intellect + insomnia =

(excerpt from a separate conversation)

Pascal’s Wager is largely misinterpreted, in my opinion.
Based on my impressions from the rest of the Pensees, Pascal himself would say that the wager is a poor basis for belief, and is not at all the final word on salvation or the Christian life. The wager, in my perception, is a sort of last-ditch attempt to jar the hardened atheist into considering the position he has taken.

Pascal is highly sympathetic to those who continue to search for truth. He believes this is the best and most honest approach, for theists as well as atheists. He has no such sympathy for those who insist they have it all figured out, know THE answer (and this includes Christians, btw).

It is to the latter sort of atheist that the wager is primarily addressed. His point isn’t that Christianity is merely the safest bet, but that what the atheist is arguing for is at its core self-destructive. Essentially he’s saying (I think), “So this is the answer you’ve decided to settle on? Enslavement of mankind to nature, surrender to despair, a life that ends at best with oblivion and at worst perdition? Wake up. There is more to be done. Surely at all cost this answer should be avoided, every possibility explored?”

I find this to be one of the most compelling arguments contra atheism I’ve run across. It instills a healthy fear, not of hell in the atheist, but of atheism in the honest thinker. Atheism, at least for me, would have to be the final resort of someone who has completely exhausted every other possibility. It’s too terrifying and hopeless to subscribe to lightly.

Just my take on it. In reading the work of minds like these, I find that it’s safest to assume that if I can see a problem with something, they probably could too, and I should look carefully to see if they’ve already addressed it. Typically, they have.