There is no God— at least not in the way Blaise Pascal believes. Pascal was a French philosopher who, if nothing else, had some very interesting ideas on God and why you should believe in his God. I'm sure during the time he was alive his arguments were as solid as a castle's defense, but if we merely look at his theory from another angel we'd find it is nothing more than a house of cards. Pascal believes that though God is incomprehensible it is still in our best interest to believe in him. I'm going to show how his argument is mortally flawed for several reasons.
Pascal gets right to the point by first telling us that "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible…We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is" (93). I agree, if indeed there is a divine, almighty, super being out there, it doesn't give humans a second glance. Next Pascal goes on to simplify the notion of God into two categories: He exists or He doesn't. As human beings we have a choice, a wager, when it comes to our immortal existence, if indeed there is such a thing. According to him these are the only choices we have and we must put all our chips on the table when it comes to making this wager. As to what's on the line, Pascal explains "You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things at stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery" (94). To add to this already iffy claim Pascal leaves no third option, that being not to wager at all. His reasoning here is that if you choose not to live a life not choosing your actions will, as a default, lean toward the side of not believing.
There are four outcomes to this two choice wager; if you believe in God and he turns out to exist you'll live in eternal happiness, ie heaven, if you believe in God and he doesn't exist you don't lose anything and actually, according to Pascal, you'll be a better person because of it; on the other side if you don't believe in God and he turns out to exist you'll be in eternal misery, ie hell, or if he doesn't exist you don't gain anything anyway. Pascal then goes on to say that of the two options a reasonable man will choose to believe in this God because, in the long run, you have less to lose. His argument, "Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side [believing in God]? You will be faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, [and] truthful" (Pascal 95). At first glance all these arguments seem solid and reasonable, but let's take a closer look at some of his assumptions.
First, though his logic is sound, something just doesn't feel right about his two options. You believe or you do not believe, but already I'm not even included in these categories because I choose not to choose. Before I elaborate, though, I want to address his major flaw, that being his assumption of a Christian God. Although he tries to take an unbiased outlook on his work as a whole, his basic argument rests on Christian doctrine. First he says that to take a third view your life will unwittingly follow a path of sin, and that by believing in God you'll live a life without sin. As everyone knows that is not the case. There are people out there that do wretched, horrible, despicable things and yet still follow the word of God. They go to Church every Sunday, they don't say the Lords name in vein, but yet do horrible, horrible things. As such, there are people out there that don't necessarily believe in God, but are moral, they live without sin, they're loyal friends, humble, honest, and all of the other qualities Pascal set to only those who believe. To spur his Christian point on, he brings up heaven and hell, the notion, of course, is familiar to all of us but it should not be clouding the mind of someone trying to find Truth. The other downfall of this assumption is we don't actually know which God is the God. Let's say we live out life to the t as a Christian, die, and find out that it was really the Hindu God that was the real God. Would that God not be unhappy with us? Would that God not punish us for not only not believe in him, but for living out life by the standards of a God that doesn't even exist? This assumption of a Christian God is Pascal's biggest flaw, one that damages his argument beyond repair.
Even if we're generous with Pascal and let the Christian God assumption slip by he still has some major flaws. Going back to the outcomes; do we really know what happens when we die? Pascal says that if one were to not believe in God and be right they would gain nothing. What if when we die we are still self-aware in some way, would we not be somewhat gratified to know that we lived out life how we wanted to live it? Though, this is a bit of a stretch, I believe it is still valid. Pascal also mentions practically tricking yourself into believing in God "Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness" (Pascal 94). Essentially brainwash yourself into believing in God, but wouldn't that doubt still nag the back of your mind? I believe it would and as such, though we don't know the nature of God, I surely doubt He would want us to fake believing in him. The outcomes themselves are a little too forced, seeing as we do not know what happens when we neither die, nor do we know the nature of God or if Heaven and Hell exist there's no way we could conclude as Pascal did that there are only four outcomes. If for instance there is a God, but he is wholly apathetic to us and decides that there is nothing after death, neither punishment nor happiness, Pascal's theory crumbles. Indeed, the choices and the outcomes don't quite match up either, seeing as the Christian God gave us free will, I then could choose not to choose but still live an absolutely moral and "good" life there is no way He could punish me for it. This is yet another crack in Pascal's theory.
In conclusion, though Blaise Pascal's theory has some, almost logical, basis looking a bit deeper reveals some major flaws. By assuming that God is the Christian God, Pascal alienates many other religious groups with just as much evidence for their God(s) as Christianity. Instead of trying to prove the existence of an organized religions', we as philosophers, indeed we seekers of Truth should try and find the nature of whatever god may be out there, if there is a God. We should also not limit ourselves to possible outcomes, especially in matters of death. No one will ever know what happens when we die, perhaps nothing, perhaps something, but there are limitless possibilities. We should also not assume that can even touch on Gods nature, as such we should not let things we want cloud our judgments and make us blind to negative aspects of Gods nature. Perhaps God is something that should not even be sought; after all we have many, many equally tough questions to ask
7 comments:
:-)
I take slight offense to this: "Pascal was a French philosopher who, if nothing else, had some very interesting ideas on God and why you should believe in his God."
Pascal was a brilliant scientist and mathematician as well. I would hardly consider his meanderings on the ethereal, although interesting and insightful, the highlight of his amazing body of work.
Ah Shem, alas I didn't know he was more than just a religious philosopher when I wrote this for my philosophy class last semester. Since then I have read a little bit on him, and seen several science-y shows that site him as a major figure in history. Alas I was too lazy to go edit my paper, but worry not my friend, I now realize he was quite the guy.
Um, Pascal's triangle much? Freakin' awesome understanding of polynomials! So the guy ranted about religion to appease his conscience. He was the bomb when it comes to math.
As for his argument, I remember this being used on me when I was at Church camp in middle school. It wasn't directed at me, so I figured it better not to refute the guys argument. The main hole, you're right, is the assumption that there either is "God" or there is nothing. There could be infinitely more complicated or even silly rules about reality.
However, you fumbled pretty badly in your approach bro. There IS no Hindu afterlife. Reincarnate much? Also many Hindus accept Christ as a "god incarnate." That bit aside, I donno, I feel like you should keep your distance from religion. You'll only frustrate or piss people off. And I mean you in particular. It's a fun topic.
I just have to throw this out there: I'm pretty sure Ryan is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, seeing as it's his personal blog. Its sole function is to serve as a way for him to publicize whatever ideas he is willing to share with the public. He's not stupid -- if he didn't want to piss off people or frustrate them, he wouldn't post things like this! By doing so, I think it just implies that he couldn't care less about what people have to think. There's nothing wrong with that!
As for the blog/essay itself, I can say nothing because I'm even more uneducated when it comes to religion than you, Ryan. Go figure, haha.
Love <3
As I told Shem, I didn't realize who he was til after I had written the paper. It seems to me, with how much you two are in love with his math, that he probably should have stuck with that because his religious ideas are silly.
As for the Hindu stuff, yeah, that was a bit of a mistake, but that's not the point. How do they know there's reincarnation? Their Gods could be up there just waiting for them, and I do remember reading somewhere that one of their gods is the god of violence, or something silly like that. The point was that assuming it's a Christian God is stupid, we don't know.
Kimberley is right, I can write about whatever I want, part of my style is pissing people off, they can get over it. People need to see how stupid the whole idea is, if it frustrates them or pisses them off; maybe they'll start to think about it rationally. If not, what do I care if someone on the internet gets mad about my beliefs? I don't. Refer to "Freedom of Speech: Minorities Only" and "English Speaking and Proud" for examples of how much I don't care about pissing people off.
I agree, though, that I do need to be a bit more educated in religion. One of these days, when I have a free slot, I might take a world religions class, but I feel that I know enough to know what I believe.
Sure but if all you do is piss people off, they stop listening.
Of course Ryan has the right to his own opinion, but never to ignorance :-). Just kidding ;-P.
Of course, having a blog like this, he's putting his own internet reputation (like that means much nowadays haha) on the line, and not ours. I agree, he can say whatever he wants.
Post a Comment