Skeptics say that we cannot know whether God exists, and in a sense they are right. The Bible says in Hebrews 11:1 that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If the believer knew, there would be no question of faith. Consider this: I don't have faith that my daughter is in the seventh grade; I know my daughter is in the seventh grade. I haven't been to heaven, and so I cannot say that I know there is such a place. But I believe that there is. Faith is a statement of trust in what we do not know for sure.
But is such faith reasonable or is it, as the atheists frequently allege, "blind faith"? This central human conundrum is the subject of Pascal's famous wager. Pascal did not invent the wager. It was offered by the Muslim theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali in his medieval work The Alchemy of Happiness. Pascal was familiar with Ghazzali and probably derived the argument from him. But Pascal gave the wager its current classic expression, and in doing so he places an unavoidable choice before all believers and unbelievers.
Pascal argues in his Pensees that in life we have to gamble. Let's say you are offered a new job that may take your career to new heights. It looks extremely promising, but of course there are risks. There is no way in advance to know how things will turn out. You have to decide if you will go for it. Or you are in love with a woman. You have been dating for a while, yet you cannot be certain what marriage to her is going to be like for the next several decades. You proceed on the basis of what you know, but what you know is, by the nature of the matter, inadequate. Yet you have to make a decision. You cannot keep saying, "I will remain agnostic until I know for sure." If you wait too long, she will marry someone else, or both of you will be dead.
In the same way, Pascal argues that in making our decision about God, we will never understand everything in advance. No amount of rational investigation can produce definitive answers, since what comes after death remains unknown. Therefore we have to examine the options, and we have to make our wager. But what are the alternatives, and how should we weigh the odds? Pascal argues that we have two basic choices, and either way we must consider the risk of being wrong.
If we have faith in God and it turns out that God does not exist, we face a small downside risk: metaphysical error. But if we reject God during our lives, and it turns out God does exist, there is much more serious risk: eternal separation from God. Based on these two possible outcomes, Pascal declares that it is much less risky to have faith in God. In the face of an uncertain outcome, no rational person would refuse to give up something that is finite if there is the possibility of gaining an infinite prize. In fact, under these conditions it is unreasonable not to believe. Pascal writes, "Let us weigh up the gain and loss involved in calling heads that God exists. If you win, you win everything. If you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate, then: wager that He does exist."
The ingenuity of Pascal's argument is that it emphasizes the practical necessity of us making a choice. This necessity is imposed by death. There comes a day when there are no tomorrows, and then we all have to cast our votes for or against the proposition on the ballot. The unavoidability of the decision exposes the sheer stupidity of agnosticism and religious indifference. These are people who refuse to choose when there is no option to abstain. So the refusal to choose becomes a choice--a choice against God.
Pascal also exposes the pose of the atheist who fancies himself as a brave and lonely man facing the abyss. We admire a man who is steadfast in the face of unavoidable adversity. If we knew we were alone in the universe and that death was the end, then there is no alternative but to stand tough in our mortal skins and curse the darkness. But what would we think of a man who stands ready to face a horrible fate that he has a chance to avert? If you are trapped in the den with a hungry lion, and there is a door that may offer a way out, what sane person would refuse to jump through the door? Viewed this way, the atheist position becomes a kind of reckless intransigence, a foolish attempt to gamble with one's soul.
With their trademark venom, atheists typically condemn, although they cannot refute, Pascal's wager. Christopher Hitchens can do no better than to launch an ad hominem attack on Pascal as a "hypocrite" and a "fraud." Attempting condescension, Richard Dawkins proclaims Pascal's argument "distinctly odd." And why? Because "believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will." Dawkins is right about this, of course, but the real issue is whether he wants to believe and whether he is open to the call of faith.
Pascal writes that there are two kinds of reasonable people in the world: "those who serve God with all their heart because they know Him, and those who seek Him with all their heart because they do not know Him." Pascal recognizes that faith is a gift. We cannot demand it but only ask God to give it to us. In the meantime the best thing to do is to live a good and moral life, and to live as if God did indeed exist.
And pray the prayer of the skeptic, which I get from the philosopher Peter Kreeft. "God, I don't know whether you even exist. I think you may be only a myth. But I'm not certain....So if you do exist, you must be hearing me now. So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever and wherever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me." It is the claim of Christianity that all who seek God in this way with earnest and open hearts will find Him.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 44)
1. Amen, brother
Duke Cheston at 1:49AM on Apr 11th 2008
2. An absolutely wonderful article. Praise God for you.Keep spreading the word Mr, D'Souza.
God Bless, Anna
anna at 2:13AM on Apr 11th 2008
3. A recycled post that Dinesh made a few months ago.
So a recycled answer is fitting.
If the events and actions of a person's life were utterly identical from birth to death, and the only difference between the two being one believed and one did not, then Dinesh would be correct. It would be more sensible to accept pascal's wager. However, the act of subscribing to belief and the degree of that belief alters the unfolding of that life progressively. How different would the life of a muslim be from them being a suicide bomber anticipating their 72 virgins to them being an atheist? Like a butterfly's wings, the simple act of belief shapes and alters the course of a lifespan and can support and empower worldly insitutions that affect other people negatively.
In addition, I find the idea of an all knowing god rewarding such superficial faith to be rather uninspiring; nor can I believe that God would reward or merit those that would advocate such. Is the faith of some one who goes to church to hedge the bets against the chance of some eternal suffering equivalent to a person who devotes every waking hour to the embodiment and execution of religous ideals? I would doubt it. Indeed, such a person could live the epitomy of sin and debauchery with full comfort knowing that the simplest token gesture of faith and submittance will reward utterly and avoid punishment just as completely. And what protest could christians make against it were such faith equivalent and equal that the simplest mouthings warrant salvation?
I am an atheist and yet even I can see how deeply pascal's wager cheapens the very notion of faith and salvation, trivializing the sacrifice and devotion of those who try and embody the greatest degree of christianess they may while rewarding faith engendered for the most callow and selfish of reasons. It insults the intelligence of such a supposed being and turns what is intended to be a faith born of love into a faith born of cowardice.
What more need be said?
Somber at 2:44AM on Apr 11th 2008
4. AH, HAHA, HAHA HAHA... huuuh.. AH, HAHAHAHA!
not-pboyfloyd at 3:27AM on Apr 11th 2008
5. ATHEIST
Find the Correct Answer.
Don't worry whether choosing one of the possible answers could cost you.... that's a ridiculous way to live your life.
First, find the Correct Answer. Then, after you've eliminated the FALSE answers, you can move forward.
dinesh wants to dumb you down.
He says, "Don't reject an obviously FALSE answer that promises you enormous rewards."
duh.
Reply to: Pascal argues in his Pensees that in life we have to gamble. Pascal argues that in making our decision about God, we will never understand everything in advance. (end)
Except... we KNOW the truth. Photos from the Hubble Telescope and space probes were a BIG help.
God does NOT exist.
William Hays at 3:35AM on Apr 11th 2008
6. Somber,
"How different would the life of a muslim be from them being a suicide bomber anticipating their 72 virgins to them being an atheist?"
I don't think an honest seeking of God is the equivalent of joining a radical religious organization. Saying that thats where it ultimately leads is a bit of a slippery slope argument.
"Is the faith of some one who goes to church to hedge the bets against the chance of some eternal suffering equivalent to a person who devotes every waking hour to the embodiment and execution of religous ideals?"
First I'd say, in the case of Christianity, yes. It's the same idea illustrated in the story of the prodigal son. The brother had the same opinion as you, yet the father welcomed the less faithful son with open arms. It's hard for us to get that he 'unfairly' loves everyone.
But I don't think this is a form of the wager DD is advocating. Forget about Christianity for the moment. The point is if you can't know whether an interested God exists (and you can't), God is worth seeking. Where that takes you, it takes you. I believe anyone who seeks will find God, even if it takes your whole life.
