Pascal’s Philosophy of Diversion:

Its Relevance and Application to Christian Living, Popular American Culture and Apologetic Interaction

Robert Velarde

Introduction

            In the foreword to his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman presents a brief comparison of George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World.  In part, Postman’s comments read as follows:

Contrary to common belief even among the educated, Huxley and Orwell did not prophesy the same thing.  Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression.  But in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history.  As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think …

As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.” [1]

            But what does Huxley have to do with Blaise Pascal?  Both, it seems, realized the power of diversion and its role in shaping individuals.  As interesting as Brave New World is, its insights on diversion fall short of those presented by the seventeenth century scientist and philosopher.  Pascal’s lucid, yet at times unpolished, insights on the subject of diversion cut deeply into matters of the human condition and, more importantly, touch upon a subject of greatest importance—namely, the matter of salvation and one’s eternal destiny.

            When Pascal comments that “We run heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop seeing it,” [2] he is not merely making a statement regarding time wasted in diversion.  Rather, his statement concerns more important matters.  If a non-Christian is absorbed in diversion and, consequently fails to seek answers to questions of great philosophical and spiritual significance, such diversion may well lead them to eternal damnation.

            Pascal’s philosophy of diversion, then, is both important and relevant to modern individuals.  As a result, this paper will examine four aspects of this philosophy and, in some cases, apply them to areas beyond the direct scope of Pascal’s original comments as found in his unfinished work, Pensées.  First, a general overview of his philosophy of diversion will be presented.  Second, the relevance of diversion to Christian living (i.e., how diversion impacts and applies to the life of a Christian) will be presented.  Third, the paper will discuss the role and nature of diversion in popular American culture, with the emphasis on technological entertainment.  Fourth, Pascal’s philosophy of diversion will be adapted for use in apologetic interaction, with specific techniques presented.

An Overview of Pascal’s Philosophy of Diversion

            While there is no doubt that an entire book could be written on Pascal’s philosophy of diversion, this paper will merely provide a brief overview, utilizing examples from Pascal’s primary fragments on the topic. [3]   In short, Pascal argues that, given enough solitude and inactivity (i.e., a lack of diversion), human beings will realize the true nature of their condition.  Thomas Morris puts it this way:

How do people manage to ignore the deepest and most important questions of life and death?  Why don’t people worry more about what this life, with all its problems, is all about?  To these questions Pascal has an intriguing answer.  People manage to put on the blinders, to avert their gaze from these ultimate issues, and to avoid facing their utter hopelessness by means of diversion. [4]

            Diversion, argues Pascal, allows the lost to avoid concentrating on their miserable predicament.  However, that is exactly what the lost must do in order to realize their fallen, fractured nature.  It is a necessary prologue to seeking salvation.  “Being unable to cure death, wretchedness and ignorance, men have decided, in order to be happy, not to think about such things,” [5] writes Pascal.

            But a contradiction of sorts is in the works.  People want to be happy, but are unable to attain such a state on their own.  Consequently, they turn to diversion in order to avoid their predicament:

Despite these afflictions man wants to be happy, only wants to be happy, and cannot help wanting to be happy.

But how shall he go about it?  The best thing would be to make himself immortal, but as he cannot do that, he has decided to stop himself thinking about it. [6]

            Human inability to alter the course of wretchedness and misery results in a desire for diversion.  In fact, as Pascal states, “The only thing that consoles us for our miseries is diversion.” [7]   But the flaw in diverting our attention via diversion lies in the fact that it keeps us from realizing truth:

And yet it is the greatest of our miseries.  For it is that above all which prevents us thinking about ourselves and leads us imperceptibly to destruction … diversion passes our time and brings us imperceptibly to our death. [8]

