Blaise Pascal was a 17th century philosopher and mathematician. One of his most famous works is Pensées ("Thoughts"). In it he posits what is known as "Pascal's Wager." The idea is you can't prove the existence of God through reason alone, so the best option is to believe and live as though He does. If He exists, we're avoiding hell and such, and if He doesn't exist, we really haven't lost anything by living a good, moral life. Therefore, the most rational path is to believe in God.
It's all well and good and a lot of people make this argument based on ... well ... Pascal's Wager. There's just one problem. It isn't biblical. I mean, it doesn't make sense biblically. Consider, for instance, that Scripture says that God has already made His existence known (Rom 1:19-20). This whole pandering to the "we can't know for sure" side is ... a lie. Reason alone does prove the existence of God. It's Man's lack of reason (Jer 17:9) that is the problem. Of course, the other problem is ... well ... the gospel. We aren't saved by believing in God and being good. We're saved by a faith that is supplied by God (Php 1:29; Rom 12:3; etc.). It is a living faith (James 2:17). It isn't attainable by the mind because the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (Rom 8:7). This spiritual concept is not possible for the natural mind (1 Cor 2:14). According to Jesus, it requires being born again by the Spirit (John 3:3-8). Lots of problems.
Jesus warned that being His disciple was costly (Luke 9:57-62; Luke 14:25-33). He said that obedience wasn't produced by hard work, but by loving Him (John 15:23). We are saved by grace through faith, not of works (Eph 2:8-9), but that requires "the power of God" ... something we call "the gospel" (Rom 1:16). It's not a mind trick. It's not a wager. It's possible only by His power (John 15:5).
21 comments:
Pascal's wager is interesting, but problematic as you note.
One aspect of his failure is his notion that the Christian life boils down to simply doing the correct things and that cosplaying as a Christian is all that is necessary for salvation. This position aligns with Dan's construct that measures the "goodness" of people (I suspect that "goodness" is Dan's version of salvation) by cataloging their visible "good works" and keeping score.
The problem with both is that they ignore the internal motivation in favor of measuring external action. While Jesus seems clear that what really matters is the attitude of our "heart".
I assume that the Scott Adams story brought this to mind, and while I am not prepared to say anything definitive, Adam's "conversion" seemed to be very cynical, performative, and "fire insurance". To reduce the Christian life to a series of "good works" seems to eliminate so much of what YHWH promises for His children.
Like you, I see “lots of problems” with this “wager”--the foremost of which is that it does not reflect a truly informed understanding of Scripture, particularly “how God saves the human soul.” It denies the Gospel, as you say--without which one is only playing mind games of sorts. It might make sense to those with only a cursory consideration and knowledge of Christianity (as in, “I know I must believe in Jesus in order to avoid hell, so let me believe in Jesus”); but it would never prove to be a legitimate premise once deeper understanding of Christian theology is attained. Perhaps it will get some people thinking about the afterlife and be led to truly consider such a serious matter more sincerely, so they will turn to God in true saving faith. One never knows how God is working in the human heart. In my personal experience, I had a point (upon giving up on knowing God through my religious practice) when I said to myself, “So, religion is fake. Well, that’s disappointing. I was really hoping God was real.” Shortly later, the Lord honored that desire of my heart to know Him. I know He does that every day, oftentimes in the most unexpected ways.
We mustn’t forget the innumerable times and first words of Christ as he began his ministry to first repent and seek first the Kingdom of God. Matthew 4:17
Repentance, ridding ourselves of pride and humbling ourselves is what differentiates the believers from individuals placing a wager.
I've never liked Pascal's Wager. It doesn't produce anything but mildly "moral" people. But I've always contended that if the worldview you hold doesn't effect your life dramatically, it's not a worldview worth holding. Plus, we are to be in relationship with God. Hoping He's out there isn't relational. It has always been a horrible reason to believe in God, and always will be.
I don't dismiss the concerns regarding the Wager, but it does promote consideration, which I think might have been Pascal's purpose. Ultimately there is no downside to throwing in with God's people. There's far greater risk otherwise. So, for those not naturally inclined to give God the time of day, they might just reconsider if they consider his Wager. Such people may come to hear God's voice and be saved. Thus, I believe the Wager is one way God's call can be heard...God working through Pascal's Wager.
Just a thought.
Marshal Art, It appears that you and I had similar thoughts--that the genuine consideration of “should I embrace Christianity?” (the issue at the heart of this “wager”) might be God’s stirring in the heart and mind of a seeker, leading to true saving faith in Him. However, I might disagree with your statement, “Ultimately there is no downside to throwing in with God's people.” One “downside” that I can see would be trusting in any form of “salvation by association” without having exercised the genuine repentance that occurs within a Spirit-wrought conversion. I don’t want to presume exactly what you meant by “throwing in with God’s people” (which very much carries a “missional or political alignment” connotation in my mind), but if by that phrase you meant, “repent and believe in Christ,” then my concern is assuaged. :)
David, Don’t you think that “hoping God is out there” is the legitimate beginning of a relationship with God? Afterall, we don’t possess a deep and abiding faith in or knowledge of Him as brand-new believers. Establishing a relationship with God entails “baby steps” in the faith department, as I see it. As I mentioned in my comment above, my hope that God was real was all I had at the beginning of my spiritual journey. Isn’t that the case for all of us? And isn’t that sufficient for the Lord to honor and work with? Could you clarify for me why “[h]oping He’s out there … is a horrible reason to believe in God”?