"It insults the intelligence of such a supposed being and turns what is intended to be a faith born of love into a faith born of cowardice."
Recognizing you don't know everything, and being willing to seek the truth isn't cowardice. For some people it would take quite an effort to leave their cozy world of "well there are all these religions and who knows, and why doesn't god heal amputees and maybe god just doesn't exist so what's for lunch anyways"
bigTuna at 3:36AM on Apr 11th 2008
7. ATHEIST
HOW the CON GAME works.
The goal of the Con Game... is to make you think UP is actually DOWN.
To accomplish this, they build a House of Cards. let's look:
And pray the prayer of the skeptic, which I get from the philosopher Peter Kreeft. "God, I don't know whether you even exist. I think you may be only a myth. But I'm not certain....So if you do exist, you must be hearing me now. So I hereby declare myself a seeker, a seeker of the truth, whatever and wherever it is. I want to know the truth and live the truth. If you are the truth, please help me." It is the claim of Christianity that all who seek God in this way with earnest and open hearts will find Him
__________
I don't have to play the role of the FOOL.
Which is what dinesh wants.
Bad Christian. Bad, lying, dishonest Dinesh.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
William Hays at 3:39AM on Apr 11th 2008
8. Pascal's Wager only works if we assume that the possibility of the Christian God's existence is more worthy of consideration than countless other possiblities. For example, its also a possibility that the real god of the universe (if one exists) punishes believers and rewards atheists, or that in reality God damns those who keep pets or regularly enjoy cheese.
Since Pascal's Wager requires one to give special consideration to the Christian God and that god only, it can only convince those who are already convinced of Christianity's merit. It is nothing but preaching to the choir, with a side of shameless fear mongering.
Nathaciler at 3:55AM on Apr 11th 2008
9. A superb risk analysis of faith. Run your belief like you would any BUSINESS, but do not pretend that the choices are that simple. The faithful do not live in a separate reality from the rest, and make choices, based on their belief, that impact, both believers, and non-believers. What is the probability that there is a God, and it only accepts those who did not believe, enduring the suffering inflicted from the believer as the rite of passage?
Jim B at 6:24AM on Apr 11th 2008
10. http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
FORMER ATHEIST at 6:48AM on Apr 11th 2008
11. This is terrible! Hasn't someone shot down Pascal wager at least once per blog since mid 2007? Geeze!!!!
Well, here I go...
Since no religion that I am aware of requires simple a "belief in god" as salvation, then you still have to make a choice to fulfil Pascal wager and by making a choice or religions, and since every other religion would see you as still damned, there is no point to this wager.
Geeze!!!
Ryan Anderson at 6:49AM on Apr 11th 2008
12. http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
AN ATHEIST NO MORE at 6:50AM on Apr 11th 2008
13. BigTuna: "Recognizing you don't know everything, and being willing to seek the truth isn't cowardice"
Right on! This is why I'm an agnostic.
Ryan Anderson at 7:00AM on Apr 11th 2008
14. Somber "What more need be said?"
Nothing. That was perfect.
Ryan Anderson at 7:01AM on Apr 11th 2008
15. Yo, D'A-hole...your logic and belief system, as usual, are flawed and offensive. Don't you mean Jesus, when you say God?? I believe in God, and I am Jewish. So I die, and I find out God does exist as you believe he does; He sent His son, and I missed the boat on that, and I will thus be damned to hell, even though I was Bar Mitzvah'd,
confirmed, and led a decent life, not hurting others, and helping others when I could.
Eff your god, dd. If your god would damn me to hell for being Jewish, I don't need your nazi-god.
(btw, dd, if my irreverence in my novels, and my cynical attitude make me less in front of god, then surely the same is in store for you, oh hateful, snide, and crippled little soul).
America's Most Gangsta at 7:18AM on Apr 11th 2008