To Bet or Not: Blaise Pascal's The Wager

Regardless if a being such as God exists or not, is it reasonable and in one's best interest to believe that he exists? This is the problem that Blaise Pascal attempts to solve in The Wager. Pascal, a 17th-century French mathematician, philosopher and theologian, argued that if one needed to make a wager upon the existence of God, that they should wager that God exists. Pascal makes no argument for whether God exists or does not exist. He reasons that we cannot know by natural lights (reason) about the existence of God because "God is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits". Rather, Pascal argues that it is in one's best interest to believe in a deity. These are the premises he provides for his argument. If God does exist and one is a believer, they will receive infinite good or happiness. If God does exist and one does not believe, they will experience infinite loss. He further supports his argument by reasoning that one loses nothing if they believe or do not believe and God does not exist. For Pascal, what is of importance is an afterlife of eternal happiness, which can only be achieved with the existence of God and belief by man.

Does Pascal's argument accomplish its mission? Should one believe in God purely on the basis that there is a possibility of eternal happiness with the belief in a higher power? Pascal holds the assumptions that God is an all-powerful, all-benevolent being who judge's humans based on their belief in his existence. Belief in God would lead to Heaven and an infinite good, disbelief to damnation and eternal bad. This assumption is the central basis for Pascal's argument and in order for his reasoning to be valid (the conclusion follows from the premises) and sound (all true premises) his foundational assumption must stand up to plausible objections.

What if God exists but does not reward people based upon belief in his existence? Today people have the knowledge that the Earth is merely a tiny speck in the vast spatial Universe which has been in existence for billions of years. That life itself, as far as is known, has only occurred on this tiny speck of a planet and that the species of man has only emerged within the past 100,000 years of the Universe's existence, an instantaneous moment in geological time. It seems hard to fathom that humans, who occupy such a remote place within the universe and for such a short instance of time, would occupy the attention of God to such an extent that it would judge people based on their belief in his existence. It seems reasonable to assume that either God does not exist or is not concerned with the affairs of man to judge them.

One could argue against this objection that God was merely preparing the universe for his final creation, that of the human being. God's plans were for human life to appear last, for they were his greatest creation. Essentially, human beings are the only life to contemplate God and believe in his existence. But if God is all-powerful and all-benevolent, why would he allow for the existence of the universe to extend so far in time without the presence of man? Why would he allow man to designate an area which is a tiny dot in space and which is not located at the center of the universe? One could reply that God must not be all-powerful or all-benevolent, but that would lead into a different objection of Pascal's argument. Rather, it seems plausible that the answers to these questions are that either humans do not occupy the attention of God to such an extent that he judges them or God does not exist. Man merely contemplates God but that has no bearing upon if God contemplates man or judges him based upon his actions and beliefs.

This objection centers on the notion that God, if he were to exist, must be a judge of morality and belief. However, the notion of God as a judge is a human concept. That he judges based upon belief is also a human notion and makes God appear to be jealous and vengeful, unlike the all-powerful, all-benevolent characteristics that Pascal assumes him to possess. God, instead, could possibly judge upon the attempt of a person to discover true reality in the world in spite of one's belief in his existence. The appointment of roles, obligations, and characteristics to God has no bearing upon if God really possesses these qualities. They are merely traits in which certain people hope or believe he has. Why God has been characterized throughout history by these qualities and not by others is due to what Bertrand Russell deduced as "the poverty of man's imagination".

A response to this objection, one in which Pascal himself would make, would be that no matter how well one reasons for the existence or non-existence of God there will be no certainty. In addition, no matter how well one reasons that God does or does not judge us there will still be no certainty. Since there is uncertainty in both cases, and there is the chance, even if it's the slightest of possibilities, that God rewards infinite happiness to those who believe, it is in one's best interest to believe in his existence. Keeping in mind that there is nothing to gain if God does not exist and infinite loss if God exists and one does not believe, it is clearly evident to believe in the existence of God.

This line of reasoning is irrational when you apply this identical argument to another situation. Take for example that one is at home in the backyard and stumbles across a map upon a relatively new looking piece of paper. The map is in fact a treasure map with the X designating the treasure on the other side of the world where one found the map. The treasure itself is characterized by the map as enough money to do anything someone would want for the rest of their life (an infinite sum). In order for one to get to the other side of the world he or she would need to sell most of their possessions and dedicate all of their time to attain a plane ticket and search for the treasure. Now, the chances that the map is real and that the treasure, if discovered, would be an infinite sum, regardless of what the map indicates, seems to be very slim. Would it be reasonable for one to pursue the treasure? Pascal would reason that it would, for there would be nothing to lose if it did not exist and a lot to lose if it did exist and one did not search for the treasure.

Herein lies the fallacy of Pascal's argument. He assumed that there would be nothing to lose if one believed and God did not exist. Pascal also assumed that there would be nothing to gain if one did not believe and God did not exist. However, if God does exist and does not judge or if God does not exist then presumably there would be no afterlife. What would truly matter would be this life. There would be definitive losses and gains for those who believed and those who did not believe. The actual gains and losses would depend upon how much one conformed their life to this belief. For example, one who became a priest and dedicated their lives to this belief would lose considerably. Another who had conformed very little of their belief and actions to the idea that God exists would gain much.

This objection to Pascal's wager is not intended to prove the existence or non-existence of God. It merely sets out to prove that Pascal's argument, to believe in God as the most reasonable choice, has many flaws and appears to be unreasonable when presented with plausible objections. To reiterate, Pascal's argument rests mostly on the central basis that God is an all-powerful, all-benevolent being who judge's humans based upon their belief. First, these qualities were appointed to God by man, a flawed, biological species that has evolved a mind to contemplate a being such as God. Secondly, due to the spatial extent of the Universe and its astronomical duration, it is more reasonable to characterize man as merely a part of the Universe, who has appeared extremely recent, rather than the self-appointed reason for why the Universe exists. Finally, there are definitive gains and losses if God does not exist or does not judge, which Pascal leaves out of consideration. Essentially, there is as much uncertainty in Pascal's argument for believing in God as the reasonable wager as there is in the uncertainty that God exists and uses his power to judge man.

Resources:
Ed. Perry, John and Michael Bratman. Introduction to Philosophy.