Betting on Black
According to Pascal, life is a wager and each person is forced to gamble. This wager of life is supported by science, and gives each person two options. Pascal says one option is to live life believing God exists and to act justly. The second option is to live life as if God does not exist and, consequently, no person has to answer to a higher power. Pascal surmises it is worth betting on black, assume God exists, and live life accordingly. However, Pascal’s wager is not a win-win situation as he presents it to be. In actuality this leads to indifference, which he preaches to avoid. Although the scientific approach to faith is not enough to lead to a sincere relationship, it is a solid step on the path to the cliff where true faith is developed. Believing in a higher power simply because the odds are in favor of its existence is not faith, it is a salvation safety net for the soul and could potentially lead away from Heaven.
Pascal states that reason is not hurt by choosing one option over the other (Pascal, 154). However, he fails to acknowledge this could potentially lead people down the path of indifference, instead of leading them to faith. By saying that one is not hurt by making either choice, the importance and the gravity of choosing is minimized. It is much easier for a person to rationalize sinful behavior if they hold to a belief they will never come before a righteous judge and give account for their sins. Essentially, Pascal is showing his students two paths. One path leads to a higher power and those who live according to that power will be moral in life and be rewarded after death. However, the second path is one where there is no higher power. Followers of this path have no fear of being judged for anything done in life, as they seek no reward in death. However, if there is a higher power, those who pick this path must answer to that power, having lived an immoral life. Pascal postulates that choosing the path with the higher power seems like a “safer” bet. Living a moral life only to discover that after death there is no higher power and no reward, is of less consequence than the second. But, is this true and sincere faith? Pascal uses a system of mathematics and science, the scientific method, in an attempt to prove religion and supernatural power.
The scientific approach that Pascal presents to readers via his wager is a poor representation of what sincere faith truly is. Pascal argues that there are an infinite number of chances one wins if one chooses to gamble and follow a higher power, that may or may not exist. However, if one loses, that wager they simply cease to exist (Pascal, 154). This argument is simply predicated on the belief that one loses nothing by living a moral life, even if there is a higher power. Furthermore, if one has chosen correctly they earn the reward of eternal life. Pascal’s wager sounds like a win- win. Naturally people tend to agree with him that it is worth the risk and there is really nothing to lose. Although the wager sounds like it can produce faith, by accepting the gamble people are actually further from true and sincere faith. Basing their belief that God exists on a mathematical probability, does not allow for a transformative encounter with the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 11:6 tells us, “without faith it is impossible to please God because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.”
Although, Pascal’s system is sound, faith and science are not comparable and one cannot reason through the journey of faith. Pascal presents that reason must know that there are things that surpass it and humans can never fully understand such infinite subjects as faith. He readily admits that faith is different then proof (Pascal, 11), which is contrary to the basis of his entire wager. One cannot use human reason to justify faith, since faith is a power that comes from God and far surpasses human understanding. Hebrews 11:1, “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Faith is something that is driven by true and sincere love for God. Pascal presents the idea that using reason to decide that a God exists and to live accordingly is enough to say one has faith. According to the laws of probability, it is safer to assume that God exists. However that is not faith, that is statistics (Pascal, 116). While Pascal claims he is trying to teach religion, he is actually teaching mathematics. God imparted to each individual free will, to use it as they desire and to choose their own paths. He knew that human wills are incapable of providing true happiness. The reason and the will of humans has always been faulty because humans are mortal beings who lack omniscience. Although, human reasoning will always fall short of the true understanding of faith, Pascal does use reason to its highest maxim. Pascal’s teachings should be that human reasoning cannot fully explain such a supernatural existence, but that it is important to follow a system when seeking knowledge and truth.
Pascal follows a systematic and scientific approach to proving a supernatural power exists. While it is a logical system, it could lead people to follow God for the wrong reasons. Pascal claims society cannot make it through this life without wagering and presents a game of roulette to his audience. Betting on red and saying there is no judge is all well and good, if that ends up being reality. If there truly is no righteous judge when humans die they simply cease to exist. If there is a righteous judge and a person lived as if there was not, their chance at eternal life is forfeited. Betting on black, saying a righteous judge must exist, living accordingly is also dangerous. One must make sure they are actually seeking after God, under the transformative power of the Holy Spirit, not simply trying to hedge their bets. Pascal’s wager should be viewed as a foundation block to prove that science and faith can interact. Ultimately, it shows that in the end, science does not have the answers and faith must be present in each person’s heart to truly know God and win entry to Heaven.
Rachel, I really enjoyed your essay! Pascal's idea of wagering faith is very interesting, and Angela Grant also wrote on this subject. While you focused more on the scientific side of probability, Angela focused more on the theological side of whether God exists or not. She starts her argument with Pascal's contrast between Muhammad and Jesus and how that proves God is real. She never once addresses the idea of indifference like you do; it's black or white in her essay. Either a person believes or they don't believe: there's no other option. However, both essays did touch on the idea that believing in God on earth will cause the believer to reap the eternal reward of eternal life in heaven.
ReplyDeleteWhile I did enjoy Angela's essay, I thought your essay was better because you address the topic from the scientific standpoint and how science and faith are not comparable. This betting game could end up being inconclusive for a lot of people, and lead to indifference, and Angela doesn't mention this. I think this is a great point because it's so true. If a person has nothing to believe in, and the stakes in believing are no greater than not believing, why should they believe and be concerned in the first place?
Angela's Essay: https://anggbh.blogspot.com/2019/09/betting-on-faith.html
Hey Rachel!
ReplyDeleteI’m happy to find an essay on Pascal’s Wager, particularly so from an astute source! I think that your description of the Wager as a solid step on the path toward faith that if not taken holistically could actually lead one away from true faith, is spot on. You show how a belief formed solely from a mathematical wager focuses on one’s self, and can lead one away from trying to form a relationship with God. While Pascal’s Wager is based on personal gain, true faith is not. True faith is a relationship based on the understanding that there are some things which we simply cannot understand. You show how an approach to knowledge of God based solely on what is reasonable will fail. After all, as a friend familiar with sheep-herders once told me, leaving the ninety-and-nine to search for one lost sheep is completely unreasonable. The Good Shepherd would have lost all his other sheep looking for the one! How can we use reason to form a relationship with an unreasonable God? We can only come to a true friendship with God by faith that passes understanding. Nikki shares a very similar message in her essay.
Nikki’s essay hones in on Descartes’ reasonable proof of God’s existence. Nikki shows how Descartes believes that reason is the only tool by which we can come to a knowledge of God. Nikki focuses on Descartes arrogance which leads him to believe that he can define who God is by observing the world around him. According to Nikki, what Descartes fails to realize is that God is not of this world and therefore cannot be constrained to what we can observe with our senses and faculties. https://nikkiconnelly.blogspot.com/2019/09/a-discord-in-method-descartes-proof-for.html
On the other hand, as your essay shows, Pascal understands the limits of reason and posits his Wager as a foundation block on which to build an anthropology where faith and reason can coexist. I think that while it is extremely important not to discard faith in favor of pure reason or logic, it is equally important not to do just the opposite. Reason and logic are not weaknesses to be trampled underfoot, as Martin Luther would have it, but faculties which can provide us with not only the beginnings to a life of faith, but assistance to a deeper and fuller relationship with God throughout our lives.
http://rudds22.blogspot.com/2019/09/betting-on-black.html