Critiques of Pascal’s Wager
To God or not to God?
The Wager
Pascal’s Wager is a philosophical argument for the belief, or lack of belief, in a God written by the French philosopher, physicist, and mathematician, Blaise Pascal; published in 1669.
The wager was included in a collection of Pascal’s writing fragments titled Pensées, which translates to “Thoughts” in English. Although Pascal had started arranging these fragments to be made into a book before his death, they would ultimately end up being published posthumously in the form of a list of numbered thoughts. Pascal’s wager is outlined in thought number 233 (read the full wager here).
The original wording of Thought 233 is rather long-winded, but it is commonly summarized via snippets as follows:
“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline?”
“A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager?”
Here Pascal refers to the existence or lack of existence of God as a coin flip between heads or tails.
“…you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then?”
Given that you must choose to believe or not believe that God exists, there are four possible outcomes of the wager. We can label these outcomes as good (only reward), neutral (no reward, no loss), and bad (only loss)
- (Good) You believe that God exists and God really does exist.
- (Neutral) You believe that God exists but God does not exist.
- (Bad) You don’t believe that God exists but God does exist.
- (Neutral) You don’t believe that God exists and God doesn’t exist.
“Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
Pascal posits that you should choose to believe in God because it guarantees a good or neutral outcome while the disbelief in God guarantees you a neutral or bad outcome.
If you believe in God and it turns out that God does exist, then you get to live an eternity in Heaven. If it turns out that God doesn’t exist then nothing happens.
If you don’t believe in God, then at best nothing happens but at worst you are sentenced to an eternity of suffering in Hell.
It is important to note that Pascal himself did not formulate such an argument to convince nonbelievers to begin believing in God. Rather, Pascal intended for this argument to show the absurdity of using reason to determine the existence of a God which Pascal thought would be above concepts like logic and reason. He referenced it as a wager because the existence of God was something that he felt could not be conclusively decided one way or the other via the use of reason alone. Rather, one was essentially betting on the outcome like any other game of chance.
Despite Pascal’s intentions, his wager has been used as an argument for the existence of God by philosophers and religious apologists for hundreds of years due to many perceiving it as quite clearly stating that believing in God is the most reasonable option. However, Pascal’s Wager is not without its flaws.
Not So Neutral
One common critique of Pascal’s Wager is that it is false to claim that outcome number two is truly neutral.
Critics say that believing in a God that does not exist is not a neutral outcome, but rather a bad one. They claim that believing in God brings baggage like criticism from those who believe differently and a lifetime wasted on unfounded worship. Depending on their specific religious beliefs, some may even encounter monetary loss, extreme lifestyle limitations, and a failure to seek the truth of reality due to the guise of false belief.
Proponents of the wager claim that, although outcome number two is not truly neutral, the potential losses are so small in comparison to the potential gain that they can practically be disregarded. However, critics claim otherwise since Heaven has not been observed while the potential downsides are real and observable. They claim that it’s not worth living a life of sacrifices for something that may not exist.
“The odds are extremely low, but nevertheless, it’s worth it because the reward is extremely high. But you may also be wasting your life. You go to church every Sunday, you do penance, you wear sackcloth and ashes. You have a horrible life, and then you die and that’s it.” — Richard Dawkins, Playboy Magazine, on the topic of Pascal’s Wager
Gaming the System
Pascal himself argued that nonbelievers could feign belief in God by simply going through the motions of belief. He claimed that, even if one did not believe in God at the outset, they could eventually trick themselves into believing in God, or trick God into believing they have faith, simply by living such a lifestyle. In this way, they may be able to win themselves a seat in Heaven despite not being a true believer.
“Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. 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” — Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 233
Others argue that an omniscient God could not possibly be fooled by such a tactic and, in the end, it would serve no purpose in securing one’s place in Heaven. They claim you are either a true believer or you aren’t and there’s nothing you can do to change that fact. If you aren’t a true believer then, whether you like it or not, you are banned from receiving outcomes one and two and can only count on outcomes three and four.
“Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don’t. Pascal’s Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he’d see through the deception.” — Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
“I have always considered “Pascal’s Wager” a questionable bet to place, since any God worth believing in would prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite.” — Alan Dershowitz, Letters to a Young Lawyer
Selfishness
Many have pointed out that one who believes in God simply because of Pascal’s Wager is doing so out of selfish desires.