            At this juncture it should be pointed out that play, particularly play demonstrated by children, is to a certain extent distinct from diversion as applied in a Pascalian sense.  In defining play as applied to children, Fergus Hughes states that play must have five essential characteristics.  First, “play is intrinsically motivated.  It is an end in itself, done only for the sheer satisfaction of doing it.”  Second, play “must be freely chosen by the participants.”  Third, “it must be pleasurable.”  Fourth, “it is nonliteral.  That is, it involves a certain element of make-believe, a distortion of reality to accommodate the interests of the player.”  Fifth, Hughes states that “play is actively engaged in by the player.  The child must be involved, physically, psychologically, or both, rather than passive or indifferent to what is going on.” [9]   In any case, Pascal’s insights on diversion are no doubt meant to apply to adults, or at least to those old enough to have reached a level of awareness necessary to realize their own wretchedness.

            It is interesting to note that in our supposedly technologically advanced culture, where creature comforts surround our lives, people seem to be busier than ever.  Rather than enjoying the availability of extra time modern niceties should grant us, human beings have a habit of creating their own complexities and diversions.  In commenting on Pascal, Kreeft writes:

We want to complexify our lives.  We don’t have to, we want to.  We want to be harried and hassled and busy.  Unconsciously, we want the very thing that we complain about.  For if we had leisure, we would look at ourselves and listen to our hearts and see the great gaping hole in our hearts and be terrified, because that hole is so big that nothing but God can fill it. [10]

            Henry David Thoreau put this concept bluntly: “Our life is frittered away by detail … Simplify, simplify.” [11]   Pascal made further comments on why we choose diversion:

What people want is not the easy peaceful life that allows us to think of our unhappy condition, nor the dangers of war, nor the burdens of office, but the agitation that takes our mind off it and diverts us … That is why men are so fond of hustle and bustle; that is why prison is such a fearful punishment; that is why the pleasures of solitude are so incomprehensible. [12]

            But in the end, diversion does not bring true fulfillment.  As Douglas Groothuis notes, quoting a portion of Pascal’s fragment 132, “Diversion cannot bring sustained happiness, since it locates the source of happiness outside us; thus, our happiness is dependent on factors often beyond our control, so that we are ‘liable to be disturbed by a thousand and one accidents, which inevitably cause distress.’” [13]

            In summary, Pascal argues that people turn to diversion in an effort to take their minds off of their unfortunate, miserable condition.  Since we cannot solve the problem of misery on our own, diversion at least grants people the ability to escape the thought of misery.  But only by realizing misery will one be able to see the need for salvation.  Unfortunately, Pascal did not develop his apologetic approach on this topic.  Neither did he clearly delineate how to incorporate his views on diversion as part of an apologetic approach.  Nevertheless, his ideas touch upon an important aspect of the human condition and it is a credit to his genius that such insights may still be applied today, particularly in postmodern American culture.

Diversion and Christian Living

            As we will examine later in this paper, Pascal’s insights on diversion can have a profound impact on the non-Christian.  But how do his thoughts apply to the Christian?  More importantly, in what ways can his ideas on this topic be practically applied to the Christian life?

            Authors John Weldon and James Bjornstad, while not specifically addressing the topic of diversion [14] , offer applicable and insightful comments regarding fantasy and escapism and its role the Christian life:

Fantasy, in its essence, is an imaginative departure from the world and the created order of things as we know it.  It plays an important part in our lives … Fantasy is actually a part of God’s creation in the sense that God created man with imagination and the ability to fantasize … But fantasy is not justified in itself.  Just because fantasy in general is part of God’s creation, no specific fantasy is necessarily right or good.  As with many other things in God’s creation, there are good and bad uses.  Unfortunately, even “good” fantasy can be corrupted by overindulgence (e.g., when a person enters a fantasy world to escape from responsibilities in the everyday world).  There is also a distorted and destructive use (e.g., the fantasizing of sexual exploits or extreme violence toward someone). [15]

            In his first letter to the Corinthian believers, the apostle Paul writes: “‘Everything is permissible for me’—but not everything is beneficial.  ‘Everything is permissible for me’—but I will not be mastered by anything … ‘Everything is permissible’—but not everything is constructive.” [16]   Writing in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, W. Harold Mare comments: “Every action we contemplate should be tested by two questions: ‘Is it beneficial’ and ‘Will it overpower and enslave me and so have  a detrimental effect on the church and my testimony for Christ?’” [17]

            It seems there are two primary errors Christians have fallen into in contemplating the boundaries of faith with regards to living the Christian life.  On the one hand, there is the position that since Christians have received salvation, it does not matter how they behave and they are no longer bound by moral laws.  Such rampant antinomianism is addressed by the apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians.  On the other hand, Christians have also fallen into the error of asceticism, where denial rules.

