"If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists." - Blaise Pascal
In the world of apologetics there exist at least two kinds of proofs: theoretical and practical. Theoretical proofs attempt to establish God's existence, while practical proofs attempt to show that it is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him. Blaise Pascal has developed one of the most popular practical proofs out there; it is known as Pascal's Wager. In this blog I will explain the wager to you and will attempt to show you its use in modern apolgetics.
The Wager
Pascal's wager simply says that it is better to believe in God then to not believe in Him. Here is a breakdown of Pascal's reasoning:
For the believer:
If God exists, then you gain everything.
If God does not exist, then you lose nothing.
For the non-believer:
If God does exist, then you lose everything.
If God does not exist, then you have only gained temporary, earthly things.
Basically, if you wager on God's existence and He ends up being real, then you have gained everything; if He ends up being fake, then you have lost nothing. However, if you choose not to believe in God and He ends up being real, then you have lost everything; if He isn't real, then you have only gained temporary, earthly things that you will lose at death anyway.
Analysis of the Wager
Pascal's wager is, at least to my mind, an interesting argument. Rather than trying to appeal to data, as many apologetics arguments do, the argument asks the reader/listener to consider the stakes involved with making a decision about God. As we can see, the believer has everything to gain, while the non-believer has everything to lose. There are a couple of objections to Pascal's wager, but for times sake I will omit them for the time being (I may choose to touch up on them at a later time). The main point is this: if you are someone who is on the fence about God, why not take a chance and believe? You may think to yourself, "well, wouldn't my faith be fake then?" Not exactly, as Pascal himself points out, sometimes you have to start off by going through the motions. Imagine a child who likes to pretend, and then one day ends up living out what he used to pretend. If you sincerly desire to have faith in God, yet you cannot get past some objections you may have, take a chance. God will honor the faith you place in Him, even if it is as small as a mustard seed.
(Note: I am not saying that religous motions are all it takes to be saved. I am simply saying that we all have to start somewhere, and if the best you can muster is to go to Church, or attempt to pray, then do it. I believe that God will honor your attempts to reach out to Him. The important thing is that you make the attempt.)
How can I as an apologist make use of this argument?
In my opinion, this argument is good for skeptics who want to believe. It won't do much to an atheist who is convinced that God isn't real. However, to the skeptic who wants to believe but cannot get past some objections, it may not be a bad idea to remind them of the stakes. If we cannot be 100% sure either way, then why not take a chance? What have you got to lose? What have you got to gain?
In Conclusion
Hopefully this has been useful to you. Please understand that I am a supporter of good reasoning and good evidence. However, I also think that sometimes we have to make choices where it is hard to be 100% sure of any of our options, and in those instances it isn't a bad idea to consider the stakes.
God bless and Jesus loves you!!
-Jon
This has always been the way I thought of it, I didn't know there was a theory for it though. Good read!
ReplyDeleteHey John,
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with 1 Cor. 15:19 that says something like, if there is no resurrection, than we are to be pitied most among men? I am familiar with Blaise Pascal's argument using the wager, but I often wondered how that reconciled with what Paul said that actually, if there is no resurrection, we (Christians) are actually in a worse spot than if we were non-Christians. I may be blind to something here. What are your thoughts on that?
In response to Ioan
ReplyDeleteI believe that verse 12 holds the answer to the problem. In verse 12 it says, "Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say, "There is no resurrection of the dead?" Basically, Paul was defending the idea of the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ by pointing out that if it weren't true our faith would be pointless, and he is right in saying this. Pascal's argument doesn't go against this at all, it simply looks at it from a different perspective. Imagine this: Paul says "if the resurrection didn't occur than our faith is pointless." Pascal then replies, "Yes it is, however, since we are not able to know 100% either way, why not take a chance and believe? What have you got to lose?"
Hopefully this helps.
Dear Jon: I agree that verse 12 should be taken together with verse 19. However, it is my thought that the reason Paul was saying that we are to be pitied most among men is because, when we do put our faith in Christ, there is a high cost to that commitment. I believe that a good and plenty of Christians around the world understand quite well what Paul was trying to say since they suffer daily due to their decision to put their faith in the resurrection of Christ. For them, it is trully clear that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, they are to be pitied most among men for they will have sacrificed sooo much to realize that the reason for their sacrifice was in vain. Maybe if becoming a Christian meant that life would then become easy we could say I have nothing to lose either way of the wager. But that is not the case. The martyred missionary, Jim Elliot, was once quoted as saying, "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep in order to gain what he can never lose". He understood that in order to gain life in Christ, there was a necessary laying down of one's life. I submit this to you for your response.
ReplyDelete