Got Questions Ministries, an organization that “seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually related questions through an internet presence,” produced a YouTube video analyzing Pascal’s Wager. In it, they claim that one who chooses to believe in God purely because of Pascal’s Wager is acting selfishly because they are doing so strictly for the chance of a reward rather than true obedience to Christ.
“If our obedience is primarily motivated by the reward of Heaven and avoidance of Hell, then it’s just a means of achieving our own desires rather than a heart expressing faith and obedience out of love of Christ.” — Got Questions Ministries, What is Pascal’s Wager?
“To believe in God because of the potential reward, without any regard to the evidence, appears to violate the ethics of belief. It looks like a spectacular case of wishful thinking.” — Paul Bartha, Pascal’s Wager
Others have likened Pascal’s Wager to intimidation; pushing others to believe in God else they risk the punishment of eternal suffering.
Probability > 0
In order for Pascal’s Wager to make sense, it relies on the probability of God existing being greater than 0%. If the probability that God exists is 0%, then there is no wager to be made because we know for a fact that God does not exist. Many posit that the probability of God existing is obviously greater than 0%, but this is something that is not so easily quantified. Since there is no actual evidence of God’s existence, we have no data to draw any real probabilities from. Some regard the probability of the existence of God as simply undefined.
“…to assign a probability at all — even 1/2 — to God’s existence is to feign having evidence that one in fact totally lacks. For unlike a coin that we know to be fair, this metaphorical ‘coin’ is ‘infinitely far’ from us, hence apparently completely unknown to us.” — Alan Hájek, Pascal’s Wager
“Aspects of the value calculation appear mathematically suspect. How do we know that the probability of God’s existence is a positive (real) number, rather than infinitesimally small? How can the assignment of infinite value to the afterlife be meaningful — does Pascal have a naïve understanding of infinity, and even with contemporary mathematics, can we make sense of infinite value? What is the mathematical basis for the calculation of infinite expected value?” — Paul Bartha, Pascal’s Wager
Many Gods
Pascal’s Wager is inherently based on the Christian God as Pascal himself was a Christian. His wager makes no mention of any other religions or the idea that multiple Gods might exist simultaneously.
One can imagine a scenario in which one truly believes in the Christian God but upon death they learn that the Christian God does not exist. Rather, some other God exists who then punishes them for not believing in the true God. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter if one chose to believe in God because they had no way of determining that the specific God they chose to believe in was the true God until it was too late.
One can also imagine a scenario in which one truly believes in the Christian God but upon death they learn that the Christian God is not the only God in existence. Rather, there exists multiple Gods who work together, or even fight amongst each other, to determine how a given individual’s afterlife plays out. Whether it turns out that multiple religions are correct simultaneously or whether a single polytheistic religion is correct, there is no way to determine that the particular God one chose to believe in will have ultimate authority over them after death.
“There are many other possibilities. There might be many gods, including one who favors people like Pascal; but the other gods might overpower or outvote him, à la Homer.” — Walter Kaufmann, Critique of Religion and Philosophy
The Anti-God
Suppose the scenario in which there exists an anti-God. This anti-God works opposite of the Christian God; condemning those that believe in him and sending nonbelievers to Heaven. Perhaps this anti-God exists with the sole purpose of testing human gullibility. In this scenario, all the good and bad outcomes of Pascal’s Wager are flipped. It would be in one’s best interest to not believe in a God rather than to have faith.
Since there is no definitive proof of God’s existence, one could claim that the existence of an anti-God is just as probable as the existence of the Christian God. Therefore, Pascal’s Wager makes no claims as to whether you should or should not believe in God.
Conclusion
Despite Pascal’s intentions, his wager is commonly used today as an argument for the belief in God and is particularly common among apologists who follow the Abrahamic religions. However, many philosophers, including Pascal himself, disagree with the use of the wager for such purposes as there are multiple criticisms that can be raised against it.
“While Pascal deserves his reputation as a brilliant mathematician, his wager was never more than a cute (and false) analogy. Like many cute ideas in philosophy, it is easily remembered and often repeated, and this has lent it an undeserved air of profundity. If the wager were valid, it could be used to justify any belief system (no matter how ludicrous) as a ‘good bet.” — Sam Harris, The Empty Wager