Craig, You are right that the Scott Adams account prompted this post from Stan, I believe, after I raised the topic at News Weakly for 1/17/26. (I enjoy pondering the philosophical side of faith, and Stan was kind to oblige my expressed interest.)
Like you, I thought of the notion of “spiritual fire insurance” when considering Pascal’s Wager. Personally, my primary response to a “rational argument” such as his is to avow, “Yes, I want to be right with God. And I don’t wish to burn in the fire of hell. I’ll take that insurance!” I think there is validity in this reasoning, if it brings us to a point of genuine repentance and a cry of, “Lord, please save me!” Don’t we all seek in some measure to avoid the fire of hell at the point of our conversion, in fact? I hope and pray that Scott Adams--and all who consider Pascal’s Wager--got to that point. (Like you say, we can’t know the actual situation for Adams. I started to watch a YouTube video from a pastor I follow in which he read and analyzed Adams’ “conversion” letter, but I decided not to watch it afterall, so as not to unfairly pass judgment.)
Anonymous, I didn’t want to overlook your comment when offering follow-up remarks here. I agree with you that adopting the right heart attitude of sincere repentance is essential when contemplating our eternal fate and destiny. Happily, believers don’t gamble on an uncertain outcome but trust in a sure thing (Rom. 10:9, Acts 16:31, 1 John 5:13, etc.).
The point of Pascal's Wager is that it ends at how. There is no commitment to further study and research, only that it is sufficient to hope there is a God. I don't think what you're describing would be considered Pascal's Wager.
There is also no upside to "throwing in with God's people" in the simple hope of it maybe rubbing off on you. I don't see Pascal's Wager as a genuine search for God, but as the agnostic's hope that simply believing in God will be sufficient for salvation. If Pascal's Wager ends up leading one to Islam or Judaism or any other religion, it has not produced any benefit. I see it as a dangerous cop out that let's one rest on their laurels.
I view Pascal's Wager in the same view as Kant's Moral Argument. You can't prove God exists, but if you want a civil society, you better act like He does. To me, that's all Pascal's Wager is, "I don't believe God exists, but I'm going to act like He does, just in case." I see that as highly dangerous.
David, A quick clarification, if you don’t mind. You wrote, “The point of Pascal's Wager is that it ends at how.” How what?
David, I am wondering if your skeptical perspective on the agnostic’s search for God might be because you were a believer from a young age (I am presuming here; please forgive my presumption if I am wrong), whereas those of us who came to Christ as adults experienced a very distinct time of wrestling with the very questions such a “wager” raises. I am certain that my first serious considerations about whether God is real or not concerned not wanting to go to hell, quite frankly. I do believe that is a reasonable start in the conversion process. Therefore, while I agree with you that mere mental ascent to God’s existence is insufficient for salvation, it still is a valid first step.
I imagine your proposed reasoning process more like this: “I strongly suspect that God does exist--I mean, just look around at Creation!--and I concede that people who openly believe in God possess noticeably better characters. I’m hoping that that rudimentary concession on my part is sufficient to keep me out of the ‘unbelievers’ group headed to hell. I’m not interested in going gung-ho on this, but hopefully I’m in.” I had similar thoughts myself way back. I contend that we all start out as agnostics in some degree. I agree with you that an act, just in case, is dangerous (if it ends there), but if one truly didn’t believe God exists, they would simply not take the wager but would remain an agnostic/atheist with no qualms. Therefore, there is a glimmer of faith present … and thus also hope, as I see it.
Didn't check my typing. Meant to be hope, not how.
I'm a skeptic of an agnostic's search for God because ... God says, "No one seeks for God." (Psa 14:2; Rom 3:11)
Perhaps I don’t understand the premise of the wager, then--at least not in the settled, clear-cut manner that you apparently do. In any case, thanks for the clarifications.
My understanding of this phrase is, “No one seeks for God” in his default corrupted state and will not turn to God without His intervention and drawing. Through the Holy Spirit’s work, we move from unbeliever (agnostic and/or atheist) to believer. So by “the agnostic’s search for God” I am thinking of the process of conversion wherein a formerly agnostic person being drawn by the Lord grapples with searching for truth about God within all he/she is learning through the Holy Spirit. It is obvious to me that “No one seeks for God” is not the whole story and therefore no one familiar with the whole Bible would leave it there--indeed, there is much Good News to go with it. “But God….”
In any event, thanks for obliging me with this post to begin with. I see that I was thinking way outside the tight premise of the wager as you presented it.
Kant said that you can't prove that God exists, but that you should live as if He does. Kant was an atheist trying to keep civil society going, not search for God. That, to me, is Pascal's Wager. It's not a search for God.
I do agree that most everyone comes to faith out of a fear of damnation. But fear of damnation cannot be where you stop. Pascal's Wager stops at fear of damnation.
And the agnostics I've met aren't searching for God. They're feeling just fine in their doubt.
I believe I see your overall points better now, David.
My conclusions in all this would be that, obviously, I do not support Pascal’s (or Kant’s) line of reasoning which, upon closer examination, might seem to have emanated from a sophisticated intellect but is actually much too simplistic for the thinking person. Here’s to the renewing of the mind through God’s Word!
I appreciate your engagement with me.
Post a Comment