then without hesitation …"
Blaise Pascal, The Pensées.
Blaise Pascal was a brilliant 17th century scientist, who made significant contributions to both mathematics and physics before squandering the last years of his brief life in futile religious ecstasies. An intellectual prodigy, he was educated at home by his father, a respected mathematician, and began doing original research while still in his teens. He collaborated with the great French mathematician, Fermat, built a functioning mechanical calculator, and invented the syringe and the hydraulic press. His contributions to science include "Pascal's Triangle", which generates the coefficients of the binomial expansion, and Pascal's Law, which states that hydrostatic pressure is exerted equally in all directions and at every point throughout a fluid.
And then there's Pascal's Wager.
In 1650 Pascal broke off his scientific research in order to study religion. In 1653 he returned just as precipitously to science, but only for another year. On November 23, 1654, he was driving his carriage through the Paris suburb of Neuilly, when the horses swerved off a bridge. Pascal was spared. Regarding his survival as a consequence of divine intervention, he jotted down a disjointed series of "revelations" and had them sewed into the lining of his coat.
From that day forward Pascal devoted himself exclusively to religion. In 1657 he joined the evangelistic Jansenist order in Port Royal, France and lived there until his death in 1662. The sole tangible product of this period in his life is a collection of notes on religion. It was published posthumously as The Pensées ("Thoughts").
Pascal was a "Christian apologist"; that is, he sought to find "rational" support for Christianity and its doctrines. As an evangelist, however, he held mankind in contempt. It is, he wrote, "dangerous for man to know God without knowing his own wretchedness." These beliefs persuaded him that the most effective way to support Christianity was to appeal to man's basest characteristics, such as fear and ignorance. He devised a shortcut to salvation for those who lack the capacity to acquire genuine faith. It's called Pascal's Wager.
Although numerous variations exist, Pascal's Wager can be boiled down to the following syllogism:
- - Man cannot ascertain whether God exists or not, and must therefore guess.
- - If God does exist, then one guess leads to salvation, the other to damnation.
- - Therefore one should chose the safer guess and "believe" that God exists.
To the faithful this is a self-evident truism. To non-believers it's pernicious claptrap. Few religious issues divide people more sharply and the more each side attempts to justify its position, the greater the divide seems to become. Why is this?
One way to analyze Pascal's Wager utilizes a "truth-table" that looks something like this:
Belief | Disbelief | |
| God Exists | Enjoy eternal bliss. | Endure eternal torment. |
| There's No God | Find comfort in life? | No consequence. |
Portrayed in this fashion, the logic of Pascal's Wager appears irrefutable. Then why do nonbelievers find it so unconvincing? The problem lies in defining the outcomes in the table. Doubters and believers subscribe to different fundamental assumptions about reality. These differences are hidden within the truth table.
Consider the top-left outcome ("eternal bliss"). According to Pascal's view, some people will profess "belief" in God merely to gain salvation and avoid damnation in case God happens to exist. (In fact, this is the central premise of Pascal's Wager!) Many atheists can't conceive of an omniscient God who could be deceived by this hypocrisy or pleased by such false praise.
Similar criticism applies to the top right outcome ("eternal torment"). In Pascal's reality, doubters are condemned to everlasting torment, no matter how just, or kind, or admirable they may be in life. Many atheists find it impossible to comprehend a just God who would allow such a travesty.
The same type of problems are inherent in the other two possible outcomes.
In other words, the compelling "logic" of Pascal's Wager is only superficial. Concealed within it are profound differences in moral outlook between religious believers and nonbelievers that prevent any concensus. Brilliant as he was, Pascal was deceived by his own religious fervor into overlooking these differences. So his magical key to faith turns out to be nothing of the kind.
For which we can all be grateful.
