Barry's BlogTuesday, August 10 2010 Blaise Pascal: The Wager Part VIII
Of all of Pascal's Pensees about the human condition, of trying to make sense out of this human drama, he is without question most famous for the idea of his Wager concerning God. This was brought to my attention in the recent, fascinating video interview with Christopher Hitchens on CNN with Anderson Cooper. Hitchens has recently gone public in his battle with cancer. And Hitchens, who has made a name for himself in his debates with leading Christian apologists, showed himself to be familiar with the Christian idea of salvation, and even brought up to Cooper in the interview the Pascalian notion of the Wager, although he did it in an incorrect and mocking manner. But like Hitchens, many people are mistaken as to what Pascal actually meant when he referred to the Wager for God. As Kreeft shows in his commentary provided in The Trinity Forum booklet on Pascal, the Wager is not an attempt to prove that God exists. Rather, it attempts to show the reasonableness for anyone who "bets" on God, to hope that God is, and to invest his or her life in God. Pascal writes: "I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true." (#387) Observe that Pascal is saying that we can be wrong in two different ways. First, by "wagering" on God when there is no God, or secondly, by "wagering" on there being no God when there actually is a God. The second mistake loses everything, while the first loses nothing. The second option then, wagering against God, is, in Kreeft's blunt words, "The stupidest wager in the world, while the first is the wisest." One could also say that we can also be right in two ways, by wagering on God when there is a God, or by wagering against God when there is no God. With the former we gain everything, and with the latter, we gain nothing, for there is simply nothing to be gained. It's also important to realize that Reason alone cannot settle this question. For if we had blinding proof, we would not need to even take a chance. The Wager is therefore addressed to those who are curious, but not convinced of either theism (God exists) or atheism (God does not exist). Pascal then does something quite brilliant in his Pensees on the subject of the Wager. He has an imaginary objector, who is neither a theist or atheist, take a third position, the position of agnosticism, where no bet is made at all. The objector chides: "I will condemn them not for having made this particular choice, but any choice, for...they are both at fault: the right thing is not to wager at all." (#418) Here Pascal puts his finger on the dilemma we seem to face frequently with people: a withdrawal, or noncommitment, an existential agnosticism. It is close to the folly of "indifference." Yet as Kreeft points out so well: "Not to wager at all is simply not an option any human being can live, though he can think it. The option of agnosticism is closed to us, not by thought but by life--or, rather, by death...Because we are 'already committed,' that is, embarked, as on a ship. The ship is our life. The sea is time. We are moving, past a port that claims to be our true home. We can choose to turn and put in at this port (to believe) or to refuse, but we cannot choose to stay motionless out at sea. For we are not motionless; we are dying. Our journey--and our fuel, is finite. Some day soon the fuel will run out, and we will no longer be able to choose to put in at the port of God, to believe, for we will have no more time. There is a point of no return." In Christopher Hitchens Vanity Fair article chronicling his cancer, titled "Topic of Cancer," he admitted: "My father had died, and very swiftly, too, of cancer of the esophagus. He was 79. I am 61. In whatever kind of 'race' life may be, I have very abruptly become a finalist." Hitchens knows time is running out...
To see this video interview with Hitchens conducted by Anderson Cooper, please go to: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/07/video-extended-interview-hitchens-on-cancer-and-atheism/ Post your comments:FinishingWell is not responsible for the content of these Comments
|
Previous PostsDecember Christmas and Easter: Is There Really Any Difference? Christmas: The Grand Miracle... November Making a Living: So What's It All About? What Did Steve Jobs See at the End? October September Tourist Christianity: An Interview with Frederick Buechner Whistling in the Dark... A Visit with Frederick Buechner July Geek Theologian: An Interview With Wired Magazine Founder Kevin Kelly June Is Success a Sin? Harvard Business Review Topics
Business and Work |
Tue,Aug 10 2010 03:19:41 PM
"The interview is very interesting. Hitchens really goes all in when he claims that it's possible that people may hear of his conversion toward the end of his death. But if they do, don't believe it because it's the drugs or desperation talking (my paraphrase). How great would it be for him to receive a supernatural glimpse of heaven and hell only to come back and report. God has a unique way of using his most outspoken opponents and transforming them into champions (a la Paul)."
–Dan