Pascal’s Wager: An Environmental Version
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.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
hey big al –
Loved the ren faire nerd in the video! What’s his reenacting name? Sir Nerdus from Algoreus?! I remember the good old days — big hair Aquanet chicks in the 80s. I wonder how much damage Bon Jovi fans have done to the ozone. Reaganomics were good to the Demarcos growing up. I remember vacations to the Brazilian rain forest — my parents and I would burn acres of rain forest just to watch the animals run. Ozone schmozone, there was nothin’ cooler then seeing endangered animals scamper for their lives! Yup , on a good vacation we could have personally wiped out 2 or 3 hundred acres. But enough about me — the earth and everything in it will all burn when Jesus comes back so lets live for today!!! I cant remember weather it was Jesus or Prince that said “… I’m gonna party like its 1999!!!! viva le Reagan!! lol?
December 10th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Great comment, Jeff — a few years ago I read this web comic titled “Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything” that I think you would have enjoyed. Unfortunately, the site doesn’t seem to exist any more — I scoured the web looking for it, but it’s gone.
I’m glad you brought up the “it’s all gonna burn when Jesus returns” argument. I was thinking of discussing it in my initial post, but I couldn’t think of a good place to put it. Any way, it may be true that everything will burn when the Lord returns, but I think that He’d prefer to find His people caring for His creation rather than abusing it.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I am aching for more time to watch the videos, but the first two were awesome. I think the whole “human or natural cause” thing is such a red herring. Maybe this analogy doesn’t hold up, but whether you lose a loved one to murder or cancer, that person is still gone. And in hindsight, no matter what the cause, we wonder if there was anything we could have done to prevent it. I prefer to err on the side of caution. It’s not about the letter of the law here–just like any other part of our responsibility as Christians–but about the heart. The bottom line is that we were given a charge over creation and Christians should be on the front lines of conservation, not arguing about “cause”. It’s a waste of time.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:12 am
That is a very interesting way to look at the issues to the climate change issues. While I couldn’t watch the video I enjoyed your article and the concept.
I have never been a great fan of the Pascal’s wager as good reasoning. Even though I have never heard of the term until reading this, I remember some of my first contemplations of God including this wager. It sounds safe at first but once you start to realize that many people who have already taken this wager have very different opinions on where it leads you. Hindu, Islam, Christianity… even many divisions in each.
The same thing happens on the climate issue. Just like many can see that God exists, many can see that the earth’s temperature has gotten warmer; however the inference of that and where it takes us can diverge greatly. As a Christian when someone wagers that God exists and the choose Islam to serve him I understand their efforts as futile eternally. So while we see that the earth is warmer than it was 30 years ago our efforts cannot be categorized as something is better than nothing. Something in the wrong direction might be worse than nothing in no direction.
There are certain measures that we should agree on. Local stewardship and conservation of the land around us and keeping our personal waste to a minimum is action everyone can take. The divergence I have with climate change action is that the policies are behind the current science. The evidence of Carbon Monoxide affecting climate change is less substantial than first thought, with possibly little to no effect on our climate. Also the actions suggested cause difficulty and pain for those least able to afford it.
Sorry to be such a downer but what if the earth started getting colder what would we do then? Would driving SUVs and using hairspray help us?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
As you point out, Pascal’s Wager is primarily an argument in favor of theism, not Christianity. I think, however, that Pascal probably thought that any argument in favor of theism was an argument on favor of Christianity — after all, keep in mind the time in which he lived!
Regarding climate change — Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle’s SciFi novel Fallen Angels is an interesting take on this issue, taking a position that efforts to reduce global warming would result in another ice age. In any case, the video is worth watching if you can get the time. The point of my posting was to stimulate discussion on the importance of stewardship of the earth. As Christians, we have a responsibility — before God whom we serve and before the nations to whom we bear witness — to husband the Creation’s resources. If human action so far has resulted in global warming, then we ought to be taking the lead in action to mitigate that warming. And in the case of your hypothetical global cooling scenario, if the cause was human activity, then it would be appropriate for us to take the lead in action to mitigate that cooling.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Now that I could see the video I could notice that some of his assumptions were contradictory. There really is not a choose nothing option. If you buy the assumption that humans contribute signifigantly to global climate then we are either making the climate cooler or hotter and then we would have the ability to choose the perfect temperature for the world. Now the decision needs to be made how hot or cold do we want the world to be? I work in an office and there are 4 people who are always cold and 2 people who are always hot and they never can or will agree on a temperature so do you know who suffers? The 4 who are cold because the 2 people who say they are hot have the authority to change the thermostat! This story is indicative of the decision the 1st world nations have made for the rest of the world. They have decided that there is one temperature the world should be and it would be inconvenient for it to change. Therefore they will force everyone to comply with their decision because they have already determined the outcome. I already heard on the news yesterday that 2007 was cooler than expected and there is a scientist out there warning of global cooling! Have we replaced the prophets of old with “scientists”?