            A balance is in order.  Certainly, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free,” [18] but this does not grant the Christian a license to pursue patently wrong, hedonistic pleasures.  But what about things like going to see a movie, enjoying music or having an interest in professional sports?  Pascal warns that such pursuits simply divert unbelievers from contemplating their own wretchedness:

The only good thing for men therefore is to be diverted from thinking of what they are, either by some occupation which takes their mind off it, or by some novel and agreeable passion which keeps them busy, like gambling, hunting, some absorbing show, in short by what is called diversion. [19]

            These are difficult concepts to apply to Christian living.  The Bible does not prohibit Christians from having hobbies, for example, but Christians do need to apply discernment in the types of hobbies they engage in.  Scripture does not prohibit Christians from having fun as some claim, but even positive practices can become unhealthy diversion to the believer.  A pastor, for example, so engrossed in the study of Hebrew and Greek may accumulate a great deal of knowledge, but may have a devotional life that is suffering.  Pascal comments on academic pursuits as diversion when he writes:

Likewise others sweat away in their studies to prove to scholars that they have solved some hitherto insoluble problem in algebra … Then there are others [20] who exhaust themselves observing all these things, not in order to become wiser, but just to show they know them … [21]

            Highlights for Children is a monthly magazine for children that was established in 1946.  Its cover logo and motto has not changed much over the years.  Beneath the name of the periodical is the phrase “Fun with a Purpose.”  The motto is simple and to the point, but it is logically flawed.  A pedophile, for example, might consider his or her morally despicable behavior as “fun with a purpose.”  Nevertheless, if adapted and slightly altered, the motto could easily be applied to Christian living: “Fun with a godly purpose.”  However, this revised motto may also be misleading, one might argue.  Isn’t it possible to enjoy a diversion that is both acceptable and yet removed from God?  If one is listening to a Mozart piano concerto, is such behavior wrong?  If not, then is there an aspect to the listening that must involve God in some way?  When Paul writes “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all  for the glory of God,” [22] do we take him at face value and assume that God must be involved, at least to some degree, in every aspect of our lives?

            Writing on the topic of leisure, R. Paul Stevens states:

The Christian life is fun.  It is not always fun—contrary to the argument of the “Christian” hedonists.  But it is certainly not boring—not if it is lived in harmony with the God who creates, works, rests and says, even as God’s own leisure life as he wants to say of ours, “It is good.” [23]

            Perhaps the best application of Pascal’s philosophy of diversion to the Christian life is to, yet again, heed the words of Paul: “Watch your life and doctrine closely.” [24]

            In addition, it should be noted that the Christian life should stand out in a positive way with regards to diversion.  That is to say, while the life of an unbeliever may be cluttered with diversions (both healthy and unhealthy) and distractions of all sorts, the Christian life should not be so.  The Christian should demonstrate, as touched upon above, “fun with a godly purpose.”  Seeing all the latest motion pictures, collecting an abundance of the latest rock music or even shopping for the all the latest fashions, should not be the first thing that a non-Christian notices about a Christian.  Rather, “fun with a godly purpose” should show and should lead an unbeliever to wonder what is different about such a person to warrant attention.  As Pascal states, we should make our faith “attractive” and “make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.” [25]   This can hardly be done if the life of a Christian in relation to diversion is no different than that of an unbeliever.

