Wanna Bet God Exists? | Blaise Pascal's Wager

You want to bet that God exists? Well Pascal did. We are looking at Pascal today, Blaise Pascal, in our series on Classic Christian Thinkers. An introduction by Kenneth Samples of Reasons to Believe. If you don't have that book, I will leave a link in the description. Blaise Pascal. See Pascal, interesting figure, especially in a scientific background. He lived from 1623 to 1662. He was only 39 years old. He makes me feel like a slacker, as many people do. And one of his major works, one he's probably most known for, is called the Ponceis. Alright, the Ponceis. So we're going to look at some of that in a little bit, but first I want to read something to you from this book regarding his love affair, I'm Is it possible to be a true person of science as well as a true person of faith? And that's a big question today, is how does science, not just natural sciences, but just knowledge and reason in general relate to faith? And Samples says this, must head and heart conflict. Is science at odds with Christianity? Many people say yes and many people also say no. In response, how many 17th century Christians have modern day computer languages named after them? Only one, Blaise Pascal, inventor of the first digital calculator. This is 1600s. Pascal is described by many historians as one of the founding fathers of the scientific revolution. He is widely known as one of science's most creative and intuitive thinkers and an intellectual pioneer who helped achieve major breakthroughs in theoretical mathematics, physics, and practical invention. His ideas and inventions rightly earned him the title of the first modern man. Well, what we're going to look at in this talk today is going to be one of his major contributions, which is his wager called And Pascal is mainly known for the wager. That's not all he offered, as we've already read by Samples. And even within Christian theology, it isn't the only thing that Pascal offered to the church. But it probably is his most well-known thing. When you talk about Pascal in Christian circles, you probably are talking about his wager. What is the wager? Well, it's just that. It is a bet, basically, or a wager that he says that we should consider when thinking about the truth of Christianity. Now, as many people will say about Pascal, people often say he's misunderstood as a theist. And we don't normally put his wager in the context that it deserves to be put in. So I want to admit that at the outset. We have to contextualize his wager. And there is a debate whether or not he is a theist. That means someone who believes that we can only use faith to know that Christianity is true or not. One of his most well-known, I'm looking at actually his writing series is called The Wager. And it actually has more in it than just the wager. But the section on reason, faith, and the heart, the editor here in the book, so this is one of his most famous lines. So we're not at the wager yet. But it says, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. We know this in countless ways. He says, so there are reasons. The heart has reasons. But reason doesn't know anything about that. So reason doesn't know it. So it's statements like that that'll make people think he was a theist. Whether or not that is true, it is debated. Ken does not think, the author of our book, does not think he was a theist in the strict sense of the term. Looking at other sources, Norman Giles didn't think that either. It's easy to see that, though, and to think that he was. Here's what some of the wager says. I'm just going to read some of this to you. He says, I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken to believing it to be true. Now, the context of this wager, according to what we're all told from the scholars on Pascal, is that this was a wager for people who did not think that reason, and this is even what the author here says, he says, the wager is not an attempt to prove that God exists, the editor of this book says. It is not a new argument for the existence of God. Rather, it tries to prove that it is eminently reasonable for anyone to bet on God, to hope that God is, to invest his life in God. It moves on the practical, existential, human level, rather than a theoretical, metaphysical, theological level. And as I was saying before, the editor says this, this is the most famous of all Pascal's ideas, the one history associates with his name as Pascal's wager. What does he say? He says, I should be more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than being mistaken and believing it to be true. Let us then examine the point, this point, and let us say either God is or he is not, but to which view shall we be inclined? He says, reason cannot decide this question. Now, admittedly, that makes him sound like a fideist. Reason cannot decide this question, that is, whether or not God exists. So, it seems pretty clear that Pascal does not think that reason can prove or disprove that God exists. This is going to be something that we're going to have to have more faith in. There are reasons he thinks that believing in Christianity is true. He gave other reasons like fulfilled prophecy and things like that, but he thought that you had to look at scripture to that and not just reason alone. He continues, at the far end of this infinite distance, a coin is being spun, which will come down heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot make you choose either. Reason will not make you choose either. Reason cannot prove either wrong. Do not then condemn as wrong those who have made a choice, for you know nothing about it. No, but I will condemn them not for having made this particular choice, but any choice, for although the one who calls heads, the other one calls, and the other one are equally at fault, the fact is they are both at fault. The right thing is not to wager at all, someone's going to say. His response, yes, but you must wager. There is no choice you are already committed. In other words, he's saying you can't but help make a wager either for God or not. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since a choice must be made, let us see which offers you the least interest. You have two things to lose, the true and the good, and two things to stay. Your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness and your nature has two things to avoid, error and wretchedness. We're almost done. This is a very short quote-unquote argument, not really. