Faith and Motivation for Belief

The Nature of Belief

It is important to understand what is meant by the word belief. In everyday speech to say ‘I believe something is true’ is often understood as meaning ‘I believe that it is probably true’. However, taken in a more precise sense, the word’ belief’ means ‘I have a conviction that it is true’. However, conviction of belief does not necessarily come as a result of logical argument. Belief may come about by deductive argument, by inductive argument, by personal experience or even by sheer blind personal acceptance and prejudice.

Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs

A rational belief is defined as that which has evidence to count towards it. The essential foundation of rationality is that it should be based on evidence. Evidence should indicate that the truth of the belief is more likely than not, and more likely than alternative propositions. An irrational belief can be described as: 1. A belief for which the person has no evidence whatsoever 2. Which conflicts with or contradicts, other well grounded beliefs that are held. 3. For which the person claims that there could never be evidence.

Definitions

Belief – in: A belief that conveys an attitude of trust or commitment Belief – that: A belief that claims to be an objective fact Fideism: The view that certain beliefs are beyond the scope of reason and must be accepted on faith. Key issue: What is the relationship of reason and evidence to religious faith and belief?

Pascal’s Wager

Pascal argued that God could not be known through argument and evidence. He did not see religious belief as cold, intellectual judgment (belief- that), but rather as emotional, intuitive and passionate (belief –in). He developed was has become known as Pascal’s Wager. He argued that it was sound judgment to act as though there existed a God who grants eternal happiness to those who sincerely believe in him.

Pascal’s Wager

The essence of Pascal’s argument is the idea that it is unreasonable to be an atheist. Pascal’s weighs up not only the possible outcomes (eternal life, damnation and nothing), but also the concept of finite vs. infinite. To Pascal, the pleasure of earthly life cannot be reasonably compared to the risk of infinite punishment. He emphasizes the aspect of risk involved. This argument is best understood in the form of an appeal to self-interest (motivation for belief) rather than to the truth of God. The appeal to self- interest is a consideration for ‘motivation for belief’.

Criticisms

Needless to say, many have questioned the logic of Pascal’s arguments. In pairs, outline the main objections to his argument.

Criticism 1

�  An obvious objection to the wager is that it is powerless against someone who does not care about the long term consequences of their actions.

Criticism 2

�  The appeal to self-interest is misplaced. Belief in God should come from a place of goodness, not due to selfish reasons.

�  William James argued that God has the knowledge and power to reject those who believe in him as a result of ‘mechanical calculation’. Surely God would not make it so easy for people.

Pascal’s counter to this……. The human condition (human nature) is entirely based on self-interest.

Criticism 3

�  An objection to the wager is offered by Mackie. He argues that ‘to try to make oneself believe in God when one does not, is to lack intellectual integrity’. It is a form of self deception.

Criticism 4

�  The most widely accepted objection to Pascal's argument is called the ‘many gods objection’. Pascal offers the choice of two options- belief in the God of traditional Christian faith who rewards believers and punishes atheists, or nothing.

�  The problem is that Pascal assumes that we are ignorant as to the existence of God, therefore how can he rightfully claim that only one God (and in the form that he imagines him) exists.

�  Pascal offers only a very specific version of God and this conflicts with his insistence that we neither know whether God exists or not.

Questions

1.  Explain Pascal’s wager in your own words (you could also draw a diagram to help demonstrate the argument).

2.  Explain the idea that Pascal’s argument fails to persuade someone who is not concerned with long-term consequences.

3.  Describe and explain the ‘many gods’ objection to Pascal.

Assess the role of faith in supporting religious belief.

In order to answer this question you should discuss a variety of views with critical analysis (offer an evaluation, which means a judgment). A negative view of the role of faith would see faith leading to beliefs that were without justification or even irrational. In this view, faith would be seen to have little value and the emphasis would be on reason. This could be contrasted with the view that sees faith as taking precedence over reason. Indeed some religious beliefs may be deemed to be beyond our reasoning and so require faith. However, it could also be argued that both faith and reason have an important role to play in religious belief. Faith is supported by reason and is necessary to move the believer from the merely intellectual assent, to a commitment and trust in God.