Pascal's wager: An introduction

Information: An introduction to Blaise Pascal's 'argument' for the existence of God. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Introduction

Blaise Pascal (1623-62) was a French mathematician and philosopher. In his book Pensees, he introduced an argument not so much for the existence of God, but for the value of believing in God. He claimed that even though (for him) there was no satisfactory conclusive evidence for believing God existed, it is still better for us to 'gamble' on belief in God, rather than not. By examining the probability of God existing, the benefits of God existing, and the consequences of choosing either to believe or not to believe in God, he claims that people have more to lose by living as atheists, than not.

The wager

Pascal argues that none of the traditional proofs of God's existence (ontology, design, cosmology), can really 'prove' God exists. However, it is unwise to use this is a reason for giving up on believing in God. On the contrary, people should still choose to believe in God (even though they cannot prove their belief to be true), because this is the 'best bet' in terms of life after death. If people 'bet' on God existing (theism), yet when they die find there is no God, they have lost nothing except maybe a few hours a week performing religious rituals/duties etc. However, if they 'bet' on God not existing (atheism), yet when they die find there is a God, they will have lost everything (i.e. will be dammed). Thus according to Pascal it is better to believe God exists, than not.

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (Pensees, 233)

Some issues

Pascal's Wager presents a rather strange looking relationship between God and believers. People seem only concerned to believe, because they want to be 'saved', and not because they feel that their beliefs are true. Yet the question begs as to whether God would be pleased with people paying 'lip service' to God's existence, only to be 'saved'? Isn't this kind of behaviour exactly the sort of thing most people criticise believers for, and which turns people away from faith and belief in God in the first place? Would we not expect God (if God exists), to be extremely critical of such hypocrisy? Why could we not say that instead of betting that God exists, and living a somewhat shallow life as a result, that God would be more pleased with someone who after carefully weighing up the evidence, felt that God did not exist because they had made an honest and open-hearted search for God, and had not found answer definite answers? Maybe such people would actually be more welcome into any 'heaven/paradise' by God, because they have been spiritually honest (or honest-doubters, rather than dishonest-believers)?

Why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him? What's so special about believing? Isn't it just as likely that God would reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity? What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth as the supreme virtue? (Dawkins, R., The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006 p.104)

Maybe a bigger problem concerns which 'God' Pascal is making his bet with? Believers in every religion could use Pascal's wager to suggest that non-believers should 'bet' on their God. However, what if one decided to follow one deity, yet found another God actually existed? What if someone decided to believe in the Christian-God (and become a Christian), yet arrived in the after-life to find themselves in the presence of Allah (Islamic-God)? Would such a person be entitled to 'salvation' from Allah because they had believed, even though they had chosen the wrong God to believe in?

The atheist wager

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him. (Atheist's Wager, Wikipedia)

The atheist's wager says that it is better to live as though God did not exist, than take the chance that God does and find that this is the wrong choice when you die. In other words, if we 'bet' on a God existing (theism), yet when we die we find that we have chosen the wrong God, we may have lost everything. However, if we 'bet' on God not existing (because we do not know which one to choose, or are not convinced there is a God) and do the best we can here on earth to help others and be good, then if we find there is a God when we die we might be in a better position to argue our case. Thus according to an atheist, it is better to be a non-believer than to believe a God exists.