GOD Pascal and Spinoza on God Continental philosophers in the century of Descartes moved on from his treatment of God’s existence in two diVerent directions Blaise Pascal abandoned the quest for a demonstration: our natural reason was so limited and so corrupt that any such attempt must be futile Instead, he urged informal considerations that should prompt us to believe in the absence of proof Baruch Spinoza, on the other hand, oVered his own version of the ontological argument, giving it the most thoroughly formalized presentation it had ever received Pascal admits that by the natural light of reason we are incapable not only of knowing what God is, but even if there is a God at all But the believer is not left without resource He addresses the unbeliever thus: Either God exists or not Which side shall we take? Reason can determine nothing here An inWnite abyss separates us, and across this inWnite distance a game is being played, which will turn out heads or tails Which will you bet? (P, 680) You, the unbeliever, perhaps prefer not to wager at all But you cannot escape: the game has already begun and all have a stake The chances, so far as reason can show, are equal on either side But the outcomes of the possible bets are very diVerent Suppose you bet your life that God exists If you win, God exists, and you gain inWnite happiness; if you lose, then God does not exist and what you lose is nothing So the bet on God is a good one But how much should we bet? If you were oVered three lives of happiness in return for betting your present life, it would make sense to take the oVer But in fact what you are oVered is not just three lifetimes but a whole eternity of happiness, so the bet must be inWnitely attractive We have been assuming that the chances of winning or losing a bet on God are Wfty-Wfty But the proportion of inWnite happiness, in comparison with what is on oVer in the present life, is so great that the bet on God’s existence is a solid proposition even if the odds against winning are enormous, so long as they are only Wnite Is it true, as Pascal assumes, that one cannot suspend judgement about the existence of God? In the absence of a convincing proof either of theism or of atheism, is not the rational position that of the agnostic, who refuses to place a bet either way? Pascal claims that this is tantamount to betting against God That may be so, if in fact there is a God who has commanded 308