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 5 of 44)
61. Roglo: your experience is a familiar one to many atheists, I'm sure. I dare say most of us started out searching for God and never found him.
janesophie: the lord/liar/lunatic argument assumes that those are the only choices available. Its also possible that Jesus was an influential preacher whose life story was distorted by followers seeking to legitimize their religion. This, in fact, is what I think is most likely.
Observant: you seem interested in atheist sex lives. If you are young and fit, come join me and my atheist lover for some blasphemy and homoing.
AndrewV at 10:05AM on Apr 11th 2008
62. 59. janesophie1,
For someone with very different beliefs from my own you're not that bad to deal with. I just want to know how you feel about brian and Observant's personalities and behavior.
Mokele Mbembe at 10:02AM on Apr 11th 2008
----------------------------------
I can help you with that Mokele, I am bold as a lion and harmless as a dove.
Observant at 10:08AM on Apr 11th 2008
63. and as dumb as a stump.
Ryan Anderson at 10:09AM on Apr 11th 2008
64. Moke,
Observant is an obvious liar as he call me a homo as he did Ryan. This person is the closest thing to Satan I have seen. He encourages brian to keep on when brian should be getting mental help. To much.
Jerry Brown at 10:09AM on Apr 11th 2008
65. Jerry; what's really sad is that Observant means "homo" as an insult.
Ryan Anderson at 10:18AM on Apr 11th 2008
66. janesophie1,
Jesus was/is (?) the most advanced person I am aware of. However according to the bible he made many statements such as the lords prayer, Our Father.....that indicated he was not God. I think Lewis was a twisted thinker. Jesus said many things that has made my life fuller, and easier to understand, but I maintain Christianity has kidnapped him , and tells many lies abut his teaching.
Jerry Brown at 10:19AM on Apr 11th 2008
67. "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."
- Somber
______________________________________________
Once again Somber has combined thoughts to words far better than I could ever aspire. You are indeed one to be admired.
Thank you for making a logical point so eloquently heard.
TJ at 10:21AM on Apr 11th 2008
68. why is "salvation" so important? why is a death without "heaven" so abhorrent? why does "God's absolution" mean so much?
abbot at 10:22AM on Apr 11th 2008
69. 63. Moke,
Observant is an obvious liar as he call me a homo as he did Ryan. This person is the closest thing to Satan I have seen. He encourages brian to keep on when brian should be getting mental help. To much.
Jerry Brown at 10:09AM on Apr 11th 2008
------------------------------------------
I thought you didn't believe in satan...
Well If I missed judged you and Ryan I am sorry.
But you both seemed a tadd effeminate, again sorry for the mistake.
Oh, and please expound on the similitude between myself and satan.
Observant at 10:24AM on Apr 11th 2008
70. "Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today"
Ryan Anderson at 10:25AM on Apr 11th 2008
71. Janesophie: A civil comment warrants a civil response.
I recognize that there are many different venues of christianity and in truth of them all catholicism at least offers a "second chance" through purgatory; leaving hell for the truly unredeamable. I don't believe in it, any more than I do heaven or hell, but at least it offers a further chance for redemption of the self.
Big tuna: My point was not that religion makes people violent. My point is that dinesh states that a life lived with theistic faith and a life lived without theistic faith are identical, so why not live the life that offers a promise of an afterlife. What we believe shapes our actions through-out our lives. Can we honestly say brian would post the exact same thing if he were an atheist? Of course not. And for better or worse, brian's comments have affected the way we think; probably not towards his way of thinking but still an effect.
Observant: either there is no god and I am free to choose to love whom I will, or there is a god who decided my DNA and punishes me for it? Which should I prefer? I chose the former. My equally gay love chose the latter.
Somber at 10:26AM on Apr 11th 2008
72. ryan.
thank you for trying to help me. but i do not find your views all that helpful. you guys hate me and observant because we speak the truth and you hate the truth. the truth calls you out and you want what you want. you have convinced yourself there is no god therefore you can pursue your immoral lifestyle without conviction. and when someone does oppose you the venom and hatred clearly show. the shrill voice of demons can be heard behind the gutteral tones. here is the difference between us pure and simple. you theist mean our harm, you want to hurt us, we as christians do not seek your harm and have no desire to hurt you. you want us to be harmed and that is pathetically sad but true. atheist are anything but tolerant. that is the single most hypocritical lie in the whole sordid affair. atheist are narrowm minded to the core. and the truth you cast a aside for a lie and then call on botts to defend you. now that is indeed strange. but he is busy with his wife and arguing the merits of a dildo in his butt as with last nights conversation. real good
brian at 10:26AM on Apr 11th 2008
73. I think Pascals wager is useful (only) in a debating context... atheists have a hard time arguing against it (as many of the replies to this blog shows!!!)
But i think it has zero value in actually convincing someone to chose faith in god using PW.
Paul did not use it, Jesus did not... other disciples did not. Because there is more certainty involved in the biblical understanding and use of the words "faith" and "hope". Faith is being certain of things unseen.
The radical lives that God calls his disciples could not have been the result of someone convincing them to make a choice based on pascals wager...!
kumar at 10:26AM on Apr 11th 2008
74. What I have always "admired" in Dinesh d'Souza's arguments was always his lack of ethics when discussing faith issues! He cannot even understand that a "believer's world" is not only highly improbable, but it is also totally ...unethical!
This is to be said while stating that in fact Christianity is the "only" true Religion! The only Criteria for you to qualify for the "Eternal Salvation" is your belief system! Either you believe in Jesus and blah blah blah, or you do not believe, and no matter what a moral being you are, you will suffer the Eternal Punishment in Hell!
What a creep this Dinesh! I hate his "Christian" Morality!
Let's think about Pascal's wager: he is actually stating (while posing this question: does God exist or not) that the supreme morality for a religion (Christianity) has to do only with... the belief system! By his own standards, to believe that Geesas is God and that He has created the Universe is yummi while not to believe it is ...yacky! As simple as that!
What a kook!
A value system based solely on BELIEF is always wrong, no matter what Christianity or Hinduism or Islam might say about it!
As I used to live in a Communist county as a child, I was used to this type of "logic" and "morality" or better said the lack thereof!
As a child I was told by my communist teachers: "it does not matter what you do in life: the only thing that matters is the fact that your parents are proletarians or not! If they are proletarians, everything is open for you to reach in life! If they are not, no matter how hard are you striving to learn at school, all your chances in the future are denied for you!
Again, what a Kook this Dinesh!
Anton at 10:31AM on Apr 11th 2008
75. ssomber,
there is a god and you have free will to choose as you please. you do not have the freedom to choose the consequences of your choices. those are gods and his alone. why do you pass off choice as dna. do murderers have a choice? rapist? thieves? under your banner they could just have well been born that way. are you not glad in a court of law that dog won't hunt. nor i god's law either. we will answer for our choices. you reject god on moral grounds as do many atheist, but you deny it.with venomous opposition
brian at 10:30AM on Apr 11th 2008