In Chapter 6 (“The Divine One”), Clifford Williams argues for the…

In Chapter 6 (“The Divine One”), Clifford Williams argues for the…

In Chapter 6 (“The Divine One”), Clifford Williams argues for the “God” part of his enhancement thesismuch more

: IF God exists and IF we have a loving relationship with Him (which involves belief, trust, seeking to honor God, etc), THEN we can have a  meaningful life.

Williams says that in response to the enhancement thesis “the nonbeliever has three options: to deny the enhancement claim, to be indifferent to it even if it is true, or to be distressed by it.” (p. 108). Williams argues that denying the enhancement thesis is unreasonable. Williams argues that being indifferent to the enhancement thesis is unreasonable. The only reasonable option for the nonbeliever, according to Williams, is to accept it and be distressed/pained by it: “it should cause disappointment and sorrow that the universe is not such as to allow one to experience additional enhancing goods, in the same way that a child would be bitterly disappointed at having to miss a long-expected birthday party” (p. 109). What should nonbelievers do in response to this distress/pain?  Williams’s answer is this: this pain “should cause nonbelievers to look more extensively into what could legitimately prompt them to believe in a divine creator.” (p. 109)

Williams’ reasoning above and elsewhere (e.g. p. 132) is similar to a famous argument from philosopher Blaise Pascal, known as “Pascal’s wager.”

Pascal argues for the conclusion that the only rational course of action is to seek (really hard) to find out whether God exists or not, and if so who God is. He argues that it is crazy and irrational to ignore the matter because so much is personally at stake for us—namely, our well-being not only in this life but for all eternity.

Let me describe Pascal’s reasoning as follows.

We have two options.

Option #1: you can seek God diligently

OR

Option #2: you can ignore the matter of God.

Which option should you take?

Suppose you take option #1 and seek God diligently. Either you will find him OR not. Suppose you seek and find God: then you gain everything (happiness and salvation forever). But suppose you seek but don’t find God (because God is not real): then you have lost nothing (you simply live your earthly life and disappear after death).

Suppose you take option (2) and ignore the matter of God. Either God exists or not. Suppose God exists: then by ignoring him you have lost everything (happiness and salvation forever). But suppose God does not exist: then by ignoring him you have gained nothing (you simply live your earthly life and disappear after death).

Pascal’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Premise (1) By seeking God you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

Premise (2) By ignoring the matter of God you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Conclusion: Given what is personally at stake for us–our happiness and salvation–the only rational course of action is to seek God diligently.

If Pascal’s reasoning is unclear, here are two analogies (from philosopher Keter Kreeft) that can help us understand:

House-fire analogy: “Suppose you hear reports that your house is on fire and your children are inside. You do not know whether the reports are true or false. What is the reasonable thing to do—to ignore them or to take the time to run home or at least phone home just in case the reports are true?” So too, we should diligently seek God, given what is at stake.

Miracle drug analogy: “Suppose someone terribly precious to you lay dying, and the doctor offered to try a new ‘miracle drug’ that he could not guarantee but that seemed to have a 50-50 chance of saving your beloved friend’s life. Would it be reasonable to try it, even if it cost a little money?” So too, we should diligently seek God, given what is at stake.

Question: Is Pascal’s reasoning convincing or not? If so, defend it in an original way. If not, critique it. Focus specifically on assessing Pascal’s reasoning, not simply stating your own beliefs and views about God/religion.

[Keep in mind: Pascal is not arguing that God exists or that God does not exist. He is arguing only for the conclusion that we should seek (really hard) to find out whether God exists or not, given how much is personally at stake for us in the matter].