Let us examine this point of view and declare: ‘Either God exists, or He does not.’ To which view shall we incline? Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other: we are separated by an infinite gulf. At the extremity of this infinite distance, a game is in progress, where either heads or tails may turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you cannot bet either way; according to reason you can defend neither proposition… Let us weigh the gain and the loss involved in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two probabilities; if you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist.
(Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 1670)
Pascal, one of the most influential French mathematicians, physicists, and thinkers of the 17th century, was both unique and revolutionary in his perspective on faith. Despite being a devout Christian, Pascal argued for the existence of God in a manner that does not strictly speak, deal with “facts” about the nature of the universe. Instead, his argument, as seen in the quote above, is being presented in the realm of “calculated” selfish-pragmatism. In his argument, also known as “Pascal’s wager”, there lay (because its plural) several fairly reasonable, yet problematic, assertions. The first assertion is that man is incapable of “knowing” if God exists, for there lies in between them an “infinite gulf”. Accordingly, reason cannot help in the question of faith. Moreover, by analogy to a toss of a coin, he claims that the odds that God exists are just as likely as he does not –a 50% chance either way. Then, claiming that there is no “loss” in religious faith on one’s well-being, he concludes that one should always prefer the safer bet – assume God exists.
Before addressing the fallacies and problematic presuppositions with Pascal’s line of argument, one cannot ignore that he makes a strong case. This argument seems to me to be the strongest, most persuasive one that is relevant in the 21st century. For there are three types of arguments in philosophical debates and normative discourse, concerning faith in the divine: appeal to authority (God exists because the bible, the church, and everyone else says so), observation of nature (God exists because there is no better explanation for the natural phenomena in the universe) and pragmatic-relevancy (God exists because believing in him will lead to a prosperous life and will promise salvation).
Pascal’s argument falls only into the last category of “pragmatic-relevancy”. This is the reason for its forcefulness today. In the scientific era of modernity, where appealing to authority is no longer seen as valid, and scientific discoveries are being made regularly, disproving any creationistic explanations for the origins of the world, the pragmatic-relevancy explanation is the only one left standing. Thus, Pascal’s argument is the only one that the vicissitudes of time left standing: one should believe in God because of the promised well-being that this decision entails, both in the present life and in the eternal afterlife.
The trouble with putting the argument solely in pragmatic terms is that it lends itself to be distorted by psychological hopes and fears, rather than a rational evaluation of the nature of the world. One’s life should not be dictated by claims that do not correspond to one’s honest, rational understanding of reality. Almost paradoxically, the rational perspective may lead to more long-lasting happiness, than the irrational intuitive perspective that only seeks the best outcome for oneself. This is clear by furthering Pascal’s wager ad absurdum – whenever a person promises salvation in his argument, one should disregard his entire understanding of the universe and morality, on the very slim chance that the other person may be right.
As a thought experiment, take a random stranger that urges you to leave your entire life behind: your partner, your family, your job, and your city. Her argument is solely pragmatic – she is an angel in disguise sent to show you the exact location of the gates of the eternal heaven (which are uncomfortably situated somewhere in Antarctica). The temptation of eternal heaven alone should not persuade any sane and reasonable person to alter his lifestyle so radically. One should be persuaded only if the person making the claim can show, within reason, that such a place does indeed exist. For the modern non-believer, Pascal’s request to live as a devout Christian is quite extreme. It seems that a much safer rule of thumb for the philosopher is to be able to distance himself and his actions from his conclusions within a reasonable degree. To paraphrase Bertrand Russel: “I am pretty sure of my convictions, but I won’t die for them, because I may be wrong.”
This is the why, despite Pascal’s phrase “without hesitation”, I urge the reader to spend a little more time to contemplate the truth-value of Pascal’s argument before running off to the nearest church to begin the conversion process. The most evident problem with Pascal’s assumptions is that the existence of God can be likened to the flip of a coin. This “fifty-fifty” game, is justified in his opinion as a consequence of the “infinite gulf” between our reason and the real knowledge of God’s existence.
In the Aristotelian tradition of philosophy, one should always be skeptical and hesitant to throw reason out of the window. Reason and logic serve as the only judges, the only guides for the philosopher (and any person for that matter), to navigate the complexity of the world. They are the philosopher’s best tools and closest friends, particularly in the most crucial questions on the nature of the universe, our faith, and our moral conduct. Abandoning rationality often leads to absurd conclusions, and even more absurd actions, which can be dangerously damaging.
Pascal argues that life, being so short, is an insignificant moment compared to eternal salvation (or damnation). By Pascal’s reasoning, if, for the sake of argument, it was not Christian conversion, but rather prolonged and strenuous torture that was the key to the gates of heaven – then, according to Pascal, one should always choose the option of torture. This example is not as ridiculous as it may sound at first, for it has serious, real-world consequences. A quick inspection of history shows that the irrational belief in the afterlife, based on intuitive fear rather than rational contemplation, may lead to substantial unnecessary pain and suffering. The inquisition’s horrific acts of torture were justified and comforted by the same comparison Pascal seems to be making in Pensées. The suffering of torture that was brought upon by the tradition of martyrdom existed in the same irrational framework. Even asceticism, which is in no way close to the pain endured in the torture chambers of middle-ages Europe, forces a person to reject much of life’s most beautiful and meaningful experiences, whether they be hedonistic or spiritual. For believing in the unlikely promise of heaven, or fearing the threat to spend eternity in hell, one is required to reject the enjoyment of food or sex and, often, to reject the auspicious enjoyment of true love.
