Blaise Pascal is one of the few apologists who uses both existential and evidential arguments to persuade people to become Christians. In Chapter 3 of  Existential Reasons for Belief in God; A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith, Clifford Williams pauses to analyze Pascal more in more detail.

After using the standard evidences of Christianity (miracles, fulfilled prophecy, etc.) to persuade people to become Christians, Pascal goes on to make the existential argument that Christian faith is justified because it satisfies certain deep human needs. Williams quotes Pascal’s classic “infinite abyss” passage:

What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself.

The existential interpretation of this passage is:

1. Humans have an indefinite and intense craving for true happiness.
2. Only faith in God satisfies this craving.
3. If only faith in God satisfies this craving, then we are justified in having it.

Williams is convinced that the existential interpretation of this passage is correct because of a few other related passages. For example, Pascal also argues for the Christian faith not because it is true but because it satisfies heart-need:

Without any doubt after this, considering the nature of life and of this religion, we ought not to resist the inclination to follow it if our hearts are so inclined.

Then there’s this passage in which Pascal distinguishes between knowing God through the reason of the mind and knowing God through the reasons or perceptions of the heart:

The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing: we know this in countless ways. It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason.

Two other quotations from Pascal make similar points:

No one is so happy as a true Christian, or so reasonable, virtuous, and lovable.

The Christian religion alone has been able to cure these twin vices ["pride or sloth, the twin sources of all vice"], not by using one to expel the other according to worldly wisdom, but by expelling both through the simplicity of the Gospel.

Again, note Pascal is not saying we ought to believe because the truth has been proven, but rather because it satisfies our needs.

Logical-Rationality and Need-Rationality

Williams wants us to be clear that this is not just a faith based on feelings. Rather, when we believe in order to satisfy our needs, to experience so much good and remove too much bad, we are doing something that is perfectly reasonable. Williams calls this kind of reasonableness “need-rationality” or “need-reasonableness” because “those who satisfy their needs by believing certain things are being sensible and wise. They are taking care of themselves. Need rationality consists of successfully satisfying needs.”

In contrast “logical rationality” (a phrase coined by American philosopher William James) relies purely on logic and reason; it even sees needs and feelings as a hindrance to objectivity, impartiality, and rationality.

However, as we are not only creatures of reason, but also creatures of feeling, Williams wants us to base our faith on both need and reason. Indeed, he says, “We would be irrational not to let both features of our nature generate faith.”

Biblical Examples of Existential Argument

Williams appeals to the Bible in support of using the existential (needs-based) argument for faith. For example, in Matt. 11:28-30, Jesus calls the burdened and the tired to come to him for rest. In Matthew 7:24-26, Jesus assumes that people feel the need for security and solidity, and promises that building a life upon his teaching will provide that. In addition to these and many other explicit examples, there are innumerable others that are more implicit than explicit (e.g. Romans 8:1; Psalm 51:2).

Finally, Williams calls us to notice how different this is to the despairing existentialism associated with the French atheistic existentialists, Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre. Williams’s, Pascal’s and Christ’s existentialism is full of hope. Yes, there are great human needs, but the Christian God can satisfy them all and has done so on many occasions. Whereas Camus and Sartre used the dark holes in humanity to run away from God, this existential argument uses them to drive us to God and, as such, is much closer to nineteenth century theistic Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialism.