Douglas
Groothuis
Defending
Christian Faith, October 19, 2004
DEPOSED
ROYALTY:
PASCAL’S ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND THE WAGER
If
he exalts himself, I humble him.
If
he humbles himself, I exalt him.
And
I go on contradicting him
Until
he understands
That
he is a monster that passes all understanding—Pascal.
I.
Pascal: Misunderstood Genius
(On Pascal, chapter one)
A.
Pascal as fideist and existentialist: wrong
B.
The “wager-only” Pascal (Alan Carter, numerous
philosophy of religion anthologies): wrong
II.
Pascal’s Life and thought (On Pascal, chapters two
and four)
A.
Scientific achievements
B.
Religious controversy
C.
Pascal’s apologetic project: Pensées
III.
Building
the Christian Apologetic on Basic Theism
A.
Concepts of truth and rationality
B.
Theistic arguments: cosmological, design, moral, etc. (contra
Pascal)
C.
Critiquing other worldviews: naturalism, pantheism, polytheism
IV. Argument
from Christian Revelation to Explain Human Condition (On
Pascal,
chapter eight)
A.
Explanatory range of a worldview: human condition essential
component of explanation
B.
Argument appeals to sense of personal identity and meaning: self-understanding,
exploration
V.
Human Greatness and Misery
A.
Greatness in intellect, artistry, etc.
B.
Misery in intellect gone wrong, weakness, etc.
C.
Mystery of the human condition
VI. No
Consolation From (Merely Human) Philosophy (Colossians 2:8)
A.
Two errors of philosophy
1.
Misery without greatness
2.
Greatness without dignity
3.
Need for a tertium quid
VII. Transcending
Merely Human Philosophy
A.
Explaining misery and greatness
1.
Created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26)
2.
Fallen (Genesis 3; Mark 7:21 – 23; Romans 3)
3.
Remnants of greatness in misery (“rumors of
glory”—Bruce Cockburn)
VIII. Pursuing the
Best Explanation
A.
The dual nature as intellectually cogent
B.
That human condition needs to be explained, not just accepted
C.
Doctrines of original creation and subsequent sin are
convincing
IX. The
Abductive Argument Form
A.
Neither deductive, nor inductive—best inference to the
explanation (IBE)
B.
Confirming instances of hypothesis (dual nature)
C.
Not affirming the consequent fallacy (If p, then q; q;
therefore, p)
X.
The Apologetic Worth of this Argument
A.
Part of a larger cumulative case for Christian hypothesis
B.
Illuminates human condition uniquely
C.
Offers hope for human restoration through Christ
D.
Initial treatment for unbelief
·
See
also:
XI. Pascal's
Wager (On Pascal, chapter nine)
A.
Prologue: agnosticism
and God
B.
The wager proper
C.
The wager: risks
and rewards
D.
If many gods, why one wager? Evidential
considerations
E.
Is it religious brainwashing? Cognitive
elements
F.
Is it true faith? A
beginning
For more on the proper interpretation and
philosophical force of Pascal’s wager.
1.
Douglas Groothuis, “Pascal Speaks from the Grave,”
Think (Autumn, 2004), #8. For the wager.
2.
Alan Carter, “On Pascal’s Wager: Or All Bets Are
Off,” Philosophia Christi, series 2, 3, no. 2 (2001):
511-516. Against the wager.
3.
Douglas Groothuis, “Are All Bets Off? A Defense of
Pascal’s Wager,” Philosophia Christi, series 2, 3,
no. 2 (2001): 517-524. For the wager.
4.
Alan Carter, “Is Pascal’s Wager Back On? A Response
to Groothuis,” Philosophia Christi, series 2, 4, no. 2
(2002): 493-500. Against the wager.
5.
Douglas Groothuis, “An Unwanted Farewell to Pascal’s
Wager: Reply to Carter,” Philosophia Christi, series 2,
4, no. 2 (2002): 501-508. For the wager.