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 7 of 44)
91. amg,
the bible does not distinguish jew from gentile. we are all equal in god's sight. jews believe in god they just do not believe jesus was god. for that the bible says they are lost. take it up with god. he laid down the law you jews would rather follow. you just have not figured out which ones yet. and then you killed jesus,who could have saved you. but he said father forgive them they know not what they do. interesting the jews said let jesus's blood be upon our shoulders? at least the crowd there that day said it. i wonder how most jews feel about jesus.
brian at 10:52AM on Apr 11th 2008
92. A Jewish Gangsta? I'm calling you the Hebrew Hammer!
Mokele Mbembe at 10:51AM on Apr 11th 2008
93. 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. - brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm ambivalent to you brian and to all those who profess faith such as you do. Most likely because I have been there, done that. I can't fake something I don't feel. And I'm no longer sorry to admit that. Everything else in me stays intact, except the thought that there is a god that cares what I say or think. I have shed that notion with ease and feel myself guilt free for it.
There is no hate for you, brian or observant, but your condescension does get on one's nerves.
TJ at 11:00AM on Apr 11th 2008
94. brian,
"and then you killed jesus,who could have saved you."
Wasn't that supposed to be God's plan for Jesus to die for humanity's sins? I thought you were glad that happened. Plus, he couldn't have had the power to save them before being killed and going through every postmortem miracle in the book, if the path of his salvation was supposed to have come through his sacrifice.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:04AM on Apr 11th 2008
95. tj
i am not trying to be the least condescending. i just do not understand the desire alot of these atheist have that would love nothing more than to harm observant and i because we speak the truth. your free to reject it and i support your right to do so. god does not require you to obey he gives you the choice. he just keeps the right to reserve judgement. sorry, but i do not mean to condescend. but please explain the anger and hostility these atheist have towards god,jesus,the bible,christians.
brian at 11:06AM on Apr 11th 2008
96. Tiresome to the nth!
I turn to this blog every once in a while to see if there is an original thought from the D'umb blogger or the bloggees that is worth discussing or rebutting.
Pascal's Wager!! @#$%@#$@. A piece of intellectual crap. I thought that nobody over the age of sixteen gives it a second thought.
Shame on D'Idiot for recycling this stupidity! Shame on all of you, even my co-non-believers, for posting responses.
cynicalismo at 11:10AM on Apr 11th 2008
97. janesophie,
Where are you? I need a reexplanation of the Trinity and Jesus' sacrifice, because from the Trinity explanations I've heard it wasn't really the Jews who had him killed, but God.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:08AM on Apr 11th 2008
98. mo,
much has been debated what the out-come would have been had the jews not killed jesus and used the romans to hang him on a cross. i think god foresaw the out-come and knew the jews would reject him. as john said he came unto his own and his own recieved him NOT. we are stuck in time god is not, he knew. there is much mystery surrounding all this that we will never know until we meet him. i don't know
brian at 11:09AM on Apr 11th 2008
99. mo,
read the bible. jesus was god in the flesh. born jewish rejected by the jews and killed by the romans whom the jews insisted he die. they freed barrabas,incidently look up what barrabas means. very interesting meaning and then think of what the jews have suffered since. who said there is not a spiritual side to life
brian at 11:11AM on Apr 11th 2008
100. “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
I recently began reading this blog. I read it to hear different opinions. I have my point of view and attempt to express it coherently, succinctly; and respectfully. My impression is that there is a lack of humility in many of the replies. It is on both sides. Observant and Brian are perceived as brash and condescending, but the same tone is displayed in the detractors’ comments. Everyone has their own opinion. The point of the blog is to discuss and learn; not necessarily to change minds. If it happens then that is great, but sharing is the purpose. I don’t want or need a lecture. This is also not a forum to work out personal issues. That is for a therapist. I don’t know anyone on this blog. Judging a person’s character, intelligence, etc. that you don’t know makes no sense to me. That’s just my opinion. Thank for the compliment!
janesophie1 at 11:15AM on Apr 11th 2008
101. brian,
The irony is that the Jews were following the letter of the law of the God of Abraham, who were trying to exact justice on a heretic who defied what was considered natural or kosher. It sounds like God gave them a raw deal. Instead of explaining the situation to his own people like at Sinai he made them accomplices to the murder of his son - which he planned.
Mokele Mbembe at 11:16AM on Apr 11th 2008
102. brian
I see you failed to end the last sentence. I presume you intended to add the words 'almost anything.'
cynicalismo at 11:21AM on Apr 11th 2008
103. brian- many jews liked Jesus. They later became Christians. Christianity essentially broke off from judaism over one thing: Christians believed that Jesus was the final Prophet and the world was ending, and Jews believe Jesus was NOT the final Prophet and we've yet to see one yet, and therefore the world was NOT ending.
So far....guess who's right?
Strados at 11:20AM on Apr 11th 2008
104. Mokele.... I must interject here if I may... I have been studying the book of Matthew and I have been reading about how Jesus was accusing some of not knowing the scriptures, adding to them unnecessary religious obligations or not practicing them... he asked them about what they believed about the messiah and certain scriptures about him (psalm 101 i think) and couldn't answer him.. or didn't want to... so I think he tried to explain and they didn't want to know... and it worked into his plan all along... that is the tricky thing about free will and God being omniscient...
Shannie at 11:23AM on Apr 11th 2008
105. This so-called wager is so flawed it is funny! How can anyone say "if you're wrong, you lose nothing?" You most certainly do lose something: you lose a lifetime of freedom of choice. If you believe in God and adhere to the letter of the scripture (as DD obviously does) your life will be a lot different than if you don't. I have a friend who is Mormon and he and his family waste so much time going to church, speaking to others about God, worrying about every behavior and action, handing over gobs of hard earned money.
All of it rediculous. All this sacrifice for nothing! Are you telling me someone can't be a good person without worrying about going to Hell? Pretty sad if you ask me.
I am an Atheist (I hate the label but it's what we're using here). Wasn't always; I grew up Baptist where you went to church every Sunday and Wednesday night. However, over the course of time, a lot of things being taught to me just didn't ring true. Nevertheless, I do not kill, rob, steal, molest, cheat on my taxes or my spouse. I also do a great deal of charity work and give generously to many charitities I believe to be worthwhile. None of it is done because I am afraid of going to Hell. I do it because as a human being, it is my responsibility to help others in any way I can, regardless of their respective marital status, their sexual orientation, or their backgrounds.
Sorry, Pascals Wager only works as a scare tactic.
Ken at 11:27AM on Apr 11th 2008