Comparing Pascal And Descartes Proving The Existence Of God

Comparing Pascal and Descartes is like comparing apples and oranges, both are fruits but serve different purposes. Pascal and Descartes are both philosophers, and both looked at and theorized about God. However, they came from different perspectives, with different goals in mind. Descartes was looking to prove the existence of God and the authenticity of sense perception. Pascal was not trying to prove or disprove anything, instead, he was arguing for the reasonableness of faith. Further, the underlying principles beneath their ideas are also fundamentally different, Descartes took a logical approach and examined faith through the lenses of certainty and doubt. Pascal viewed faith as something else entirely that came from the heart and it
One way Pascal and Descartes were similar, was that they both used math and logic to argue their points. Pascal argues for the reasonableness of faith, and examines faith and believing God in the form a wager or bet. Based on the concept of risk and reward, Pascal argues that it simply makes more sense to believe in God. If one believes in God and there is no God, nothing is lost, and if God is real, everything (eternal life and happiness) is gained. However, if one does not believe in God and if God is real, one loses everything. Not believing in God risks everything, and believing in God results has no risk, and the potential for the ultimate reward. “We can be wrong in two ways: by “wagering” on God when there is no God, or by “wagering” on there being no God when there is a God” (Kreeft 292). The consequences for wagering on there being no God, when he exists, results in endless suffering, and for Pascal is not worth the risk. Further, no one can escape the wager, because not making a decision, is in reality making a decision. Not making a choice, is choosing not to wager at all, and it is the same as not believing in God. So, for Pascal at some point everyone has to make a choice, and he argues in favor of choosing faith. In contrast, Descartes does not address the problem of God the same way, Descartes proves that God exists through use of logic and reason, and thus for him, the reasonableness of faith is implied
First, Pascal is examining God from a different perspective, that of the non believer, Descartes on the other hand almost assumes belief in God. Thus, Pascal is arguing a course of action, and Descartes is explaining why one can be certain of the existence of God. Not only do Pascal and Descartes examine God from different perspectives, but they also believe that humans know God in different ways. For Descartes, humans know God through their mind, their logic, and their reason. Pascal on the other hand, believes that humans can only know God through the heart, the organ which contains the spirit of finesse or the spirit of faith. “The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing: we know this in countless ways” (Pascal 231). The difference in where one comes to know God explains the difference in the approaches that Pascal and Descartes take. Descartes views God through the mind, if one can learn through the mind, than clearly humans can know God through the mind, and the existence of God is something that one could be certain. Pascal views God in a more abstract way, you can never be certain of God because believing without faith would not be believing, and further, it is something that one has to feel for oneself in order to truly believe in God. Descartes takes the geometric approach, focusing on the spirit of the geometrical mind, and Pascal focuses on the spirit of finesse or the heart. Thus,