Compare and Contrast

    When considering Blaise Pascal’s stance on the nature of God’s existence, there is no greater antithesis than René Descartes’ arguments for God. While there are no recorded dialogues between Pascal and Descartes about the nature of God, they did meet in Paris in 1647, and Pascal did write a small amount about Descartes. A large portion of Pascal’s criticisms in Pensées are aimed at Descartes (Hunter 20). Descartes and Pascal have complete opposite views about how to handle God’s existence. While Pascal believes the belief in God is God-given and cannot be discovered through reason, Descartes believes the only way to know of God’s existence is through reason and the mind.

    Pascal presented what became known as “Pascal’s wager” in the Pensées. The wager posited that there is no way to truly know of God’s existence, so it is worth it to believe in Him, just in case it turns out he is real. Pascal claims that there is a lot to lose if one does not believe in God and it turns out he is real, but not a lot to lose if one does believe in God and it turns out he is not real. There is nothing to gain if one does not believe in God and he is not real, but there is a lot to gain if one does believe in God and it turns out that he is real. It is important to note that Pascal is not urging people to believe in God, as he thinks one can only gain that through a gift from God, but instead he is urging non-believers to want to believe in God and thus live a more holy life. 

    Descartes, on the contrary, presented a line of reasoning to prove God’s existence. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, he strives to build his knowledge from a clean state. This is an entirely rational process, depending only on the thoughts in his mind. He begins by presenting the “cogito”, or the statement that “I am thinking, therefore, I exist.” Once he uses this to prove his own existence, he moves on to proving the existence of God. In the Third Mediation, Descartes first posits that there are such things as ideas, but we must question where they come from and how we can judge them. To remedy this, he presents the causal principle, or the theory that an idea must come from something. More specifically, there are two types of reality that ideas have: formal and objective. Formal reality is concerned with the reality of an idea as being an idea. Objective reality is concerned with the reality of an idea as being a representation of something. So the causal principle states that an idea can only be caused by a thing that has at least as much formal reality as it has objective reality. Through this he says we can measure how much reality an idea has using substances and modes. Descartes acknowledges that there are two types of things in the world: substance and modes. There are also two types of substances: infinite and finite. God is an infinite substance and thus has the most reality, compared to finite reality, which has less reality, and modes, which have the least reality. The idea of God must have as much formal reality as it does objective reality, but the objective reality of God, being infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient, cannot come from a finite substance such as Descartes, so it must have come from God himself. The only way that he can have an idea of God is if God exists. Descartes presents a further argument for the existence of God in the Fifth Meditation. Here he posits that he has a clear and distinct idea of God, and part of this idea is that it is in God’s nature that he always exists. Because Descartes has this clear and distinct idea of God, God must exist. This is Descartes’ a priori ontological argument.

    It can clearly be seen that Descartes’ argument is wholly dependent on the use of reason, while Pascal’s argument actually negates reason as a viable way to prove the existence of God. In addition to the clear differences in each philosopher’s argument, it is also worth highlighting the difference in each of their intentions. While Descartes is trying to prove that God does indeed exist, Pascal is trying to get non-believers to want to believe that God exists. Descartes thinks it is possible to “prove” the existence of God, but Pascal would disagree with this. In Pensées he says “It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that He should not exist.” Pascal is not striving to prove anything about God, as he knows that is not possible. To Pascal, the only way that one can know if God exists is if they have the God-given belief in them. Both philosophers are indeed trying to convince people of something, but Descartes wants to convince people of God’s existence while Pascal wants to convince people that it is worth it to want to believe in God, and then act accordingly. Pascal’s argument seems to be more of a “call to action” than Descartes' argument, which is more ontological. So while Pascal would indeed disagree with Descartes’ argument, it is not necessarily on the grounds of the wager, as the wager is not functioning in the same way that Descartes’ ontological argument is. Pascal does assert that one cannot know of the existence of God through reason, and while that piece of information is necessary for the wager to work, it is not what the wager is specifically arguing for. 

    Despite this distinction, the quality of the arguments can be compared to each other. Considering the fact that both philosophers are appealing to people who do not already believe in God, Pascal’s argument seems more effective at achieving its goal. Descartes’ argument is contingent on certain beliefs, making it harder to accept than Pascal’s. One must first accept the key part of the argument, that if one clearly and distinctly perceives something, it must be true. God is real to Descartes because he clearly and distinctly perceives the idea that existence is necessary to God’s existence. However, an atheist could easily say that they clearly and distinctly perceive the idea that existence is not necessary to God’s existence, or further that they do not even clearly and distinctly perceive the idea of God. This would create a huge problem for the  argument. Descartes’ argument is too highly subjective to be able to objectively prove the existence of God, and seems like it would hardly convince anyone of the existence of God. On the contrary, Pascal’s argument appeals only to logic, laying out an argument for why it would be beneficial for one to want to believe in God. The fact that he is not making any statements about the existence of God seems to make it easier to accept. Pascal and Descartes both present arguments about the issue of the existence of God, and while they are drastically different, Pascal’s argument seems to be more successful.     

    Pascal’s Wager has been a popular topic of discussion since its conception. The wager relates to the larger debate of the nature of God. Pascal is a clear believer in God, but he adopts a unique argument of not attempting to prove God’s existence, as other philosophers, such as Descartes, do. Pascal adopts a naturalistic stance in his argument when he says “let us now speak according to natural lights”(Pascal 66). This means that Pascal gives up his ability to use “revelation, transcendence, or supernatural beings” to make his points (Hunter 113). Between this and his lack of appeal to reason, he does not have a lot to work with to make his argument. Descartes also adopts a naturalistic stance, but contrary to Pascal, he relies solely on reason to prove God’s existence. Pascal’s argument can only be viewed as successful when it is emphasized that he is not attempting to prove God’s existence, as it would be incredibly difficult to do this with the restrictions he puts on himself, but is instead trying to persuade people, specifically non-believers, to alter their lives to act as if they did believe in God. Pascal’s Wager does fit into the debate of the nature of God, but perhaps only slightly. In the Pensées, Pascal indeed talks about the nature of God, for example saying “God has set up in the Church visible signs to make Himself known to those who should seek Him sincerely” (Pascal 53). However, this is not directly part of the wager itself. Pascal’s wager can instead be seen as part of the larger debate of how people should act. Pascal is advocating for civil obedience motivated by a desire for eternal happiness. The wager can also be tangentially related to the debate of what happens after death. Although he does not elaborate on it much, Pascal implies that there is an afterlife of sorts, where people who led holy lives will go to be in eternal bliss, and those who did not live holy lives will go to live in eternal damnation. God will decide where one goes based on how they lived their life. 

    Pascal’s Wager reflects Blaise Pascal’s alternative interests in mathematics. He is combining his philosophical ideas with his mathematical ideas of probability. Despite mathematics often being more objective than philosophy, Pascal’s application of it to the question of God’s existence fails to remove the uncertainty. This highlights the difficulty of proving God’s existence. Perhaps Pascal is right that the belief in God is a gift from God and one cannot understand or prove it through reason.