PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Selected Readings Second Edition Edited by MICHAEL PETERSON Asbury College WILLIAM HASKER Huntington College BRUCE REICHENBACH Augsburg College DAVID BASINGER Roberts Wesleyan College New York Oxford OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2001 76 Faith and Reason The Wager 77 is in the same case as an act whose category is unmentioned, so that the The reason why we have received a Scripture with both an apparent and lawyer has to infer it by reasoning from Scripture. If Scripture speaks about an inner meaning lies in the diversity of people's natural capacities and the it, the apparent meaning of the words inevitably either accords or conflicts difference of their innate dispositions with regard to assent. The reason why with the conclusions of demonstration about it. If this [apparent meaning] ac- we have received in Scripture texts whose apparent meanings contradict cords there is no argument. If it conflicts there is a call for allegorical inter- each other is in order to draw the attention of those who are well grounded pretation of it. The meaning of "allegorical interpretation" is: extension of the in science to the interpretation which reconciles them. This is the idea re- significance of an expression from real to metaphorical significance, without ferred to in the words received from the Exalted (III, 7), "He it is who has sent forsaking therein the standard metaphorical practices of Arabic, such as call- down to you the Book, containing certain verses clear and definite" [and so ing a thing by the name of something resembling it or a cause or consequence on] down to the words "those who are well grounded in science." ... or accompaniment of it, or other things such as are enumerated in accounts of the kinds of metaphorical speech. On such difficult questions, error committed by a qualified judge of his sub- ject is excused by God, while error by an unqualified person is not excused. If the lawyer can do this, the religious thinker certainly can. Indeed these al- legorical interpretations always receive confirmation from the apparent meaning of other passages of Scripture. It seems that those who disagree on the interpretation of these difficult questions earn merit if they are in the right and will be excused [by God] if they are in error. For assent to a thing as a result of an indication [of it] aris- Now if the lawyer does this in many decisions of religious law, with how ing in the soul is something compulsory, not voluntary: i.e. it is not for us [to much more right is it done by the possessor of demonstrative knowledge! For choose] not to assent or to assent, as it is to stand up or not to stand up. And the lawyer has at his disposition only reasoning based on opinion, while he since free choice is a condition of obligation, a man who assents to an error as who would know [God] [has at his disposition] reasoning based on certainty. a result of a consideration that has occurred to him is excused, if he is a So we affirm definitely that whenever the conclusion of a demonstration is in scholar. This is why the Prophet, peace on him, said, "If the judge after exert- conflict with the apparent meaning of Scripture, that apparent meaning ad- ing his mind makes a right decision, he will have a double reward; and if he mits of allegorical interpretation according to the rules for such interpretation makes a wrong decision he will [still] have a single reward." And what judge in Arabic. This proposition is questioned by no Muslim and doubted by no is more important than he who makes judgements about being, that it is thus believer. But its certainty is immensely increased for those who have had or not thus? These judges are the scholars, specially chosen by God for [the close dealings with this idea and put it to the test, and made it their aim to task of] allegorical interpretation, and this error which is forgivable accord- reconcile the assertions of intellect and tradition. Indeed we may say that ing to the Law is only such error as proceeds from scholars when they study whenever a statement in Scripture conflicts in its apparent meaning with a the difficult matters which the Law obliges them to study.... conclusion of demonstration, if Scripture is considered carefully, and the rest of its contents searched page by page, there will invariably be found among the expressions of Scripture something which in its apparent meaning bears witness to that allegorical interpretation or comes close to bearing witness. BLAISE PASCAL All Muslims accept the principle of allegorical interpretation; they only dis- The Wager agree about the extent of its application. In his famous Wager, Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) poses the question: If you had In the light of this idea the Muslims are unanimous in holding that it is to decide for or against belief in the Christian God with no evidence whatso- not obligatory either to take all the expressions of Scripture in their apparent ever-no reason either to believe God exists or to believe that he does not- meaning or to extend them all from their apparent meaning by allegorical in- what should you choose? Basing his case on probability theory, Pascal argues terpretation. They disagree [only] over which of them should and which should not be so interpreted: the Ash'arites for instance give an allegorical in- that the only rational choice under such circumstances is to believe. Note, terpretation to the verse about God's directing Himself and the Tradition however, that Pascal does not think it really is in our power simply to "decide about His descent, while the Hanbalites take them in their apparent meaning. to believe." On the contrary, he thinks that our desires will keep us from be- The double meaning has been given to suit people's diverse intelligence. The apparent contradictions are meant to stimulate the learned to deeper study. From Penses, in Pensees and the Provincial Letters by Blaise Pascal, trans. W. F. Trotter. New York: Modem Library, 1941. 78 Faith and Reason The Wager 79 lieving even when we can clearly see that this is the rational choice; thus, we must purify our hearts so as to be able to believe. Nor does he really think the if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you believer has no good reasons in support of his or her faith; Pascal's Pensees as would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, a whole constitutes a forceful defense of the truth of Christianity. being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infin- ity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infi- nitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; wherever the infinite is If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no p.arts nor limits: He .has affi.nity .to us. We are then incapable of knowing time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he either what He 1s or 1f He 1s. This bemg so, who will dare to undertake the de- must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, cision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him. as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness. Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainty of what is staked They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is cer- and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would tainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes keep their word; is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such, and takes away a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an in- from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse finite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; who receive it." Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and is But .to side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the cer- There 1s an mfirnte chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the tainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss.