Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:29 — 48.1MB)
On Blaise Pascal's Pensées (1670).
Is it rational to have religious faith? You're likely familiar with "Pascal's Wager," one of the most famous arguments for the existence of God, but it's not clear that Pascal bought into the argument as it is usually understood.
To see why, you have to get Pascal's picture of human nature, which is surprisingly insightful, and is what Mark, Wes, and Dylan spend all of part one discussing. Pascal thinks that humanity in its actuality is thoroughly wretched. We're morally wretched: innately selfish, really despising each other, vain, self-deceiving, unable to focus on the good, always chasing after one imaginary lure or other. We're epistemically wretched: Our reason deceives us, our senses deceive us, our instincts are self-destructive, and our imagination, again, is the worst. Pascal believes that we need to follow "heart" over reason, but that doesn't mean what we mean, e.g., in talking about romantic love, which Pascal sees as exactly the kind of destructive, ultimately imaginary drive that I've just been describing. Our greatness comes from realizing our wretchedness, from the fact that we have ideals that let us see our depravity, and he thinks that these come from God. And since "God" qua infinite being is nothing that we could really understand, much less have a personal relationship with, he thinks that Jesus is absolutely essential for authentic religiosity.
To return to the wager (which, again, we don't actually discuss until part 2): Yes, reason is inadequate to tell you definitively whether or not to believe (though Pascal thinks that reason does tell you that it's not unreasonable to believe, and thinks that the miracles were and are pretty darn properly convincing to people on purely rational grounds), so all those arguments by Descartes and St. Thomas are for naught.
Pascal does, then, say that the risk you incur by believing is negligible: human life and its non-religious pursuits are all such crap that you're not giving up anything by putting all your energy toward God. And on the other side, if you "bet against God," then you're risking your eternal soul, potentially winning eternal bliss if the Christian God is real. But you can't actually just "choose" to believe; that's not how human psychology works, and Pascal knows this. You can, however, go through the motions: Go to church, open yourself toward God, and at the very least, virtue will be its own reward, and with grace, you'll end up a real believer.
Pascal has anticipated your objections: What if Zeus or some other God is the real one? Well, that's why he spends so much time arguing that only Christianity accurately describes human nature, both in laying out our wretchedness and giving us the cure for it. Those other alleged gods just wouldn't do the trick, so we can rule them out (you'll have to actually read the book to get the details of his arguments here). And simply not making a choice is not an option, and deciding not to care about the question is irresponsible to the point of monstrous.
Pascal's take on our psychology includes some surprising verdicts about political authority and tradition. Pascal is liberal enough that he recognizes the arbitrariness and illusory character of a lot of this, but he also understands how these things are emergent properties of human nature, and as such are better guides to our action than the vain flights of fancy of revolutionary political philosophers.
Pascal's biography is probably the most interesting thing about him; I recommend this account by Will Durant, which describes his work in science and mathematics before his turn to religion, as well as his other famous book, Lettres Provinciales.
Buy the Penguin edition
Don't wait for part 2! Get the unbroken, ad-free Citizen Edition now. Please support PEL!
Sponsors: Visit MUBI.com/PEL for 30 days of free curated movies and Squarespace.com for a free trial and 10% off with offer code EXAMINED.
Pascal picture by Drew Blom.
I’m curious about his criticisms of the Jewish god. Supposed to be the same god right? Revealed through an encounter, in relationships with humans (who can change his mind), and passed down through family stories and traditions…. and changing with time. I don’t see where the infinite fits in, or eternal bliss. My main argument against the wager is similar to those expressed on the podcast: where’s this concept of infinite come from, how much of the Bible actually points at it? It seems like more of a distortion and obsession than a foundation. Same with human wretchedness. How much of the Bible suggests this? In it I see humans taking on traits of angles, living 500 years, and changing God’s mind… Moses broke the tablets to save his nation, choosing his people over Gods word. And going New Testament, which I know less about: Saul/Paul, in the face of God, chose to cast off the “curse” of the his laws that were in existence to him to that point in time. These stories point at humans having more sway in the godly realm than Pascal seems to suggest with his “wretchedness” concept. God’s choosing humans and having an interest in a relationship with them suggests the same. Is the Christian god really that radically different?
His criticisms of Judaism are many, but it comes down to two points: First, per my blog post, you need the interface of Jesus to actually connect in a concrete way with God (I don’t buy this at all). Second, he puts a lot of stake in Judaism having predicted a messiah, and then when Jesus came, he came with miracles such that anyone who wasn’t actively turned against God should have recognized Him and signed on to Christianity, so the Jews are and were wicked. A yucky argument.
Mark!
Thanks for the response! I’ll check out the blog post when I get these kids to sleep. I kind of wish my first interaction was about a topic less controversial than religion. I’ve been loving the stuff on pragmatism, psychology, existentialism, and feminism. And at the risk of sounding like I’m blowing smoke… PEL has even improved my marriage; through some content, but mostly in general through my learning how to better communicate, listen, and give more “generous reads.” I know the verdict isn’t in, but I have a feeling that studying this stuff (i.e. philosophy) can make one less of a moron. So, thank you! And thanks again for responding.
That’s gratifying to hear. Our main criteria for picking this episode was that a) it was on Wes’s list of things he wanted to cover at some point (I assume because he studied it at St. John’s), and b) that Seth wouldn’t mind missing it.
So there ya go!
I do appreciate Wes’s keeping the Left honest.