Thus, by using the same terms as Pascal, we can conclude that reason is necessary, if only so for pragmatic reasons. Now I will proceed to attack the likelihood of God’s existence head-on. The question of God’s existence, although a difficult one indeed, is not immune to inspection. It is not a fifty-fifty toss of a coin as Pascal presents it, but rather a game of a thousand to one, or a million to one. Despite the prevalence of Christian belief, there are new arguments today that have not existed back in Pascal’s time. The arguments being made are myriad, but due to the length constraints of this paper, I will only mention some of the key arguments that should sway one away from belief. These are: the burden of proof, the gap fallacy and the evidence pointing to God is a man-made creation.
First, in the debate on the existence of God, like any other debate, the burden of proof lies on the one claiming something exists, rather than on the one claiming it does not exist. That is to say, the safest, most rational way to approach the world is by assuming that nothing is certain, and any claim is up for debate. One famous thought experiment in this context illustrates this point well. If I were to claim that there is a flying teapot orbiting the sun, I need to demonstrate that is indeed the case. There is no justification for someone else (other than myself) to be the first to refute my claim. It is only after I have based solid, evidence-backed research and reasons for such a far-fetched claim, that anyone should spend any time or energy, trying to refute something that there is no reason to think exists in the first place.
Second, the “Gap fallacy” refers to how a single answer, such as God’s existence, is used to fill in the gaps of knowledge about the natural universe. First, this is fallacious because it assumes one definite answer before even knowing the question. Similarly, it does not allow skeptical, scientific research and inspection to take place. The scientific method, despite coming with its own set of prescribed theories (which came from centuries of research and findings), is more humble in its approach than the Judeo-Christian doctrine that promises answers. That is perhaps why a secular Jew that decides to become religious again is said to “return in an answer” (lahzor betshuva), while a religious Jew becoming secular is said to “return in question” (lahzor beshe’ela).
Before Darwin, the answer to man’s existence and his place within nature in the Judeo-Christian traditions came primarily from the story of Genesis. It was believed that man and woman were created by God. Lacking any alternative theory or the historical-culture opportunity to investigate, it was accepted without contention. Yet, after The Origin of Species was published in the latter half of the 19th century, one could explain the existence of man from the most basic of beginnings. Thanks to Darwin’s rational inspection and theory (which was criticized and built anew throughout the years), one could explain in logical, evidence-based terms, how man came about without a creator. Without assuming creation, one can explain how there came to be a watch, without a watchmaker.
Lastly, “God as a man-made creation” does not seem as far-fetched a notion as it was a few hundred years ago. Back when everyone one believed in the same God, where any other alternative was literally unthinkable, one would surely have adapted to the same beliefs of the culture he grew in. Luckily, today it is common to see people of different beliefs, as well as people of non-belief, interact and talk to one another on a daily basis. That is to say, people interact more and more with valid alternatives to the beliefs they grew up with. Not only that but information about different and ancient cultures can be found easily. This global perspective may persuade one that both on a philosophical and psychological level, the beliefs he grew up with are not unique or divine, for numerous other cultures and traditions are claiming the exact same thing. The chances of one being born in the specific “correct religion” are proportional to the number of religions there are. Therefore, common sense compels us to accept that the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or any other canonical religious texts, were written by men, for men, and there is no special reason to choose one religion over the other.
There is also a problem with the more abstract notions of God, presented by philosophers such as Maimonides, Spinoza, and Pascal himself, that attempt to separate God from his literal characteristics in the sacred texts. Their conception of God is often so ineffable and theoretical, that associating him with the Christian or Jewish Gods seems far-fetched. Even if an abstract deity that governs the world exists – why should it bear any connection to the specific texts revered by many to be the word of God? Subsequently, Pascal seems to represent a very abstract notion of an ineffable God on one hand, and the existence of Heaven and Hell on the other, which seems to be a metaphysical take on the idiom “having your cake and eating it too”. The interpretive liberties taken by philosophers such as Pascal are often selective and biased. They change some parts completely while maintaining others untouched. For the sake of logical consistency, Pascal’s distillation of God from the texts should force him to either abandon his belief in hell or heaven, or at the very least, stick to the more concrete reading of the holy texts, which present not an ineffable distant God, but rather an anthropomorphic God which interacts with men quite regularly. Great argument and writing
As for the last question that has not been properly addressed: Is a religious life better than a secular life? This is a question that seems to depend on an insurmountable number of facts, as well as personal taste. Assuming one can choose both paths, one needs to consider the benefits of religiosity as well as the disadvantages it entails. To generalize, religious life often comes with the good of community, comfort, and a sense of meaning. Conversely, religion, specifically the Christian tradition of Pascal, requires one to follow harsh and strict rules and obligations, while rejecting much of the beauty and opportunities of the secular life. Moreover, I would argue that a religious life that emphasized the afterlife, by the same line of reasoning as Pascal’s, might easily lead to a worse life than a person could have otherwise had. To achieve happiness, one should focus more on the present, conscious experience, rather than a fantastical place in the uncertain future.
In summary, I would say that in the most basic sense, Pascal has come up with the best modern argument in favor of a belief in God. There are certainly faults in his line of argument, which rejects reason and overestimates the probability of God’s existence. Yet, when all is said and done – there is a minuscule chance that God does exist, and eternal hell is waiting for all the unbelievers unwilling to change their ways. The price? Infinity. Yet, it seems to me that a promise of a glorified afterlife bears no connection to the reality of the world as is. Even within a pragmatic framework, it is reason and evidence that should take the lead, not fear or hope.