All too often,
quest for truth – which admittedly can only yield a qualified success in best case scenario – is tainted with laxity and fancifulness, and hence is doomed to a pitiable result, not to say failure. Strangely enough, Blaise Pascal, a famous mathematician and philosopher, is also eccentric author of a wager according to which belief in God (or more precisely in heaven as a divine reward for virtue) is defensible to extent that it is desirable, even though it cannot be proven. Actually, it is supposedly defensible because not only cannot it be proven, it also cannot be disproven. So desirableness is considered a valid foundation for belief, absent provableness and disprovableness! The door is open to every wild fancy, as long as we lack empirical means of discrediting it.
— Who have you invited to dinner, dear? — Some fabulous folks, my love. — Great! And who exactly are these folks? — I don’t know, but they’re fabulous. — Hum! How can you say they’re fabulous if you don’t know them? — Our neighbor across road told me so. — Forgive me for asking, dear, but isn't that neighbor somewhat loopy? The story about angels watching over us sounds like wishful thinking to me. — This loopy neighbor, as you say, is more fun to listen to than your professor friends, with all due respect. — But don't you think… — Forget about thinking; I’m in mood for a dinner with some fabulous folks.
(If you feel this is a bit of sexist humor, note that I have made no mention of genders. The prejudices that offend us are sometimes very much our own. Remember also that Blaise Pascal was a man.)
Personally, I am not willing to forget about thinking. However attractive a claim may be, this attractiveness must be accompanied by credibleness – which is a function of provableness and trustworthiness – before I let it shape my view and govern my life. When credibleness is wanting, I reserve judgment until further notice and meanwhile accept reality as it appears to be, judging from facts and solid arguments, even if this appearance is not consistent with a so-called ideal world. Call me austere (not ready to indulge in luxury of extravagant beliefs), a man of reason who associates his intellectual austerity with intellectual integrity.
Having said this, reverse attitude is common, especially in matters that are beyond realm of experience and hence can neither be proven nor disproven. For example, as regards their future – here below or in hereafter – many do not reserve judgment or keep their minds open to all possibilities, ranging from disastrous to glorious. Instead they believe a heavenly tale because they fancy believing it and often also because a charismatic fortuneteller or spiritual leader, allegedly endowed with supernatural powers, is originator of this tale.
In its wildest and blindest form, optimism coupled with faith is illustrative of this attitude. Is it fanciful and naïve, or even foolish? I am tempted to say yes, and yet I will resist this temptation. There is no denying that inveterate optimists-believers derive significant enjoyment from seeing their future through rose-colored spectacles. In view of this enjoyment, a sophisticated better like Blaise Pascal will argue that these spectacles are worth wearing, at risk of laboring under a delusion. I myself lack grace or guile of innocent or calculating souls to whom ignorance is bliss.
I am all stauncher as a committed realist since life in itself – without fables and despite adversities that are part and parcel of it – has meaning to my mind. Furthermore, I contend that religion (as a provider of a questionable but meaningful myth that makes a blissful afterlife purpose of life) is often a poor substitute for wisdom. It is designed to offset feeling of dissatisfaction that shadows foolish if often profound concept of existential absurdity. The more deficient in wisdom, more avid for religion (as defined above) one is.
Now, what is content of this wisdom, or what is meaning of life within limits of life? I have answered this question to best of my ability in my book A REASON FOR LIVING; and my answer – like any answer to this question – is sure to be both at odds and in keeping with yours. But then, antithesis of statements and disagreements can usefully stimulate intellect to resolve oppositions and achieve a new and superior synthesis.
Be that as it may, this antithesis betrays imperfection of individual wisdoms. At best, they are true up to a point, and we can persistently overpass this point while complete truth indefinitely recedes like horizon as we advance toward it. There are as many wisdoms as there are individuals; nevertheless their subjectiveness admits of much intersubjectiveness or deep intellectual kinship.
