Continuing with the introductions to the arguments for the existence of God, we’ll now look at one of the most common arguments for God – the basic idea that the possibility of eternal bliss of paradise as a reward for belief or the possibility of terrors that can result as a consequence of non-belief is a good reason to believe. The average person’s version of the Argument says that we should believe just in case there is a God. It’s just safer.

Please note that, as with other similar introductory posts — such as Anselm’s ontological Argument, a cosmological argument, or a teleological argument —this post is not the alpha and omega of everything. It provides a superficial introduction to the Argument and the fundamental objections that might be raised. There are certainly deeper interpretations of Pascal’s Argument, and objections to them. We’ll come back to these in a future post, so stay tuned.

The Argument

Pascal’s Wager is an Argument by Blaise Pascal, the French mathematician and philosopher. The Argument (Wager) says that our goal should be to believe God exists because, if we do, we can gain infinite rewards—an eternity in heaven — and avoid infinite losses—an eternity in Hell.

The basis of the Wager is that we don’t know whether God exists. He also states that this is not something we can learn, so we must wager.

„If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is […] Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. .

Pensées /via Wikipedia contributors. “Pascal’s wager.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 18 Apr. 2019. Web. 25 May. 2019

So, we cannot know, and we must wager. We stand to gain everything or lose everything.

 God exists (G)God does not exist (¬G)
Belief (B)+∞ (infinite gain)−1 (finite loss)
Disbelief (¬B)−∞ (infinite loss)+1 (finite gain)

– “Pascal’s wager.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 18 Apr. 2019. Web. 25 May. 2019.

So, the Argument goes to say that clearly, it is better to believe because if you’re right, you will enjoy eternal happiness, and if you’re wrong, you might have suffered some minor inconvenience by having to go to church or the like. And if you do not believe and you’re right, you have only gained some finite resources like free time, so your potential gains are smaller if you’re right, but if you’re wrong, you will suffer eternal torment. Therefore, the rational choice is to believe.

The Criticism

A word about misrepresenting the Argument

I have seen the Wager misrepresented or misunderstood by some atheists who argue that God would see through what you’re pretending to believe. But Pascal doesn’t say that we pretend. He argues that belief should be your goal. So, he does not try to argue deception. That idea is simply wrong.

The next thing that is often misunderstood about the Argument is that Pascal tells us what to believe and that we can choose our own beliefs. People go on to say that we cannot merely tell ourselves, “from tomorrow I believe in God, “against all the beliefs we held so far. Those criticisms seem correct, but they are irrelevant to the Wager. Pascal does not say, “I should believe in God, so I choose to believe in God. ”

Instead, he says:

„Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. […] Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe and deaden your acuteness. “

Pensées Section III note 233, Translation by W. F. Trotter /via Wikipedia contributors. “Pascal’s wager.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 18 Apr. 2019. Web. 25 May. 2019.

So, Pascal does not say that you try to deceive God or decide to believe, and you’ll feel. No. He instead suggests that you gradually build belief by taking the holy water, going to mass, hanging out with religious people, etc. Doing this will make you believe.

The Argument doesn’t suffer as much as some atheists thought, and when properly understood, it does not look useless. Let’s instead see where the real problems might be.

Christian God?

The first thing that might be said – and this seems pretty evident to all – is that we might wonder why the Wager is used precisely to argue for a Christian God. It gives us no reason to do so, except for the presupposition of Christianity. It can just as well be used to argue for Islam. No single religion can say that only they ever had an idea of a God who rewards with infinity in heaven and punishes with infinite suffering. Any religion that can do that can be argued for using the Wager.

Even this should tell us immediately that there’s something fishy. If you think about it, it seems there’s nothing in the Wager that would persuade an atheist to choose a Christian God above any other God who behaves similarly – the Wager appears only to be able to reinforce the existing psychological belief in a specific God and is unable to argue that we should choose this exact one. So, when this is taken into account, it does not seem correct to say the person’s chance of getting it right is 50:50. You still must choose the correct God.

What is the value of belief when determining whom to reward?

So, WHY would God value belief so much? To me, this is one of the most important questions when talking with people about the possibility of going to Hell. If we’re to think that God cares only about whether we believe in him and not about what kind of life we lead, we would be arguing and praising – forgive me for saying so, but – one weird and jealous God.

Bertranrdrussell Doubt Existence 2

To paraphrase Bertie from the image above, what kind of God do we really imagine when we think that we’ll suffer for eternity simply because we did not unquestioningly believe but instead thought about it for ourselves and decided that arguments are more on the side of a lack of belief? We were good, gentle and kind, but did not believe, so we deserve to go to Hell? Is it possible that a supposedly infinitely good and benevolent creator would behave that way?

So, in short, the Argument would have us believe that from Non-belief, Hell must inevitably follow. Doesn’t this God seem incredibly shallow and worse than humans? Doesn’t it seem more reasonable that a god who cares about humans would look at our lives before deciding whether we are tormented or rewarded?

If belief were to play any role in that decision, it seems more likely that God would not give or reduce infinity ‘points’ simply for belief. That description is much closer to a benevolent god than to an utterly jealous and immoral one.

Imagining different Gods?

Let’s go back to the previous table. We can see that the possible benefit of belief is an infinite gain, and the potential consequence of disbelief is endless suffering. Well, philosopher Michael Martin in his brilliant book “Atheism: A Philosophical Justification” argues that an atheist can easily imagine a different type of God – the one which punishes with eternal torment anyone who believes in any God and rewards those who do not think so.

But more than that, he is the Author of the so-called Atheist’s Wager – the idea that not a God of the Bible exists, but either a God who values good deeds or Atheism is true. These are the 50:50 chances. God, if it exists, would reward good deeds, and if no gods exist, good deeds would leave a positive legacy; you should be an atheist who does good deeds.

You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite. – Atheist’s Wager on Wikipedia.

Arguing from ignorance, but wait, we do know some things?

Pascal starts from the idea that we do not know and cannot know if God exists, so we must wager. “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….”

Pensée #272 /via Wikipedia contributors. “Pascal’s wager.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 18 Apr. 2019. Web. 25 May. 2019.

So, the Argument goes, we do not know anything except for rewards and punishments. But isn’t the entire idea that we do not know? Then how do we know about the rewards and punishments? How do we know that God has those characteristics? Remember, he wrote that “We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is”. So, on what grounds do we even set up the probabilities of the Wager to begin the Argument? See Pascal’s Wager: Begging the question on the Religions Wiki.

If you say that we know from the Bible, well then, you might as well say that we know about God from the Bible and be done with it. You don’t need any other arguments or wagers, do you?

Conclusions

This was an introductory post where we skipped all the analysis of the decision theory and what have you, and went straight to some objections.

  • Why is it used to argue for Christian God? Other gods might be equally eligible.
  • Continuing the previous objection, a God can be imagined who behaves almost completely opposite of the traditional theist God and that possibility raises additional problems for those arguing that the possibilities laid out in the wager are the only ones.
  • How likely is it that the belief has such high importance on whether you go to heaven or hell? It is easy to imagine a more moral god that looks upon the totality of our lives and not only matters of belief.
  • The argument uses special pleading to first argue that we cannot know God but that we do know what rewards for belief or lack of belief are. What is argued is that we do not know but we do know.

There is more to be said on this topic by theists as they try to escape some criticisms here and there, and there are additional atheist questions to those theist arguments, so there is more for me to read, explore and cover here. Stay tuned.

Further Reading

Attempt Block Recovery