Transcendent Purpose Wager

posted 6/9/2022

 

This is an argument for prudential belief in God similar to the famous Pascal's Wager. It's not an argument for the existence of God, but for belief in God.

Either there is an objective ultimate transcendent meaning and purpose to life and all of reality, or there isn't. If there isn't, then all meanings and purposes humans have are self-generated, subjective and non-transcendent. In which case, there would be nothing wrong with spending one's life in irrational and false beliefs. Or in colloquial terms, there's no such thing as objectively "wasting your life." Whether it be on indulging in obsession with fiction like Star Wars, or with false religions [including Christianity were it false]. 

But if there is objective transcendent meaning, then the best candidate for grounding such objective transcendent meaning and purpose is in a personal God. It's most plausibly would be personal because purpose and meaning is inherently tied to the intentionality of persons. Impersonal objects and forces don't have purposes because they are without consciousness and lack deliberation (etc.). It most plausibly would be theistic (rather than non-theistic) because a Creator God who created all things other than Himself would best account for and ground the overarching transcendent meaning and purpose that's universally binding on all things. If this God created all things other than Himself, then His purpose would make sense of how it can apply to and be imposed onto  all of reality. If there were multiple gods, then Euthyphro's Dilemma would kick in and would therefore undermine ultimate transcendent meaning and purpose [see for example my blog that touches on the Euthyphro's Dilemma and the problem of multiple gods HERE]. Also, a theistic God can explain and encompass an overarching purpose with lesser multi-layered and multi-valent purposes under and connected to the the grand/ultimate purpose. Otherwise, if there were various ultimate purposes that were distinct and unconnected from each other, there would be the problem of knowing or deciding which ones apply to one self. The theistic position is the most parsimonious option that better satisfies Occam's Razor.

As has been noted, if there is no ultimate and transcendent meaning to reality, then one cannot fault anyone devoting his/her life to anything. Including false religions. But if there is such ultimate meaning, and if it's best grounded in a theistic God, then if a person wanted to participate in ultimate meaning, it makes sense to believe in a personal God. It may be that some people would prefer not participating in ultimate meaning. Though, many people do have an existential desire to align oneself with ultimate meaning and purpose.

Nevertheless, even if not everyone has a desire to align one's self to ultimate meaning and purpose for existential reasons, most or all people do have a natural [I would say God given] desire to promote one's self-interest.

“All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.” — Blaise Pascal
(Cited in Desiring God by John Piper, P. 19)

If there is an afterlife in which a God will reward those who live according to this ultimate purpose [which is usually conceived of as also ultimately good], then it behooves a person, for prudential reasons, to align one's self with this divine ultimate and transcendent purpose and meaning.

So far, most of the above doesn't select for Christianity. In fact, I sneaked in the concept of an afterlife. Since, technically a God could exist and not have made provision for, or promised, an afterlife. However, if the case for Christianity makes most sense of all the data of reality as compared other alternative worldviews and philosophies of life, then one would be rationally justified in choosing to become a Christian. The purpose of Christian apologetics is to present such rational grounds for the truth of Christianity.

One might respond by saying one can't choose or "will one's self' to believe that a God exists. Since doxastic voluntarism is false. But one can choose to live as if a God exists while one waits to grow in belief in God. Moreover, even granting direct doxastic voluntarism is false and impossible, INDIRECT doxastic voluntarism is possible to carry out. Meaning, one can surround and immerse oneself with data, evidence, arguments, social interaction (etc.) in favor of theism and Christianity that make one more rationally and intellectually prone to genuinely believe in God. That's why exposing oneself to Christian apologetics, theology and devotional literature is so important. Even atheists immerse themselves in anti-theistic materials and fellow atheists to help reinforce their unbelief and non-theism, or (in some cases) extreme anti-belief and anti-theism.