Sacred Probabilities Part III — An Economist Examines Heaven and Hell

In this last installment of Economist Philip Pilkington’s three-part essay on probability theory, he arrives at a theological conclusion.

In the first part of this essay series, we examined Pascal’s well-known argument for theism, Pascal’s Wager. In the second part, we studied the far less well-known fact that the foundations of modern probability theory itself – notably, Bayesian theory – was actually a response to David Hume’s arguments against miracles. In this third part, we will try to break some new ground. Here we will argue that modern probability theory – especially in the form of expected utility theory – can help us understand the Catholic doctrine of salvation. Not only can it help us understand this intellectually, but it can also help us to understand how we can apply this theory in our own lives.

Rule For Me But Not For Thee?

In the first two parts we have seen two arguments that touch upon major aspects of theology and belief that utilise probabilistic arguments. These are classics of the genre – although one is better known than the other. Thought about deeply, they suggest that there is something very compelling about probabilistic reasoning – something that theologians and metaphysicians should not ignore. Which raises the question: can such reasoning be applied to other aspects of theology? In fact, probabilistic reasoning may have something to tell us about that most important question: “will I go to Hell?”

In what follows we will discuss this question from a Catholic perspective. But because the Catholic position on such matters is well-known to be quite rigorist and harsh, no doubt the reasoning can be retooled to fit any denomination that does not take a hardline predestinationist line.

When considering this question, it is worth considering two seemingly contradictory points of Church teaching. The first is the doctrine, taught infallibly, extra ecclesiam nulla salus – “outside of the Church there is no salvation”. Yet while it is firmly held by the Catholic Church that all salvation does occur within the Church, this does not mean that no one outside the Church is saved. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches clearly in paragraphs 846-848 that those who are “invincibly ignorant” of the truth of Catholic teaching may nevertheless be saved – although this salvation will take place through the Church. Nor is this teaching some newfangled liberal teaching quietly introduced by liberal theologians in the past hundred years. Already in the 4^th century Church Fathers like Gregory of Nazianzus were promulgating this teaching. At Gregory’s oratory for his own father, who was pagan until the day he died, Gregory said:

He was ours even before he was of our fold. His manner of life made him one of us. Just as there are many of our own who are not with us, whose lives alienate them from the common body, so too there are many of those outside who belong really to us, men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith. They lack only the name of that which in fact they possess. My father was one of these, an alien shoot but inclined to us in his manner of life.

The reader may notice the key criteria introduced by Gregory here: “men whose devout conduct anticipates their faith”. Not just anyone outside the Church is saved through the Church – only good men and women are saved. Their own conduct must be “devout” even if they are unsure what that devotion aims at. This seems intuitively plausible even to the non-theologian. First, it is very difficult to think that certain people who are not Catholics are in Hell. When we look, for example, at the martyrs of the period of the Second World War and the Christians who risked their lives to save Jews, we see that most of them are Catholic. But there are also Protestants – most notably Dietrich Bonhoffer. It is unsurprising that Catholics are overrepresented in this group – at least if you accept that it is the true Church – but at the same time it is hard to say that those from different denominations who sacrificed themselves for Christian principles ended up in Hell. This is an extreme example which clarifies the problem clearly, but the same can be applied in day-to-day life. Most Catholics know Protestants who are extremely decent and devout people, and observing them it is difficult to say that their various theological errors, which they don’t yet understand as errors, would indubitably condemn them to eternal damnation.

While this is intuitive and very hard to argue against, it creates what seems like a contradiction with another very important part of Catholic teaching. In paragraph 1035 the Catechism states:

The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."

Here lies the problem. Mortal sins that are not repented of as such result in being condemned to Hell upon death. Now, we have already seen that for a person outside the Church to be saved through the Church they must be a person of “devout conduct”, but what constitutes such conduct is not always immediately clear. For example, a Catholic and a Protestant – or even an atheist – might easily agree that murder and stealing is wrong, but other aspects of what the Catholic Church teaches might be more controversial. The most obvious of these today would be the use of contraception. One could imagine, in today’s world especially, an utterly “devout” Protestant by Gergory’s standards who uses contraception with their marital partner. Nor is this a modern conundrum. It is very likely that Gregory’s own father engaged in acts that the Church at the time considered gravely sinful but which someone outside the Church could reasonably think normal, or at least not gravely sinful. Yet when we turn to the Catechism again it is clear on this point. From paragraph 1860:

Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.

No one is deemed ignorant of the principles of the moral law, the Catechism tells us. But clearly, if we take the issue of contraception or many others, some people may indeed be ignorant of this. We might relate this to a situation that many Catholics have no doubt thought about. Imagine a situation where you are in a state of mortal sin, and you have every intention of going to confession. But then you find yourself in a plane accident and the plane is hurtling toward earth. You ask forgiveness but you are not sure if this will hold because you did not go to confession. Do you go to Hell? The only honest answer to these conundrums is: we simply do not know. Only God knows who is saved, ultimately. All we can do is try our best to conform to the rules.