Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician and Christian philosopher from the 17th century, is perhaps most famous for what has become known as Pascal’s Wager. The Wager is sometimes put forth as an argument for the existence of God, but it would be more accurately classified as an argument for belief in God. A paraphrased version of Pascal’s Wager is the following:
Either God exists, or He doesn’t. Each of us must choose whether we believe He exists.
Suppose we choose to believe in God. If He doesn’t exist, we’ve lost very little, but if He does exist, our gain is infinite (eternal life in paradise).
On the other hand, suppose we choose not to believe in God. If He doesn’t exist, we’ve gained very little, if anything at all. But if He does exist, our loss is infinite (eternity separated from God).
While it is unlikely that many (if any) of us have come to believe in God based on this type of reasoning, nevertheless, I believe we may sometimes employ a similar thought process without realizing it. I will elaborate on this in a moment, but first, I’ll comment on what I believe to be three flaws in Pascal’s reasoning.
First, which God? Which religion? What if we chose the Christian God, but that turned out to be the wrong one? This doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to believe in the Christian God over others, but the Wager does not help us distinguish between them. It assumes there are two opposite choices: either God, or no God, while in reality there are many more theoretical alternatives.
The second problem is that belief alone is not sufficient for salvation. It is possible to believe in God without accepting His free gift of salvation. But even if belief were the only condition, is it possible to choose to believe something? If I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that something is true, I will believe it automatically whether I want to or not. I can tell myself, or others, that I believe a particular thing, but that doesn’t mean I actually do.
The final problem is that the Wager suggests we make this choice on an entirely rational, impersonal, and self-interested basis. We would be making our choice based not on a genuine love for God and a desire to serve him, or even because we genuinely believe He exists, but rather, based on which choice places the odds most in our favor. We want to be allowed into Heaven, and we have calculated the most likely way to get there. This might be similar to, for example, a young woman marrying an old man with a lot of money, pretending to be interested in him merely for the opportunity to inherit his wealth. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to have a desire for Heaven, but we ought to give our lives to God primarily because they are rightfully His, not only because of what we can gain by doing so. Besides, if our intentions were motivated by nothing more than self-interest, certainly God would see through it. God cannot be so easily fooled.
All of this does not mean that there is nothing good about Pascal’s Wager. However, it is best used as a motivator for each of us to put sufficient time and effort into investigating the existence of God and the claims of Christianity. The stakes are too high for any of us to dismiss the issue without looking into it. The Wager serves this purpose much better than as an argument for believing God exists.
This is the reason I believe discussing Pascal’s Wager is important: when asked why we have decided to become followers of Christ, we need to be careful about the answer we give. It can be tempting simply to list all of the benefits we’ve experienced, such as hope of eternal life, greater happiness, or the ability to live a more moral life. Certainly these aspects of the Christian life are significant; however, this answer might imply that we have chosen our beliefs based not on the truth, but on what we want to believe or what benefits those beliefs provide us. There is nothing wrong with making known the hope Christianity has given us. But when giving a reason for our beliefs, we need to make clear that we are concerned about knowing the truth, and have not merely chosen whatever belief is most encouraging, hopeful, or beneficial.
Either God exists, or He doesn’t. Each of us must choose whether we believe He exists.
Suppose we choose to believe in God. If He doesn’t exist, we’ve lost very little, but if He does exist, our gain is infinite (eternal life in paradise).
On the other hand, suppose we choose not to believe in God. If He doesn’t exist, we’ve gained very little, if anything at all. But if He does exist, our loss is infinite (eternity separated from God).
While it is unlikely that many (if any) of us have come to believe in God based on this type of reasoning, nevertheless, I believe we may sometimes employ a similar thought process without realizing it. I will elaborate on this in a moment, but first, I’ll comment on what I believe to be three flaws in Pascal’s reasoning.
First, which God? Which religion? What if we chose the Christian God, but that turned out to be the wrong one? This doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to believe in the Christian God over others, but the Wager does not help us distinguish between them. It assumes there are two opposite choices: either God, or no God, while in reality there are many more theoretical alternatives.
The second problem is that belief alone is not sufficient for salvation. It is possible to believe in God without accepting His free gift of salvation. But even if belief were the only condition, is it possible to choose to believe something? If I’ve seen enough evidence to convince me that something is true, I will believe it automatically whether I want to or not. I can tell myself, or others, that I believe a particular thing, but that doesn’t mean I actually do.
The final problem is that the Wager suggests we make this choice on an entirely rational, impersonal, and self-interested basis. We would be making our choice based not on a genuine love for God and a desire to serve him, or even because we genuinely believe He exists, but rather, based on which choice places the odds most in our favor. We want to be allowed into Heaven, and we have calculated the most likely way to get there. This might be similar to, for example, a young woman marrying an old man with a lot of money, pretending to be interested in him merely for the opportunity to inherit his wealth. This doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to have a desire for Heaven, but we ought to give our lives to God primarily because they are rightfully His, not only because of what we can gain by doing so. Besides, if our intentions were motivated by nothing more than self-interest, certainly God would see through it. God cannot be so easily fooled.
All of this does not mean that there is nothing good about Pascal’s Wager. However, it is best used as a motivator for each of us to put sufficient time and effort into investigating the existence of God and the claims of Christianity. The stakes are too high for any of us to dismiss the issue without looking into it. The Wager serves this purpose much better than as an argument for believing God exists.
This is the reason I believe discussing Pascal’s Wager is important: when asked why we have decided to become followers of Christ, we need to be careful about the answer we give. It can be tempting simply to list all of the benefits we’ve experienced, such as hope of eternal life, greater happiness, or the ability to live a more moral life. Certainly these aspects of the Christian life are significant; however, this answer might imply that we have chosen our beliefs based not on the truth, but on what we want to believe or what benefits those beliefs provide us. There is nothing wrong with making known the hope Christianity has given us. But when giving a reason for our beliefs, we need to make clear that we are concerned about knowing the truth, and have not merely chosen whatever belief is most encouraging, hopeful, or beneficial.
No comments:
Post a Comment