Pascal Ponders Puzzling Predicament

an Exploration of Pascal's Anthropological Argument
and its Relevance to Contemporary Christian Apologetics

by Robert Velarde

Contents:
THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
GREATNESS AND WRETCHEDNESS
PASCAL’S “EXISTENTIAL SHOCK” TREATMENT
TWO ERRORS IN UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN CONDITION
EXAMPLES OF HUMAN GREATNESS AND WRETCHEDNESS
EVALUATING THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
THE GENIUS OF THE ARGUMENT

See also:
Pensées

 

Are human beings glorious, exalted creatures with tremendous potential or wretched beings, desperately in need of spiritual liberation?  Are such seemingly contradictory aspects of the human condition mutually exclusive, or could both perspectives be true?  Does any viable worldview explain this condition?  The 17^th-century scientist, mathematician, and philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) offers a timeless argument for the truth of Christianity based on what at first glance appears to be a paradox present in human nature.

While Pascal is revered for his scientific accomplishments and even has a computer programming language named after him, his philosophical pursuits often do not receive as much attention as they deserve. [1]   Pascal’s wager stands out as perhaps his most well known argument for Christianity, but Pascal has much more to offer the contemporary Christian apologist.

Though ill-health and Pascal’s untimely death prevented his completion of a monumental work on the subject of Christian apologetics, his notes have since been compiled into a collection known as Pensées.  “Pascal’s views hardly constitute an organized system,” writes Richard Popkin.  “Most of his works are fragmentary, and he apparently made no effort to put the fragments together.” [2]   Nevertheless, in these fragmented and often brilliant writings, Pascal offers his cogent insights on such issues as the human condition, morality, and theology. 

The apologetic relevance of what is known as Pascal’s anthropological argument deserves special attention.  Though not nearly as well known as the wager, Pascal’s anthropological argument offers a different approach to Christian apologetics.

THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The anthropological argument begins with a simple observation: human beings exhibit qualities that are both great and wretched.  Such an argument is appealing in a contemporary setting, as it begins with an observation of human nature, rather than a direct argument for the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, the validity of belief in the resurrection of Christ, or a variety of other traditional apologetic approaches.  Instead, the anthropological argument seeks to initiate discussion on the nature of the human condition, then, only when certain principles have been established, proceeds to offer an argument pointing to Christianity as the best explanation of the observed condition.  Rather than offering arguments from natural theology [3] , Pascal chooses to relate to unbelievers at a prudential level of interest. 

But is Pascal’s approach relevant today?  After all, the argument rests on doctrines such as individuals created in the image of God (imago Dei) and original sin (the Fall)—views perceived by the masses as outmoded, mythical or just plain false.  Before addressing the question of relevance, let us first examine the argument in more detail.

GREATNESS AND WRETCHEDNESS

“Greatness, wretchedness,” writes Pascal. “The more enlightened we are the more greatness and vileness we discover in man.” [4]   Human beings, argues Pascal, exhibit two distinct qualities which appear contradictory: we are capable of exalted greatness, but also extremely corrupted in our very nature.  In Pascal’s words: “Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach us that there is in man some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness.” [5]   Pascal goes on to paint a less than flattering picture of human beings: “What sort of freak then is man!  How novel, how monstrous, how chaotic, how paradoxical, how prodigious!  Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sink of doubt and error, the glory and refuse of the universe!” [6]

Commenting on Pascal’s anthropological argument, Peter Kreeft writes: “Man is a living oxymoron: wretched greatness, great wretchedness, rational animal, mortal spirit, thinking reed.” [7]   Thomas Morris notes:

PASCAL’S “EXISTENTIAL SHOCK” TREATMENT

One of Pascal’s apologetic techniques involved what Bernard Ramm referred to as “existential shock.”  Pascal utilized certain apologetics techniques in order to awaken skeptics from complacency.  Ramm elaborates:

Pascal applies “existential shock” in a variety of his arguments, including his anthropological argument (his fragment condemning humans as “feeble earthworms” certainly commands attention).  The anthropological argument provides an existential shock in the sense that it calls upon skeptics to explain the seeming paradox of human nature—that human beings are capable of much good, but are also capable of extreme evil and exhibit signs of wretchedness.  A true religion or philosophical system, argues Pascal, must account for this dilemma in a manner that is intellectually cogent.

TWO ERRORS IN UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN CONDITION

In “Discussion With Monsieur De Sacy,” [10] Pascal analyzes two errors regarding the human condition.  Douglas Groothuis writes: “Pascal claims that merely human philosophies are unable to tell us who we are because they fall into two equal and opposite errors concerning humanity.  They either exalt greatness at the expense of wretchedness or they exalt wretchedness at the expense of greatness.” [11]  

This is evident in the realm of public education in the United States, where both children and adults are taught that human beings are products of chance evolution (naturalism), while various strains of psychology tout the human potential/self-esteem message—that we are creatures of great potential.  Peter Kreeft refers to the opposing views as “animalism and angelism” [12] and provides examples of both:

EXAMPLES OF HUMAN GREATNESS AND WRETCHEDNESS

Examples of human greatness and wretchedness abound.  Human wretchedness built and maintained the concentration camps of Nazi Germany, where some six-million Jews were executed, but it was human greatness that put an end to such monstrosities.  More recently, we can point to the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001, when radical Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners, crashing two into the World Trade Center towers and one into the Pentagon, while the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania.  The human wretchedness of the events is clear.  Terrorists bent on the destruction of thousands of human lives are indeed wretched, while those who bravely participated in the rescue efforts in the aftermath of the events exhibited qualities of human greatness.

Of course, one might argue that overall examples of human greatness and wretchedness, do not necessarily apply to individuals.  The fact that the terrorist atrocities of September 11 were examples of human wretchedness is one example, while the rescue efforts (an example of human greatness) is quite another.  In other words, the example is not without its flaws, but serves as a broader illustration of the presence of greatness and wretchedness in the greater context of humanity.  However, examples of greatness and wretchedness within individuals can be offered as well.

Take, for instance, some great philosophical minds.  It is a formidable task to seamlessly interweave complex philosophies into a work of fiction in such a way as to engage the reader meaningfully.  Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Albert Camus were able to accomplish such literary brilliance and yet remained in despair. 

In the field of literature, Ernest Hemingway served as an ambulance driver in World War I, wrote many successful and critically acclaimed works, but exhibited an ultimate form of wretchedness by committing suicide.  Edgar Allan Poe’s alcoholism and alleged drug use led to his premature death. 

Carlo Gesualdo, a 16^th century composer, provides another illustration of human greatness and wretchedness.  Gesualdo, an Italian prince, brutally murdered his wife and her lover, but, as music historians observe, “Gesualdo survived the scandal to marry in 1593 Leonora d’Este.” [14]   As a composer, Gesualdo evidenced human greatness, but as a murderer he obviously exhibited human wretchedness.

EVALUATING THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

At first glance, Pascal’s anthropological argument appears to raise further complications in relation to the veracity of Christianity.  This is because the root of the argument is based on a Christian view of creation and the fall.  Some may even interpret Pascal’s argument as circular and claim that Pascal is simply appealing to the Bible as evidence that the biblical explanation of human nature is true.  However, such accusations fail to examine the anthropological argument in a proper context. 

Pascal’s anthropological argument makes an appeal to the best explanation regarding the human condition of greatness and wretchedness.  Such an argument is abductive, rather than deductive or inductive.  Groothuis notes:

Based on the evidence at hand, Christianity provides the best explanation for the human condition.  Pascal’s argument solves the riddle of the human condition by pointing to the fact that humans are created in God’s image, but we are fallen beings.  These facts, argues Pascal, best explain the human condition and its paradox of greatness and wretchedness.

THE CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF
THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

The anthropological argument is compelling to contemporary culture in at least three ways. First, the argument is compelling at a human level.  Since it addresses the human condition, it has an immediate application and relevance.  Second, American culture is steeped in the exaltation of humans via psychology and its ideas of human potential.  To an extent the anthropological argument agrees with such views, but adds the paradoxical element of human wretchedness and offers a viable explanation.  Third, and paradoxically so, American culture is under the impression that human beings are merely evolved beasts. 

Pascal recognizes that “Man is neither angel nor beast” [16] and puts forth a technique of dealing with those who think too highly of themselves, as well as those who think too little of themselves. Pascal then outlines his apologetic approach within the context of the anthropological argument:

It should also be noted that the anthropological argument is but one avenue of argumentation employed by Pascal in support of the Christian faith.  As such, it is not intended as the ultimate argument for the Christian faith.  Pensées, though it is fragmented and incomplete, covers a variety of ground and includes many lines of argumentation.  Nevertheless, the anthropological argument provides existential punch and presses the critics and doubters for a better explanation of the human condition.

The anthropological argument also provides a unique, psychological approach to convincing a skeptic of the truth of the Christian faith.  Writing in The Catholic Encyclopedia, J. Lataste observes:

The application, then, of the anthropological argument in contemporary American culture has strong prudential appeal.  For example, the New Age Movement—more recently referred to as the “new spirituality” or simply “spirituality”—offers an extremely exalted view of humanity. [19]  

While a thorough overview of the New Age is beyond the scope of this article [20] , it is clear that the anthropological argument could easily be applied to those involved in New Age thought.  A Christian apologist could agree that humans are great and exalted, but then, as Pascal suggests, the exalted must be humbled into recognizing the wretchedness of the human condition.  It is one thing for a New Age adherent to declare that sin is an illusion or that moral absolutes do not exist, but quite another to provide an adequate explanation for human wretchedness.

Likewise, the anthropological argument may be applied to skepticism and its various manifestations (atheism, agnosticism, secular humanism, naturalism, etc.).  Humanism, for instance, posits a favorable picture of humanity—one of human potential.  Indeed, humanists often speak in terms of the greatness and potential of humanity.  For instance, Paul Kurtz observes:

Kurtz’s statement demonstrates the positive, exalted view of humanity which humanists accept.  Unfortunately, humanism lacks a cogent explanation of the seemingly paradoxical human condition of greatness and wretchedness.  Here is where the anthropological argument may enter in and provide a reasonable explanation to the paradox of human greatness and wretchedness.

In addition, the anthropological argument provides hope for those who hold to worldviews that recognize the wretchedness of human nature, but shun the inherent greatness that is also a part of that nature.  Nihilism, for instance, followed to its logical conclusions, leads ultimately to despair—a meaningless existence in a pointless universe, where humans are merely an accidental product of chance and time.  The wretched nature of humanity in nihilistic thought is perhaps more so in a philosophical sense (despair), but wretchedness, is certainly present in a worldview that offers no real hope.  It is at this juncture that Pascal’s anthropological argument can enter in and offer hope to the nihilist—hope that is based on the fact that Christianity offers a superior explanation for the human condition than that of nihilism.

Pascal’s anthropological argument is a valuable tool that can be applied in a variety of ways to contemporary Christian apologetics.  It is certainly not a definitive argument for the Christian faith (Pascal never intended it as such), but it does provide a certain degree of “existential shock” and an approach that is prudentially appealing to contemporary individuals.

The argument is not without its weaknesses.  For example, its basis rests on two doctrines that many skeptics find absurd—that we are created in the image of God and that we are fallen beings.  Nevertheless, Pascal does not begin with these doctrines, but rather appeals to what we observe in human nature. 

Do we observe greatness in the human condition?  Do we observe wretchedness in the human condition?  Pascal argues that, yes, we do indeed see these elements present in the human condition and proceeds to nudge the skeptic into thought on the matter.  What, asks Pascal, is the best explanation of the human condition?  Other religions and philosophies do not adequately explain the observable and paradoxical condition of human wretchedness and greatness.  These rival worldviews either exalt humanity at the expense of wretchedness or they lower humans to a level that neglects to address the greatness that is inherent in human beings.  The best explanation, the anthropological argument proposes, is found only in Christianity.

The genius of the argument is in many respects found in its simplicity.  Pascal demonstrates the condition of human greatness and wretchedness and asks the skeptic to provide a better explanation than the one offered by Christianity.  The skeptic is faced with a paradox that is best explained by acceptance of belief in the doctrines of creation and the Fall, however unlikely these additional mysteries may seem. 

The argument is simple and timeless.  It is not based on the latest scientific theories of the day (though such theories are certainly apologetically useful at times) or on archaeological evidence for the Christian faith—theories and evidence that may change with time.  Rather, Pascal argues on an existential, psychological level.  It is at this point in Pascal’s apologetic scheme that an argument such as the wager may perhaps be offered along with more traditional Christian evidences (what Pascal called “Scripture and the rest”). [22]

Robert Velarde, co-author of Examining Alternative Medicine (2001, InterVarsity Press), is a writer and editor based in Colorado Springs.  A former research assistant with the Christian Research Institute, he is pursuing graduate studies in philosophy of religion at Denver Seminary.

Back to Cornerstone Online Index / Back to Cornerstone Magazine Index

---

ENDNOTES