Post by Josh on Aug 25, 2008 20:35:41 GMT -8
A Response to Dawkins on Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s wager states (my paraphrase) that it is more pragmatically wise to believe in the Christian God than to not believe in Christian God because:
If He exists, then the benefits of said belief are wonderfully infinite (eternal life).
If He doesn’t exist, but one believes in Him anyway, the cost is very small in comparison to the benefit of the possibility that He does exist.
Likewise, if He does exist and one doesn’t believe in Him there will be extreme negative consequences (hell).
If, however, He doesn’t exist and one doesn’t believe in Him there are no eternal consequences.
Dawkins criticizes Pascal’s Wager on the following points:
1) Pascal doesn’t take into account the possibility that Yahweh might not be the real God. What if the real God was Odin or Zeus instead? Mightn’t such a god even punish those who believed in Yahweh?
2) Religious belief cannot be chosen, one either naturally possesses it or one doesn’t. Furthermore, wouldn’t God see someone’s response to Him based on the wager as fakery? What if there is a God that rewards those who are honest with their beliefs and punishes those who fake it?
The Wager isn’t among my favorite apologetic arguments, but I think it does have some merit, and I don’t think Dawkins has thought it through enough to do it justice.
So, a couple responses to these points:
1) First off, Pascal clearly considered the Judeo-Christian God to be the only knowable God in the running for warranted belief. Pascal’s Pensees themselves are an apologetic work in support of Christian truth-claims. Pascal would have argued, as we can, that there are many more substantial reasons for belief in the Judeo-Christian God over against other supposed deities. In other words, Pascal did take this into account elsewhere.
2) I disagree to some degree with Dawkin’s idea that religious belief cannot be chosen. Religious belief isn’t an all-or-nothing experience. Most people experience faith and doubt somewhat simultaneously. Even those who naturally tend to be less skeptical experience times where their moods and current mental state strongly seem to deny the reality of God’s existence.
There’s a great song by the Lost Dogs that touches on this topic, if I might diverge for a moment:
No Room for Us
Terry Taylor
Our souls balanced on a wire
Below is a consuming fire
If there's no room for doubt now
There's no room for us
Inside and out now
He's looking for us
Christ comes
Fill the empty places
To breathe
We must find the spaces
If there's no room. . .
And none of us are safe
Here in the dark
We try to touch his hand
Here in the dark
We know it's death to see his glory
We're here alive to tell the story
If there's no room for doubt now
There's no room for us
In side and out now
He's looking for us. . .
To breathe
We must find the spaces
He's looking for us
We also see glimpses of this in the Scripture:
Mark 9:24
Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
I don’t think Pascal meant for “wager mentality” to characterize the entire faith of someone who decides to become a Christian. Rather, I think he’s highlighting one reason why someone might begin the process of choosing to accept belief in the God of the Bible. And that reason is basically a realization of the “stakes” of belief.
Lastly, Christianity is almost alone among religions in its exclusive emphasis on Christ alone for salvation. Most Jews and Muslims (and Mormons) tend to believe that Christians will make it to heaven/paradise, etc.. (though often on a lower level). If Christians are wrong about the exclusive role of Jesus in salvation, but it turns out that Orthodox Jews or Muslims or Mormons (or Hindus and Buddhists for that matter) are right, nothing is really lost to the Christian. But if Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Muslims and Jews are wrong about this key issue, much is at stake. So, a survey of comparative religions also bolsters the force of the Wager.
Pascal’s wager states (my paraphrase) that it is more pragmatically wise to believe in the Christian God than to not believe in Christian God because:
If He exists, then the benefits of said belief are wonderfully infinite (eternal life).
If He doesn’t exist, but one believes in Him anyway, the cost is very small in comparison to the benefit of the possibility that He does exist.
Likewise, if He does exist and one doesn’t believe in Him there will be extreme negative consequences (hell).
If, however, He doesn’t exist and one doesn’t believe in Him there are no eternal consequences.
Dawkins criticizes Pascal’s Wager on the following points:
1) Pascal doesn’t take into account the possibility that Yahweh might not be the real God. What if the real God was Odin or Zeus instead? Mightn’t such a god even punish those who believed in Yahweh?
2) Religious belief cannot be chosen, one either naturally possesses it or one doesn’t. Furthermore, wouldn’t God see someone’s response to Him based on the wager as fakery? What if there is a God that rewards those who are honest with their beliefs and punishes those who fake it?
The Wager isn’t among my favorite apologetic arguments, but I think it does have some merit, and I don’t think Dawkins has thought it through enough to do it justice.
So, a couple responses to these points:
1) First off, Pascal clearly considered the Judeo-Christian God to be the only knowable God in the running for warranted belief. Pascal’s Pensees themselves are an apologetic work in support of Christian truth-claims. Pascal would have argued, as we can, that there are many more substantial reasons for belief in the Judeo-Christian God over against other supposed deities. In other words, Pascal did take this into account elsewhere.
2) I disagree to some degree with Dawkin’s idea that religious belief cannot be chosen. Religious belief isn’t an all-or-nothing experience. Most people experience faith and doubt somewhat simultaneously. Even those who naturally tend to be less skeptical experience times where their moods and current mental state strongly seem to deny the reality of God’s existence.
There’s a great song by the Lost Dogs that touches on this topic, if I might diverge for a moment:
No Room for Us
Terry Taylor
Our souls balanced on a wire
Below is a consuming fire
If there's no room for doubt now
There's no room for us
Inside and out now
He's looking for us
Christ comes
Fill the empty places
To breathe
We must find the spaces
If there's no room. . .
And none of us are safe
Here in the dark
We try to touch his hand
Here in the dark
We know it's death to see his glory
We're here alive to tell the story
If there's no room for doubt now
There's no room for us
In side and out now
He's looking for us. . .
To breathe
We must find the spaces
He's looking for us
We also see glimpses of this in the Scripture:
Mark 9:24
Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
I don’t think Pascal meant for “wager mentality” to characterize the entire faith of someone who decides to become a Christian. Rather, I think he’s highlighting one reason why someone might begin the process of choosing to accept belief in the God of the Bible. And that reason is basically a realization of the “stakes” of belief.
Lastly, Christianity is almost alone among religions in its exclusive emphasis on Christ alone for salvation. Most Jews and Muslims (and Mormons) tend to believe that Christians will make it to heaven/paradise, etc.. (though often on a lower level). If Christians are wrong about the exclusive role of Jesus in salvation, but it turns out that Orthodox Jews or Muslims or Mormons (or Hindus and Buddhists for that matter) are right, nothing is really lost to the Christian. But if Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Muslims and Jews are wrong about this key issue, much is at stake. So, a survey of comparative religions also bolsters the force of the Wager.