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. That is the one point cleared up. But your happiness, he says, let us weigh up the gain and the loss involved in calling heads that God exists. Let us assess the two cases. If you win, you win everything. If you lose, you lose nothing. So if you say that you're going to wager that God exists, if he does exist and you have everything to gain, if he doesn't, then you didn't lose anything. Do not hesitate then, wager that he does exist. This is conclusive and if men are capable of any truth, this is it. He says, I confess, I admit it, but this is his person he's talking to. I admit it, but is there really no way of seeing what the cards are? Yes, scripture and the rest, et cetera. Yes, but my hands are tied and my lips are sealed. I am being forced to wager and I am not free. I am not being held fast and I am made that I cannot believe. What do you want me to do then? That is true, he says, but at least get it into your head that if you are unable to believe, it is because your passion, since your reason impels you to believe, and yet you cannot do so. Concentrate then not on convincing yourself by multiplying proofs of God's existence, but by diminishing your passion. So it's not a matter of reason, it's a matter of the will, it seems, and passions. I tell you that you will gain everything and you will gain even in this life and in every step you take along this road, you will see that your gain is so certain and your risk is so negligible that in the end you will realize that you have waged on something certain and infinite for which you have paid nothing. Last paragraph, if my words please you and seem cogent, you must now know that they come from a man who went down upon his knees before and after to pray this infinite and indivisible being to whom he submits his own that he might bring your being also to submit to him for you own your own good and for his own glory and that strength might thus be reconciled with lowliness. So that's the wager, that's Pascal's wager. In other words, you have everything to gain by betting on God and nothing to lose. If you bet on God and he doesn't exist, you haven't lost anything. And if you don't bet on God and he does exist, then you lose everything. Now there are some objections to this line of thinking and Ken Samples has some in his book. I'm going to briefly go over those. But as he says in his book and as others have said, this context and actually even in this book with the editor says that this wager was really for people who didn't think that reason could decide one way or the other whether or not God could be shown or not shown to exist. So it's kind of for those who were in this allegedly intellectual limbo. But Ken does give some objections here that are commonly brought up and I'm going to very quickly look at those in his book. And if you're wanting to follow along, it's on page 154. Criticism number one, he says, the wager fails to recognize that the believer does lose a great deal by wagering on God. If God doesn't actually exist, the believer has nonetheless given up his autonomy and wasted the only life he has on religious nonsense. So if you commit your life to this and it's false, then you've lost this life, in other words, because you could have had a presumably happier life, you could have had more fun, you know, whatever. And Ken's response is that it may be more accurate to say that people who wager on God have everything to gain and in comparison to the gain, little to lose. For even if a person who wages on God is incorrect about God's existence, he or she still gains a virtuous life that accompanies a life of faith. Good response. Criticism number two, and there are only three. I'm going to go quickly. The wager only works if you wager on the right religion. What if you wager on the wrong God? This is a more contemporary objection that I've heard a lot with this and I've thought this myself. Well, it's really between Christianity and atheism, but there are other choices. But as the context said, Pascal was only really concerned with those who didn't think that reason could show whether atheism or Christianity to be true. And we're in a lot more pluralistic environment in our culture today than Pascal was. So yeah, today, and as Ken says in the book, this is a stronger objection than it would have been around Pascal's day because we're much more, we have many more religions on the scene, much more of a pluralistic mindset. So this is more of a, this has more bite to it than the first criticism. And then number three, the wager promotes intellectual dishonesty. You can't pretend to believe when you really do not. Rejoinder or Ken's response. True, but the wager can promote reflection and serious inquiry into the basis for believing. So that's the basic overview of the wager. Pascal is an interesting person. He brings a lot to the table. My own thoughts on the wager. Well, I first disagree with Pascal that we don't have reasons to believe that God exists. So Pascal says reason doesn't tell us God exists. I think that there are a reason we can give arguments for why we think God exists. I also think scripture is in tandem with that because Paul says, for example, Romans one, that we can know certain things about God's nature from creation. But if we can know certain things about God's nature and creation, we know God exists through creation. We can't know that God, we can't know about his divine power, his divine nature and eternal power without knowing that he's there, right? If creation tells us something about his nature, it tells us about his existence too. So I've never understood when people disagree that we can know God exists from creation. So I would disagree with Pascal on that. But what about the wager? Is it good? Is it better to wager on God than not? Yes, if your choices are just between Christianity and atheism, it's a safer bet. Now I am a cost analysis person. I like to wager what I'm going to do on things in terms of investments or or not. I'm pretty conservative when it comes to making choices and investments and and risk reward type things. So if I didn't have any other reasons to believe it, then this might convince me what's better to be safe and sorry kind of a thing. So there are some interesting objections. I think there are some good objections to this. I think Ken's right though about this does cause you to reflect on some of these major issues. And it is good to live a life of virtue, even if God didn't exist. Of course, we could ask what does virtue mean? What's the basis of virtue if God didn't exist? But there are good reasons to live a life of faith and virtue. And I think Goodreads can show good reasons to show that God does exist. So that's Blaise Pascal. He is our second to last person in the book. If you don't have the book yet, I'll leave a link to it in the description. It's a really interesting book. It's a good book. I've seen Ken talk about this on Facebook. And there are people around the world reading through this book. People at Ivy League schools read this book in their classes. So it's a good book. Get it. And if you have any questions or comments, please leave them. Please like and subscribe. And we'll see you next time with C.S. Lewis. He's our last figure in the book and he's very interesting. So stay tuned.