What is Pascal’s Wager? It’s an argument for belief in God based on the possible benefits of such belief rather than trying to prove whether or not God exists. Here is Pascal’s simplest statement of the argument:

“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

So to give a quick summary: 1. You bet that God exists. If you’re wrong, you’ve lost nothing. If you’re right, you’ve gained eternal joy. 2. You bet that God doesn’t exist. If you’re wrong, you’ve gained eternal misery. If you’re right, you’ve neither gained nor lost. So the better choice is to bet that God exists.

A Christian friend recently sent me the following a YouTube video, and I commend it to your attention. It’s a discussion of global climate change, and it presents a pretty logical argument for taking action, arguing in a manner similar to that of Pascal’s Wager.

I’ve been thinking for a while about how Christians should think about the environment, and I’ve come to a few conclusions. Some are pretty definite, and some are just speculations. A couple of scripture verses seem particularly relevant:

The earth is the Lords’s and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein;
for He has funded it upon the seas,
and established it upon the rivers. — Ps 24:1-2

This verse is important because it reminds us that above all else, the world belongs to God. The consequence of this is that we’re answerable to Him for how we treat the world. God owns this planet, so what right have we to destroy what He has made? Many folks will cite the commandment in Gen 1:28 (Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion . . . over every living thing), stating that we are supposed to be using the earth’s resources. But consider that this command was issued before the Fall. It seems to me not only possible but very probable that most of our stewardship of the planet is deeply tainted by the sins of greed and wastefulness. I mean, part of this verse (“Be fruitful and multiply…”) has to do with sex and family life, and we humans have certainly botched that area of our lives. Even Christians don’t do very well here, notwithstanding all of our pro-family rhetoric. But getting back to environmental wrongdoing, look at the explicit biblical example of poor stewardship described and condemned in these verses from Isaiah:

Woe to those who join house to house,
who add field to field,
until there is no more room,
and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land.
The Lord of hosts has said in my hearing:
“Surely many houses shall be desolate,
large and beautiful houses without inhabitant.
For ten acres of vinyard shall yield but six gallons of wine,
and a six bushels of seed shall yield but half a bushel of grain. — Is 5:8-10

Overbuilding beyond the agricultural capacity of the land to support those who live there is specifically condemned as a sin that will (together with several others) ultimately cause God to come in punitive judgement (see Is 3:24-25 and following verses).

As I mentioned earlier, some of my consideration of biblical teaching on these matters has resulted in one or two interesting speculations. I cannot say with any certainty whether or not these speculations are true — it will take a lot more study, and in the final analysis, I may never be able to determine whether I’m making valid inferences. In any case, one of my thoughts centers around Gen 1:28 — the verse I quoted earlier. It seems to me that it’s possible that we might have fulfilled the “fill the earth and subdue it” part of this command. If that’s the case, then maybe the best way to exercise benevolent dominion over the earth would be reduce our use of natural resources, possibly by limiting family size as well as exercising some frugality in our use of the limited resources that God has provided us.