MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL: PASCAL AND THE MEANING OF LIFE

The yearning to make sense of it all appears evident throughout culture and time, but is there an objective light of truth waiting for every individual towards the end of the muddled, darkened tunnel of questioning? If there is a light, will it merely illuminate the conclusion that the meaning of life is subjective and relative to each individual? Thomas Morris, guided by thoughts from Pascal, in his book, Making Sense of It All, attempts to proclaim and reveal the meaning of life to be found only in Jesus the Christ, the light at the end of the tunnel. Are his attempts successful in persuading the reader towards his conclusion, or do they only make known another biased, subjective perspective on the meaning for humanity? The purpose of this review is not to answer whether or not there is an objective truth, but to rather show Morris’ successes and failures in presenting his argument for the ultimate truth being found only in the Christ. His case for Jesus is driven by philosophical insights from Pascal, along with a certain presupposition. It is this presupposition that must first be addressed.

Within the chapter, The Folly of Indifference, Morris asks the question if whether or not humanity’s activities involve any meaning, and then answers the question from a Judeo-Christian perspective; it this viewpoint that appears to be the driving force for the rest of the book, and is the eventual cause for his conclusion (27). Is the reasoning behind the answer, however, sufficient for all readers? The skeptic, who is addressed in chapter five, can easily refute the reply. For in the fifth chapter, Morris describes the belief-forming processes: “We form our beliefs about the world in many ways, directly from sense experience, from the testimony of others, from memory, and from various inferential processes of reasoning operating upon what has been given to us by sense experience, testimony, and memory” (78). Sense experience, testimony, and memory affect a key feature within the human mind, i.e. imagination. Morris uses both Pascal and Albert Einstein to explain how “’imagination is more important than knowledge;’ it has a great power for good, and, correspondingly, it has great power to deceive” (77). The imagination, effected by our everyday experiences, can be the cause of deception; can the trickery from imagination be the cause for the existence of religion (e.g. Christianity)? Morris does say that “much in life is up to us” (27). Is it possible that the existence of a religion like Christianity is up to mankind? A skeptic, much like an evolutionist who denies the existence of a purposeful cosmos, can and does construct an argument against Morris using Morris’ terminology: “Certain men are capable of containing chemical imbalances within their brain, which is further influenced by ‘sense experience and the testimony of others,’ and can cause a deceitful imagination; an imagination that leads them to construct false ideologies such as religion.” For the skeptic, Morris puts himself in a bind early on, by appearing to suppose that all his readers will accept Judeo-Christianity as a legitimate voice for asserting an objective truth on all humanity. The skeptic, if paying close attention, will pick up on this assertion, leading him/her to quietly place the book down, due to an unwillingness to accept such “mythological or irrational” thinking, before even reading the chapter on his/her own skepticism. 21st century society, especially within the United States, is highly cynical towards religion in general, leaving Morris’ book unappealing. Thus, with the establishment of Christianity rearing the argument throughout the rest of the book, the work of Morris will likely only attract those who already claim Christianity to be true or those who are at least willing to accept the voice of religion as a liable explanation to the meaning of it all. Therefore, the rest of this paper will be directed towards addressing whether or not Morris does well in satisfying these select listeners.

Morris includes a chapter, Marks of the Truth, on distinguishing Christianity from other religions, in order to affirm his conclusion that one being in Jesus the Christ can only know the true meaning of life. He did well in adding this chapter for two reasons: 1) so that those who claim, “Any religion can hold the meaning of life; i.e. whatever religion makes a person feel he/she has meaning is ‘okay,’” will see each religion claiming something entirely different than the next one, and 2) so that his readers will see Christianity as the true and superior religion among all others. Though Morris does well inserting this chapter, there are a few arguments that fail to sufficiently defend Christianity’s truth. First, however, it needs to be addressed how Morris does not distinguish the one thing that makes all religions different. He states, “Every religion involves a threefold conceptual structure: (1) a diagnosis of what is awry in human life, (2) a conception of ideal human existence, and (3) the specification of a path of salvation, a route from our current plight to that ideal state” (148); he later states, drawing from Pascal, “Religions are not all equals” (158). The general nature of all religions is the same, but their difference lies in the means by which salvation is obtained; Christianity is separated from all others through Jesus the Christ, the God of all the cosmos, who is the Christians’ means of salvation. Morris doesn’t specifically explain how all religions can have the same general structure, but also be completely different from each other due to the means by which salvation is obtained. Thus, he doesn’t adequately fulfill the first purpose of writing this chapter.