Technological Diversion and Popular American Culture

            In the 1982 film, Blade Runner, [26] set in 21^st century Los Angeles, there is a scene in which the main character, played by Harrison Ford, is wandering through the streets.  His world is filled with electronic distractions.  Large screens are filled with video images.  Hovercrafts pass overhead, tantalizing listeners with promises of off world excitement.  Sights and sounds of the electronic variety clutter several scenes.  Perhaps director Ridley Scott was not far off in this portrayal of the future.  A glance at New York’s Times Square in 2001 reveals more video screens and advertising than even Scott was able to cram into Blade Runner.  America is a culture of diversion and electronic entertainment is leading the way.

            “The tie between information and human purpose has been severed, i.e., information appears indiscriminately, directed at no one in particular, in enormous volume and at high speeds, and disconnected from theory, meaning, or purpose,” [27] writes Neil Postman.  Unfortunately, in addition to positively contributing to society at large in the way of medical advances, assistance to those with disabilities, etc., technological progress in America is also contributing to the decay of logical discourse and coherent epistemology.  Instead, postmodernism has taken the reigns of technology moving at light speed.

            Instant information is now available via the Internet.  Certainly, this can be a wonderful benefit to humanity.  However, it is more often a convoluted opportunity for mass confusion in the form of hypertext links.  The idea being communicated to the masses is that knowledge and information no longer need be in logical order or form (such as a well-crafted book).  Instead, one need only type some key words into a search engine and somehow have access to information of interest.  Of course, as anyone versed in information and library science knows, another problem with this approach is that of information veracity.  How does one know that information on a web site is true or false?  While an in-depth look at this particular aspect of diversion and American culture is beyond the scope of this paper, the topic of video games will serve as a brief example of the turn for the worse that electronic diversion has taken in America.

            Video games have become a multi-billion dollar industry.  Gone are the days of Pong and Pac-Man.  Instead, video games have taken a decidedly darker turn.  Diversion has taken over.  In the summer of 2000, an online video game dealer (www.gamedealer.com) released a series of advertisements.  One prominent statement on the ad simply read “Real life sucks.” [28]   Author Douglas Groothuis writes:

Advertisements for 1995’s most popular video game, Doom, read: “NOW THERE’S A PLACE MORE VIOLENT THAN EARTH.”  One dedicated player of Doom confessed to one of the creators of the game that “Doom is my life.”  It might just be a doomed life. [29]

            Video games have evolved beyond hand-eye coordination entertainment and into the realms of theology and philosophy.  The recently released video game Black & White has a great deal to say about both.  Its premise and advice are disturbing:

Is it better to be good or evil?

It makes no difference. If you kill all your followers, that’s very evil and you will suffer because you’ll have fewer people praying to you. But there are many ways to be evil without causing death. Being evil makes your tribes worship you harder through fear, but being good means that you’ll have people worshipping through happiness, so either is good.

What do I do in Black & White?

You can do what you like, but in order to achieve your potential as a god you’ll have to gain followers and build new villages to increase your power and influence. You have a godly hand which can pick up objects and people, and you can offer practical help to your people or throw them around. You also have a Creature that can do the same. Doing anything is useful, whether it’s good or evil. [30]

            Black & White is what is primarily known as a “god game.”  In this case the player literally takes the role of a god in a polytheistic setting.  Whether this “god” is malevolent, benevolent, or a mixture of both, is left up the player.  Unfortunately, much of video game diversion seems to fall into the unhealthy category.

            While the above topics are certainly of interest from a variety of perspectives (sociology, philosophy, psychology, theology, etc.), this paper has merely scratched the surface.  A multitude of diversions, technological and otherwise, saturate American culture.  From motion pictures and television programs (hundreds of cable channels) to thousands of periodicals specializing in various forms of hedonism, etc.  The need for continued diversion also spawns desires for wanting new and improved technological wonders, or so we are told via advertising.

            How would Pascal view modern American culture?  He would probably initially be overwhelmed by the extent and nature of diversion in our society.  Of course, it would all make perfect sense in light of his philosophy of diversion.

