Douglas Groothuis, Beyond the Wager: The Christian Brilliance of Blaise Pascal (affiliate link). Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2024. 212 pages.
I have heard about Blaise Pascal all my adult life, but I hadn’t read anything about him. I like how this book unpacks Pascal’s insights, especially relating to the field of apologetics. He is most famous for his “wager,” but he contributed far more than that to the field.
Pascal (1623-1662) died at age 39. He lived during the age of renowned thinkers like Isaac Newton (1642-1727), Galileo (1564-1642), and Descartes, who was about twenty years older than him. It was a time of great thought and groundbreaking discoveries. Pascal left behind his Pensées, which he planned to make into a major work on apologetics. It was only a collection of his thoughts when he died.
Pascal was a child prodigy. When he was twelve, he worked out Euclid’s geometry to the 32nd proposition (11). While still a teen, Pascal published his first work, “Essay on Conic Sections.” When his father was buried with tax work, Pascal invented the first calculator (12). He also designed an omnibus.
On November 23, 1654, Pascal had a life-changing encounter with God. It has variously been described as “The Memorial” and “The night of fire” (16). He wrote his thoughts and then sewed them into the lining of his jacket. He never spoke of it, but it clearly changed him forever. Groothuis concludes, “It bears testimony to a transformational event in which Pascal apprehends the holy and joyous fire of the living God” (16).
Pascal eventually moved to a period of extreme asceticism (19). He set aside his scientific studies to focus on theology and apologetics. Pascal invented a calculator and his studies helped produce the syringe, the hydraulic pump, and the omnibus. He developed probability theory and a theorem of the mystic hexagon (21). But Pascal also contributed many insights into apologetics. As Groothuis notes, “. . . he discovered that bad theology could hurt good science” (29). Pascal was not against reason. He simply understood that human reason could only take people so far.
Pascal, a devout Catholic, waged a fierce war against the Jesuits, who used casuistry to provide loopholes for sinful behavior (41). Pascal believed people needed grace to be saved, whereas Jesuits were teaching that there was enough of the image of God left in man for him to make that choice (47). But leaving the process entirely in God’s hands also led Pascal to believe that God could remove salvation from people if he so chose.
Pascal rejected natural theology and the rationalist approach of Descartes (65). He believed that studying nature might lead people to believe in a magnificent creator, but it could never lead them to Jesus Christ as savior. Instead, he sought a different approach to proving God’s existence. Pascal wrote, “God’s existence is intimated and suggested in creation, but the divine reality is not overwhelmingly obvious” (77).
Pascal addressed the question of why God doesn’t do more to convince people unto salvation: “If [God] wished to overcome the obstinacy of the most hardened, he could have done so by revealing himself to them so plainly that they could not doubt the truth of his essence . . . It was therefore not right that he should appear in a manner diverse and absolutely capable of convincing all men, but neither was it right that his coming should be so hidden that he could not be recognized by those who sincerely sought him . . . Thus wishing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart and hidden from those who shun him with all their heart, he has qualified out knowledge of him by giving signs which can be seen by those who seek him and not by those who don’t. There is enough light for those who desire only to see and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition” (78).
Pascal argued that God has not overwhelmed his creatures. He has given enough light for those sincerely searching, but left enough darkness for those who do not wish to find God.
Pascal relied more heavily on divine revelation as an apologetic than on natural theology. Groothuis points out that “Pascal argues that the claim of divine revelation solved the riddle of the human condition by providing a compelling theological explanation to a philosophical and existential conundrum” (105).
Pascal also saw miracles as a powerful apologetic. But “. . . he believed the domains of scientific investigation and miraculous occurrences were not in competition for a total explanation of reality” (111).
Pascal studied Scripture carefully. He highlighted the “Principle of Embarrassment,” which suggests that the fact that the Gospels are not perfectly aligned and portray the main characters—aside from Christ—in unflattering ways is evidence of their authenticity (113). Pascal also saw fulfilled prophecy as evidence for the truth of Christianity (117). One reason he did not use natural theology is because he believed it did not adequately lead to Christ. He held that “Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or ourselves” (130).
Pascal also argued that the fact that Christianity survived in the first century against vastly more powerful enemies and competitors supports its legitimacy (140). Groothuis includes a chapter on Pascal’s view of Islam and how Christianity proved itself superior (148).
Ultimately, Pascal believed one must wager: “Uncommitted agnosticism is not an option. There is no choice, you are already committed” (167). The vastness of eternity makes the wager of this life a supreme wager that can only be wisely made one way (169).
I enjoyed this book. It certainly highlighted many of Pascal’s contributions to apologetics. He was clearly a brilliant thinker. I was familiar with natural theology and Descartes’ apologetic, but I was fascinated by how Pascal showed how perfectly Christianity answered his biggest questions and met his greatest needs. Certainly much of his reasoning could be used today.
I recommend this book. It will make you think!
Rating: 3
