As a Protestant in the Reformed tradition I view this debate from the outside, but certainly sympathize with the Augustinian elements of Jansenism in relation to the doctrine of grace. B.B Warfield famously remarked that the Reformation represented "the triumph of Augustine's doctrine of grace over Augustine's doctrine of the Church." Jansenism, as described by Kolakowski, seems to have represented a failed attempt at retaining both, and leaves one to wonder what ecumenical possibilities might now be open had it succeeded.

[Kenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

An impressive historical and theological assessment of the 17th-century Jansenist movement in France. Kolakowski contends that the Jansenists received such sharp censure from the Catholic church as a part of a broader de-Augustinization of the religion. The Jansenists were consistently orthodox in their adherence to Augustinian theology which, until Cornelius Jansen's Augustinus, was freely accepted within Catholicism. However, it was inevitable that the attempt to resuscitate Augustine's moral rigorism and 'fanaticism' (as Kolakowski calls it) against the perceived laxity of the state-supported Jesuit faction, would be met with cries of heresy. An Augustinian church, while viable within a religion that relied for its support upon hardy peasants, predisposed to accept both predestination and the thesis that any good fortune comes solely through God's grace, could not sustain a body of believers who were increasingly either bourgeois or aristocratic - individuals less susceptible to the ill-fortunes of fate, and with a greater sense of control over their lives.

The second half of the book is a focused exegesis of Pascal's theology and philosophy. The chapter on the Wager stands out as perhaps the highlight of the entire book, correcting the glaring errors that accompany most interpretations of Pascal even today. Kolakowski stresses, for instance, that the Wager is supposed to have no influence on committed atheists or skeptics, and belongs to Pascal's stated purpose within the Pensées, which is not to convert unbelievers or to correct the errors of other theologians. The Pensées are written, and are expected only to be convincing for people whose intellects are open to Christ, but whose hearts cannot yet take on the Christian faith: sincere searchers who have not yet found. The largely unnamed interlocutor in Kolakowski's assessment of Pascal is Lucien Goldmann. Kolakowski goes to great lengths to (admittedly, quite unconvincingly) proclaim the inability of any Marxists, bound to a class-based analysis, to properly understand Pascal or the broader Jansenist movement. If Marxists were all the dogmatic economistics that Kolakowski makes us out to be, he might be right. It's a shame, for old Leszek, that few if any academic Marxists today adhere to the positions that he attributes to us.

[Maud · Rating 2 out of 5]

Un buen resumen de lo que fue el jansenismo, pero resulta bastante «árido» si lo que quieres es adentrarte en el drama existencial cristiano y específicamente el de Pascal. Por desgracia, no creo que me haya aportado demasiado.

[Santiago Iturbide · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book gets into the vast understanding of the most decisive , costly and longest debate of Christianity. The so once called “Polemica Auxuliis” has its roots in the later Writings of St Augustine against Pelagio. It deals with confronting conceptions of free will and predestination. Luther and Calvin argued that the Thomist conception brought metaphysical inconsistencies which could not be accepted. They refused to accept the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas as it differed slightly on this point from the Augustinian. Not long after the Council of Trent the same discussion confronted Dominicans and the Jesuits. Dominicans thought that the Church was taking a semi-pelagian path under the influence of the Jesuits.
The author makes it very interesting by presenting all the views of the moment (Molinism, Marsilianism, etc)

The main focus of the book is Jansenism, a heretical standpoint into which Blaise Pascal converted with great conviction. After conversion Pascal writes: "I made my past life hateful to God by a complete waste of time, which you gave me only to adore you". Jansenism distanced from the Orthodoxy at its teaching on predestination. It declared that predestination was an indisputable and central Augustinian teaching. It harshly fought against the Jesuit’s aim of creating a less strict and more comprehensive position of the church.
Jansenist would often say that their excomunnion would be no different from the excomunnion of St Augustine himself. The founding Jansenist work is boldly called “Augustinus”.
Kolakowsky has also his view on the matter and will not wait to make himself clear. Beware of things he says like (John Calvin was the most consistent Augustinian) I personally recommend going through St Augustine yourself before getting into the historical battlefield.