Apologetic Application

            Up to this point, this paper has presented an overview of Pascal’s philosophy of diversion, evaluated the role of diversion and its impact on the Christian life and examined the nature of diversion in popular American culture.  While these points are all worthy of attention, one important aspect has been omitted—how is the modern Christian supposed to apply Pascal’s cogent insights on diversion to real life situations involving apologetic interaction?  After all, while certain segments of Pascal’s comments on diversion are more well developed than others, he has failed to provide his intention in relation to Christian apologetics.  Unlike his famous but often misunderstood “wager” (which also has its confusing points), Pascal does not directly reveal how insights on diversion could be applied apologetically.  This segment will present techniques for successfully applying Pascal’s philosophy of diversion apologetically.  While space does not allow detailed treatment of this issue, it should be noted that Pascal’s thoughts on diversion might fit well as an aspect of his anthropological argument.  Granted, his thoughts on diversion would highlight human misery, rather than human greatness, but it does seem that if Pascal would have further developed his Christian apologetic, a logical place to insert his ideas on diversion would be his anthropological argument.

            How, then, can Pascal’s philosophy of diversion be transformed into apologetic interaction?  First, there is what might be termed the direct approach.  This method simply involves giving an unbeliever a copy of Pensées, while pointing out the relevant fragments on diversion.  While at first glance, this approach seems to lack elegance (“Here, read these sections of this seventeenth century philosophy book by a French scientist.”), this really depends on the person receiving the material.  Such an approach may be perfectly suitable for some.

            Another method for applying Pacal’s philosophy of diversion apologetically could include broaching the subject of diversion in conversation with an unbeliever.  This approach has the advantage of not beginning with what some may view as a “preachy” method for promoting Christianity via the works of Pascal.  As previously noted, diversion in popular American culture is ubiquitous.  As such, it should be a relatively simple matter to bring up the topic of diversion.  Perhaps a statistic about how many hours a week the average adult American watches television could provide the necessary springboard for further discussion.  On the other hand, a computer professional would no doubt be familiar with the programming language named after Pascal and this would most certainly provide an avenue of discussion that could lead to the topic of diversion.  Many other approaches could be implemented as well.

            While the above methods will assist in integrating Pascal’s philosophy of diversion into an apologetic presentation, it should be noted that these techniques are merely suggestions.  In addition, biblically speaking, we need to keep in mind that our approach to sharing these insights should be done with “gentleness and respect,” [31] not out of a prideful desire to win an argument.  We must strive to honestly present Christianity as the most coherent worldview available.  Our intention, as Pascal so eloquently put it, should be to “show that religion [Christianity] is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect.” [32]   “Next make it attractive,” writes Pascal.  “Make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is.  Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature.  Attractive because it promises true good.” [33]   Sharing the truth of Christ is not an intellectual game, technique or opportunity to exercise apologetic prowess.  Souls are at stake and, as such, Christians had better be prepared to approach any apologetic encounter both humbly and prayerfully.

Conclusion

            In his classic work, The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis astutely observes: “Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.” [34]   That is precisely what concerns Pascal—that people are running “heedlessly into the abyss after putting something in front of us to stop seeing it.” [35]   Peter Kreeft astutely observes: “Diversion’s greatest danger is that it acts like a sedative; it keeps us just content enough so that we don’t make waves and seek a real cure.  It deadens our spiritual nerves, it muffles our alarm system.” [36]

            With so many diversions with which to be occupied in, there is little or no time left to, as Pascal puts it, “stay quietly” [37] in our rooms.  And yet, staying quietly in our rooms is precisely what Pascal suggests we do, for such behavior will, in his view, inevitably lead individuals to the conclusion that they are wretched, miserable beings in need of a savior, but not just any savior—the Savior, Jesus Christ.  It is only through the painful realization of our wretchedness that we can grasp our need for salvation and take hold of our rightful place and understand that, broken though we are, God has crafted us in his image.  Then we will understand that we are deposed kings.

---