Parentheses

While I was at work today, for some reason, I started thinking about Pascal’s Wager, and I realized how it is used sometimes for absolutely bizarre reasons.  For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, Pascal’s Wager is a concept formulated by Pascal, a French philosopher, that essentially goes like this: if (since?) God’s existence cannot be proven by reason, one should “wager” as if He does exist, because if he does, one has everything to gain or lose, but if He does not exist, the one who has believed in Him hasn’t really lost anything, nor has the one who did not believe lose  anything.  (Wikipedia has a much fuller article than I would be able to or care to produce – here.)

Regardless of how reasonable that seems to you, my mine frustration is not with his ‘wager’ as much as it is how people use it.  According to the Wikipedia article, and it also makes sense given what I do know about Pascal, he did not conceive of it as a ‘proof’ for the existence of God, but it was simply a conclusion of his arguments about uncertainty and the weaknesses of reason.  In that regard, it may be reasonable, however, as usual, the problem lies with those who come after him.  I have, in my ‘circles’ seen this used in proselytizing, and they were being serious.  To me, it seems that telling somebody “well, what have you got to lose if you’re wrong” is one of the worst ways to actually communicate Christianity.  Furthermore, I can’t think of a time that would ever sway what I believe about anything.  As you should have expected, there is a quote from Kierkegaard that seems particularly applicable.

Although, as frequently noted, the leap is the decision, Jacobi nevertheless wants to fashion a little transition to it.  He, the eloquent speaker, wants to entice Lessing.  “It does not amount to much,” he says, “it is not such a difficult matter.  Just step on this elastic spot – then the leap will come by itself.”  This is a very good example of the pious fraud of eloquence; it is as if someone were to recommend execution by guillotine and say,  “This whole business is an easy matter.  You just lie down on a board, a string is pulled, then the ax falls down – and you have been executed.”  But suppose now that being executed is what one does not want, and it is the same with making the leap.

It seems to me that Pascal’s Wager also falls into this trap when it is used to evangelize people.  If, as is so often said, Christianity is a ‘relationship’ between the individual and Christ, this becomes even more ridiculous.  Does anyone say to another person “Hey, you should be my friend, after all, what is there to lose?”  I have certainly never heard or seen that happen before, but who knows.  All told, it seems that Pascal’s Wager is not an evangelistic tool, but perhaps merely a thought exercise, after all, Paul says:

And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.  Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up – if in fact the dead do not rise.  For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.  And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile: you are still in your sins!  then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.  (I Corinthians 15:14-19, NKJV)

I don’t know about you, but to me, that is the opposite of simply ‘what do you have to lose?’  If, in fact we would be “of all men the most pitiable” there must be something that could be lost by believing in Christ.  In order to understand Christianity as simply the best option because there is less to lose, one must have a completely different understanding of Christianity than Paul did.  In fact, it would seem, according to Paul, that believing in Christianity is actually the riskier of the options.  Of course, Jesus said: “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.  For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8: 34-5 NKJV).  Clearly then, a Christianity which can tell people “What do you have to lose?” is clearly not the Christianity of the New Testament.

Kierkegaard quote  from: Concluding Unscientific Postscripts page 103