Comparing Pascal and Hume

In todays world, many people search for a meaning in life and wonder how this world that we know today exists. One of the outlets that people look to in order to find meaning in life is the existence of God. When examining philosophers, one might turn to Blaise Pascal to examine the existence of God. In order to prove the existence of the Christian God, Pascal looks at how humans run away from wretchedness and take diversions in life in order to avoid the suffering, however Pascal states that if humans would recognize the reason for wretchedness is because of God's love, then they would realize they should not partake in diversion, but understand God's existence. This paper will examine the existence of the Christian God from Pascal's perspective in terms of the human condition and miracles as well as the counter view from David Hume and relate them to life in today's society.

According to Pascal, the only thing that consoles humans for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is mainly what prevents us from thinking about ourselves, leading us into our ruin. Without it, we would become bored, and this boredom would drive us to seek a more solid means of escape. However, diversion amuses us and guides us to death. (S 33, Pg. 6) Humans think that they are too great, which leads them into frustration when they fail, which then causes them to useless amusement. On page 38, Pascal states, "As men have not been able to cure death, wretchedness, or ignorance, they have decided in order to be happy, not to think about these things (S 166)." However, Pascal says that humans would recognize their strengths when they realize their wretchedness.

The main reason for their suffering and wretchedness is God. Pascal states that God is always present when we are suffering and that if we would simply realize that God is the redeemer of our wretchedness. If we look at human existence and everyday actions of humans, we would see that we as humans constantly are beating around the bush and not living in the present. Pascal feels that humans need to understand that we need to face the wretchedness because making diversions only makes us weaker and not accept God. As Pascal states, we can only know God by knowing and accepting our iniquities.

Pascal feels that if we submit ourselves to reason, the Christian religion have nothing mysterious and supernatural, which would also make the Christian religion absurd and ridiculous (S 240 Pg. 53). According to Pascal, in order to have the existence of the Christian God, we must understand that we cannot submit our religion to our own reason. Pascal states that Christ performed miracles, and because of these miracles that the prophecies of God were being fulfilled (S 211 Pg. 54). However, in order to fulfill the prophecies, the nations had to be converted beforehand, and without these miracles, the prophecies would have not been fulfilled. In the long run, Pascal feels that we would not sin in not believing in Jesus Christ, lacking miracles (S 213 Pg. 54). The only way that we are able to know Jesus Christ is through God, and without this mediator, we would not know of Christ. Pascal states that because of the prophecies that were fulfilled, which are solid, as well as the true event of the resurrection of Christ, we are able to know the proof of Christ's divinity (S 211 Pg. 55).

In order to understand the duty of the Christian God, we as humans must understand that we are united to God through grace and not nature, according to Pascal (Pg. 48). According to Pascal, we are humbled through pertinence and not nature, which gives the dual capacity. The dual capacity relates to the notion that we as humans are not in the state of which we were when we were created. This leads us to the value of searching. In keeping with Pascal, there are three kinds of people, those who serve God, having found him, those who are busy seeking him, not having found him; those who live without seeking or finding him (S 192). This ties into Pascal's submission to reason, which he feels that humans should never submit to if they believe in God. The whole reason that we as humans believe in Christ is because he is the one who has saved us from sin. According to Pascal, he also died for our sins in order to save us from wretchedness, however, many might see a chance for this to not be the case.

In contrast to Pascal, David Hume does not believe in the Christ or God. Hume is a pyrrhonian skeptic, which means that he feels that the only way to know if something or someone is proper and correct is to live that way or to experience that person through your life. In other words, live according to common life and avoid radical philosophical ideas. Hume states that ideas are more forceful and that all ideas come from impressions. Hume believes that there is no God, which means he feels as if there is no order.

One of the main reasons that Hume would disagree with Pascal's views deals with the different view that Hume has on the way the teachings of the Christian religion are presented as well as miracles and reason. Hume states that evidence of the truth in the Christian religion is less than evidence for the truth of our senses because of the passing from the first authors to the disciples, which gives no confidence in the testimonies (S X Pg. 73). Hume continues to say that these teachings are directly contrary to those of reasoning which contradicts sense, even though the scripture and tradition of the Christian religion are supposed to be built on senses (Pg. 73).

When examining miracles, Hume states that they are violations of the laws of nature and because experience has established the laws of nature, then this proves that miracles do not exist (Pg. 76). According to Hume, no testimony is sufficient enough to establish a miracle, unless its falsehood would present itself to be more miraculous, however in this case there is room for destruction of the arguments. Hume gives the example of when someone tells someone else that a man has seen a dead man restored to life, you automatically should consider whether it is more probable for this person to deceive or that he/she deceived the fact that the event happened (Pg. 77).

In other words, you need to weigh the consequences and thoughts against each other before you reach a final answer, but the final answer should always be to reject the greater miracle. It all comes back to the fact that even though there may be testimony in which a miracle is founded, it may be possible for that testimony to be false which makes it easy to show that there has never been a miraculous event based on full evidence, according to Hume (Pg. 78). Essentially, Hume would refute Pascal's ideas and the existence of Christ because according to Pascal, the mere existence of Christ in Pascal's world was based on miracles and prophecies fulfilled through the testimonies of the disciples and their miracles performed. Hume does not feel that miracles have enough solid testimony and leave too much room for falseness; therefore if one were to look at the existence of Christ from Hume's perspective, he would not exist.

If one were to take Pascal's ideas and apply them to life in the 21st century, it might be easier than you think. First of all, as we all know, religion is very present in the world today and many people do follow the ways of God and Christ. Many people follow the teachings of Christ and rely on their religion to lead them on the right paths. However, humans in our time, more so than humans of Pascal's time avoid their wretchedness more than ever and do not realize that the reason why they experience the wretchedness is because that Christ died humbly for their sins. As humans today, we are constantly finding ways to avoid negative situations and we are constantly looking for what the future holds, when Pascal says we need to confront the negative in our lives and realize that God wants us to live in the present moment and not fear the future. We as humans, according to Pascal experience futile lives and in order to cope with the futility, we need to realize God's love. However, because of the world today, this becomes very hard even for Christians.

As humans of the 21st century, we base our every move on the future, our emotions, reason, and fear of failure. Unfortunately, even though humans still base their lives on faith, showing that Pascal's findings would work in today's society would be very difficult. It is in humans' nature to sort out their future and to constantly think about what they can do in order to make a better future for themselves. They do not accept their human condition, rather they find a way to avoid it, which is exactly what Pascal does not feel to be correct. In one sense this order of thinking would work based on faith, but in another sense, if based on the current time and logic, it seems as if Hume would have a better chance at proving that we need to realize that God does not exist and that he is nothing but a false representation to the human condition.

Whether or not either of these perspectives would hold true in our current time is still unknown to us as humans, however one would hope that after researching both, that people would understand the need to have a variety of view points. When it comes to religion and basing human condition on religion, people will always feel differently. All we as humans can do is continue to research and come to the conclusion of whichever side individually. Hume and Pascal are philosophers and what they encourage humans to do is think critically, which trying to prove the existence of Christ and God in relation to the human condition incorporates, thinking.