Furthermore, there are two arguments used in this chapter which do not suitably present the truth of Christianity. The first one is the success argument. Pascal believed that, “Under persecution, the Christian faith indeed has often flourished and even, in the end, prevailed. Surely its success, in even the most difficult of conditions, is a solid mark of its truth” (150). Morris later expresses the statements of Pascal, saying, “Behold how the Savior’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling and losing power, and falling” (151). Success is misleading, and Morris does well in advocating a necessary carefulness to be used when holding to this argument. 1 Corinthians tells readers of two types of wisdom: God’s wisdom and man’s wisdom. What is seen in the eyes of man as good may not be seen as good to God. Just because man finds an ideology, person, government, or thing appealing, which may lead to a success for the directed object or person, doesn’t mean this is good nor does is state the object of attention to be true. For example, though Hitler’s government was successful in Germany for a time, it does not lead to the conclusion that his government was true and good. Though Islam and Judaism have maintained themselves for centuries and centuries, their success of being able to withstand the test of time does not lead to their beliefs being true and good. The success argument is inadequate in providing strong proof for the truth of Christianity, and so is the qualitative version that Morris proposes. He states this: “The Christian religion is the only religion in human history that has appealed to significant numbers of people in every world culture, has succeeded in changing lives in all times and places, and has managed to have some degree of positive social as well as individual benefits where it has been sincerely embraced” (152). This also is insufficient to provide skeptical religious adherents to hold to Christianity being the ultimate truth. It could also be argued that masses of people have simply been deceived or led to “follow the crowd.” Also, soccer has appealed to significant numbers of people in every world culture, has changed lives, and has managed to have some degree of positive social as well as individual benefits where it has been sincerely embraced. Therefore, should soccer be considered not only a religion but the true religion, a religion that doesn’t even require a god? Should soccer be considered something a person needs to be a part of in order to have a purpose or meaning in life? Qualitative and success arguments appeal to the emotions as being strong explanations for those who already accept Christianity, but they fail to provide strong persuasion for those lingering on the fence.

Morris does provide a good insight to one of Christianity’s characteristics: Christianity is not unique. “If Christian teaching were utterly unique, it would be idiosyncratic rather than universal in appeal, and this would be out of step with its own portrayal of a God who loves and seeks to save all the lost” (157). Christianity does appeal to all cultures throughout time, as history and the present day show how the multitudes will flock to stories, movies, poems, or plays that portray a fallen world, an unusual hero with supernatural abilities and strengths, and the hero’s quest to saving the world from the state of peril. The gospel story is not unique, in that it is longed for an understood within every heart of humanity, though many fail to see and hear that it is the Christ who is the true and ultimate answer to their hearts’ longing. Morris, again with the direction of Pascal, also does well in addressing the issue of reason and its limitations. Christianity can withstand the claims of any one institution or person in apposition to it, because Christianity is the objective truth. However, one will not understand the truth of Christianity through human reason; one must first believe. Morris does well in pointing out Pascal’s claim to intellectual curiosity not being what life is all about. To put it more specifically, to try and figure out life’s meaning through intellectual reasoning alone will lead only to dissatisfaction. In order to understand the meaning of life which Christianity holds the answer to, then one must first believe; God must incline men’s hearts in order for them to believe (186-187). Coming to the realization of what life is all about can only be accomplished when a transformation of the heart has first taken place.

Overall, Morris accomplishes his goal of showing the meaning of life, if several declarations are accepted: 1) that there is an objective truth within the grand scheme of things, 2) that religion holds the answer to the meaning of it all, and 3) that Christianity is the true religion, and thus is the one that holds the right answer to the meaning of life. An argument that states the meaning of life is relative to each individual within different societies is widely accepted by many in the 21st century. Therefore, Morris would do well in placing the word “true” in front of the title; it would be more appropriate to phrase the title as: “Making Sense of it All: Pascal and the True Meaning of Life.” Also, stronger arguments for the existence of God and why Christianity is the true religion, would appeal to a larger audience of skeptics. The entire work seems only to draw those who already accept the statements Morris and Pascal make to the book, and thus leads only to a reaffirmation for them who already know the meaning of life; i.e. to know and be in Jesus the Christ. If it is a book designed to be used for apologetics against skeptics, then it fails in several areas; if it is a book designed for Christians to reaffirm their belief in the Christ being the ultimate answer and meaning to life, then it succeeds in many areas. For the latter, Morris does well in showing an objective truth at the end of the tunnel: Jesus the Christ.

JDG

Morris, V. Thomas. Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992. 212 p.