[graceofgod · Rating 5 out of 5]

A five star book despite Kołakowski's commentary—which sometimes hits its mark but is tainted by (a) (what appears to be) his intense hatred of Jansenism (b) his unwillingness to recognize the "critical" side of Pascal (he seems to only be able to treat him as a "conservative"--which leads him to make the dubious argument that "our modernity" is Pelagian and (c) his claim that Augustinian-Jansenist thought is entirely opposed to toleration (which, at least as far as I can tell, flies in the face of the fact that Jansenism—at least to some extent—played a partial role in the history of religious toleration. (For example, it was Abbé Grégoire, a semi-Jansenist—or at least a priest influenced to some extent by Jansenism—who argued for Jewish emancipation and toleration during the French Revolution.)

[Aaron Cliff · Rating 2 out of 5]

Generally I enjoy the work of kolakowski. He's really the only contemporary philosopher that I enjoy, but this book was, in my estimation, not his best work. It wasn't, of course, whether or not he Chronicled the ideas of the Jesuits and Janenists correctly - he absolutely did. What he failed was understanding the heart of Pascal, as his last sentence showed: "it was a religion for unhappy people designed to make them more unhappy." Leszek assumed that there was no way for God to be at once omnipotent and loving, and since this was the case repeatedly presented throughout the book he of course thought that pascals religion was a misery, without seeming to really take to heart what Pascals main thrust was: we can't save ourselves and God's act of salvation enlightens our minds to truly know him. Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear.

[Lukas op de Beke · Rating 4 out of 5]

I never would have thought 17th century futile theological disputes on the power ratio between an All-powerful God and man's free will between several groups of fanatics (jansenists, molinists, jesuists, calvinists) could be this entertaining, Kolakowski almost gets you so far as to pick a side yourself.

[Michael Greer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This review is highly selective in that I will focus on a term that is often misunderstood. That term is "Jansenism." Who are the Jansenists? And why should one go to Mr. Kolakowski for an understanding of that term? Probably the best explanation is that the book is 'ready to hand' as the Heideggerians would say. Given that we currently live in a time of great turmoil, those of us who wish to remain within some discernible tradition must grasp for the various planks as we can while seeking to keep our heads above water.

Jansenists can profitably be contrasts with Jesuits. The Jesuits have put themselves before the reading public in those documented "Relations" which make up an early history of missionary activity in North America. To discuss Jansenism requires some familiarity with the term "Pelagian." This so called reformer taught that man might achieve salvation on his own merits. We are confronted with the ongoing, interminable issue of how salvation is attained. Is it by good works, by inspiration, or by divine grace? Perhaps all three are connected in ways that dim minds are unable to grasp. But dimness, as wide spread as it is, and so often this dimness is hiding behind the most remarkable credentials, is no excuse for avoiding the pressing problem of salvation. If we are not saved, all is for naught. I say again, if we are not saved, all is for naught. Consider the discussions you routinely have with "Joe Everybody." Certainly you sense behind his or her agenda a deep despair. Even if the deal is to be made, where will it take you? Closer to the grave?

So, let us not overlook why we need to be concerned about Jansenism. Kolakowski is pointing out that if one condemns Jansenism, and this one is some church authority, one is also condemning Augustine. But we all know that Augustine condemned himself by adhering to Platonism throughout his life. If it hadn't been for his Platonic inclinations perhaps the Church would have been more receptive to the diversity of opinion often found in early experience of Christ. What is the willingness to 'root out heresy' if not a perverted form of Platonism?

Leuven is a wonderful center of theology. The department is kept in good condition and there are plenty of resources. In 1640 Jansenius's work Augustinus appeared here. But Jansenius had already moved on to the afterlife. Let us ponder what this work was about/like/readable.

According to Kolakowski, Augustinus is a three volume work, "immensely long," dealing with the problems of Pelagianism, the grace offered to Adam and Eve, and the grace offered by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Yet Jansenius, much like Origen who was completely misunderstood, was more than willing to submit his work to the authority of Holy Roman Church. We, you and I reader, ask, and so where is your discussion of Anselm, Sir? And where is your discussion of Bonaventure, Sir?

Fast forward to the year: 1649. Nicolas Cornet prompted the Sorbonne to issue a condemnation of five statements attributed to Jansenius. This set in motion work which would eventually lead to the Inquisition investigating the opinions expressed. Paul the Fifth issued a statement that the text must be examined for heresy. Urban the Eighth followed in these same steps. Eventually, and this according to our author, the Jesuits succeeded in marginalizing Jansenius.

Kolakowski can help you and me by resolving this complicated history into a simple question: God is all powerful so how might his will be foiled by human purposes? Are men responsible for their own damnation?

[Earl · Rating 5 out of 5]

At first, I was quite unsure whether Kolakowski understands the sensibilities of the Catholic Church in the modern period. However, his analysis on Pascal made me think that in fact he presents on a different manner what the 20th century theologians would say about Pascal. Excellent!

[Thiago André · Rating 5 out of 5]

Leitura somente da primeira metade.

[Ben Thurley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fascinating, philosophically rich exploration of how the confrontation of divine grace with human free will “became the focus of a struggle between modernity and reaction embodied respectively in Jesuit and Jansenist doctrines in the seventeenth century, how Saint Augustine became a victim of this battle, and what role was played in it by Pascal.” (3)

Kolakowski – an agnostic philosopher and historian, particularly known for his critical history of Marxism – is sympathetic to some key claims of and the motivations behind both of the opposing camps in this theological debate, giving a thoughtful insight into a topic that is (or should be) largely mysterious to those who care to think about these things, or nonsensical and aggravating to those who would rather leave theological debate in the 17th Century.

As well as being an exploration of an intellectual debate, it is also rich social history. Without asserting a kind of social or economic determinism lying behind what was essentially a contest of ideas, he notes that the almost Calvinist doctrines of the Jansenists were well "adapted to the consciousness of an assembly of martyrs, of an intransigent sect" – drawing from a heritage of the early Christians as a committed, disciplined and oppressed minority to energise a response to the evident corruption and laxity in much of the Church of the time. But he notes as well that the easier devotion of the Jesuits (which became, to a large extent, the position of the entire Catholic Church after the Counter-Reformation) was perhaps the only way that the Church could engage Europe's ascendent intellectual and social elites "to keep them in the Church and under the Church’s partial control (especially in matters concerning the education of youth) and ultimately to lead them to God who is really merciful – that is to say lenient – and understands human weakness." (58)

Despite a personal religious commitment not being evident in his writing, there is a thoughtful and undogmatic openness in his approach that, I would wager, would be deeply irritating to committed atheists. For example, he argues that:

Rationalists normally shrug off the idea of “mystery” (as distinct from something not yet known) as a verbal cover for simple illogicality. However, when people think of ultimate realities, the experience of mystery, which often includes a logical helplessness, may be intellectually more fruitful than rationalist self-confidence that simply cancels metaphysical questions, relying on doctrinal dogmas. To be sure, we have only one logic at our disposal but we are not sure how far its validity can extend when dealing with those ultimate realities.

The second half of the book is a compelling engagement with Pascal's Pensées, which certainly gave me new insights and interest in rereading that work. And it's here that he'll probably annoy committed Calvinists just as much with his hedging around the central certainties of their dogma, and the mordant and blackly comic description of the stern and austere Augustinian-Jansenist religion of Pascal that concludes the book:

Pascal’s religion was not tailored to the needs of an ordinary decent Christian; it was for people who were able to bear never-ending suspense and uncertainty about the only thing that is really serious. It was rightly treated with suspicion. All his protestations about the happiness of those who “have found God” notwithstanding, it was a religion for unhappy people and it was designed to make them more unhappy.

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great secondary source on Pascal's philosophico-theological program that provides a nice guide to the historical / argumentative context, looking both backwards and forwards. Overall the work leaves the reader with a problem--he is critical of both the Pascalian / Jansenist / Calvinist approach to grace while also being critical of the Jesuits and their conception of grace. The Jesuits won the day, but in so doing, inflicted a terrible wound on the Church, precisely because Pascal and the Port Royal Jansenists really were faithful Augustinians, and Augustine is the most important Father of the western Church. More to the point it is difficult to see how to work out a view of grace that doesn't ultimately fall into either the over strict interpretation of Jansen or the overly permissive interpretation of the Jesuits. Kolakowski delights in building the arguments up both ways and then leaving the reader wondering how one might choose. He is in short a kind of gadfly; he does not provide an answer, but helps us to articulate the problem, and for that he is to be thanked.