BTW-My next post will be more about christians responsibilities for the environment.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Jim, I think you might have missed something in the video — I looked at it again, and he has two columns (take action and don’t take action) crossed with two rows (climate change is a problem and climate change isn’t a problem). And while the argument presented is by no means flawless (what argument ever is?), I still found it to be pretty cogent. Possibly this is just my librarian sensibilities speaking, but the speaker put together quite a lot of supporting documentation that seems to me to add a lot of strength to his argument. I haven’t looked at much of it (there are about a dozen additional YouTube videos of varying length), but what I’ve seen is impressive.
Your question, “Who has the authority to change the thermostat?” is a good one. Certainly any action taken by 1st world nations is likely to have a negative economic impact on the developing nations where a lot the world’s manufacturing now takes place. There is always a balance to be maintained between environmental regulations and their human costs. But as the speaker in the video points out, lack of action also has a human cost. Which cost is higher? Personally, I am more likely to accept the scientific community’s predictions of doom for not taking action than to accept the business community’s predictions of doom if we do. The scientific community is at least nominally motivated by a quest for truth, while the business community is motivated by a quest for wealth, and not nominally, either. Granted, both are deeply rooted in pride — pride of controlling knowledge for the scientists, and pride of controlling wealth for the businessmen.
January 14th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Good points Lon,
I just wanted to say that I see no neutral when it comes to global temperature. It is either warmer or cooler than it was the year (or decade) before.
But as to the concept of Scientists and Christians (I know the two groups can and do overlap) concern and responsibilities for the earth that we live in, I think it is important to look at all claims critically.
While I see all of the verses you quoted as relevant I have not found nor expect to see a verse in the Bible that has specific directions on how to treat the earth we live in. There are basic premises that you quoted from Genesis and other places but no real specifics. The Bible provides much more information about what diet you should eat than how to steward our natural resources. I don’t think that my finances, time, or talents should be squandered and neither should the natural gifts God has provided for us.
As you mentioned even scientific claims are subject to the motives of the people who put them forth. While scientists are mostly looking for truthful answers (there are plenty of examples of frauds fro $ and prestige), most also come with a set of assumptions that Christians are opposed to.
The world exists because of an accident. As a Christian we believe that the earth was created and designed by God, most scientists think that we exist because of an improbable random event. These assumptions do not conflict when we talk about potable water being contaminated by industrial waste, as in Chins a few years ago. But when it comes to dire projections of what might happen because of global warming I see a conflict between these. If God did design the world as I believe then you could also believe that he had foresight in the population growth and the rise of carbon dioxide (which we exhale). God would have designed the world robust enough to withstand increases and decreases in temperature from both outside and inside factors (for example both the sun and humans). If the earth was made by an improbable accident then it is possible that any minor change could prove to be destructive to the entire planet as we know it. I am not proposing that God would not allow humans to destroy the planet he made, but I am saying it is not the most probable answer. God covered the earth with water for forty days, if the earth survived that and Noah did then maybe we would make it if it was a few degrees warmer than it is now. I think Aquinas made the watch argument for God as the creator, regardless just think if you found a watch on the beach, and believed it had no designer you probably wouldn’t turn it upside-down or shake it because if you did it might fall apart. If you trust the designer you would believe it is well made. Just like the watch though I am not advocating abuse of the world, nature and our resources, but I think it is alarmist to claim the destruction of the world from some abuses of nature.
I came up with a few other contradictory assumptions between Christians and Scientists but I will spare you the diatribe following these: Humans are the highest, most intelligent beings known to exist, and maintaining the human race is our highest priority.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:57 am
You raise a number of issues, and to address them all would take more time than I have right now, especially since I need to work on my next blog entry. I’l make one or two quick comments, and then consider this topic closed, at least for the time being.
The argument that God made the world so well that it can’t be broken is not, I think, much of an argument. The world is already broken, and has been broken since the Fall, and much of what the human race has done since then has contributed to its further degradation. And while it will always bear the marks of having been created by a loving and all-powerful God (see my earlier entries on Intelligent Design), those marks can also be degraded in a manner similar to the degradation of the image of God in human beings. The deeper a person plunges himself or herself in sin, the harder it is to see the image of God in that person.
There’s a Rabbinical teaching on how the Jewish people should live called Tikkun Olam — it means the repair or perfecting of the world. While it is primarily related to social concerns (most modern Jewish interpreters speak of it as the building of a just society within the chaos of the current world system), I think that it can be extended to environmental concerns.
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Hi Peeps, i would just like to make an introduction to everyone at lambofgodnj.org
Your forum is good! Frequently when I visit forums, I just come across junk, but this time I was very surprised, finding a helpful forum containing great information. Thanks dudes and keep this brilliant effort up.