Pascal’s wager is named after Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth-century French mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. Pascal believed that since evidence could not settle the question of whether God existed, individuals should wager on it instead. Pascal’s wager is a philosophical argument positing that individuals should wager their lives on the existence (or non-existence) of God.
|Definition||Pascal’s Wager is a philosophical argument that suggests individuals should believe in God or practice religion because the potential benefits (eternal reward) outweigh the risks (eternal punishment) of disbelief.||– Choosing to believe in a deity||– Addressing existential questions and beliefs|
|Eternal Consequences||The wager posits that the consequences of belief or disbelief in God are infinite and eternal, making it a high-stakes decision.||– Choosing atheism or agnosticism||– Influencing one’s religious or spiritual choices|
|Belief Choice||Pascal’s argument focuses on the choice to believe rather than the actual existence of God. It suggests that even if belief is uncertain, one should choose to believe for the potential reward.||– Believing in God for the afterlife||– Exploring personal faith and conviction|
|Rational Calculation||The wager uses a rational and probabilistic approach, comparing the potential benefits and losses of belief versus disbelief in God.||– Betting on God’s existence||– Decision-making in religious or philosophical contexts|
|Faith and Skepticism||Pascal’s Wager addresses the tension between faith and skepticism, highlighting that the expected utility of belief may outweigh the rational doubts.||– Embracing religious faith||– Contemplating the role of faith in one’s worldview|
|Critiques and Debates||While Pascal’s Wager presents a logical framework, it has faced criticism and debates regarding its assumptions, the concept of God, and the nature of belief.||– Exploring the relationship between reason and faith|
Understanding Pascal’s wager
Pascal used elements of game theory to support the notion that a belief in Christianity was rational. In arguing the case for rationality, he equated it to a wager:
“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.”
This wager, Pascal believed, was based on two conditions:
- People could choose to believe in God or choose not to believe in God, and
- God either exists or does not exist.
The four possible outcomes of Pascal’s wager
The two conditions mentioned above yield four possible outcomes:
- The person who believes in a Christian God that does exist will gain infinite (eternal) happiness in Heaven.
- The person who does not believe in a God that does exist will receive infinite (eternal) suffering in Hell.
- The person who believes in a God that does not exist will receive finite disadvantages associated with living a Christian life, and
- The person who does not believe in a God that does not exist receives finite pleasures from a life unencumbered by Christian morality.
Criticisms of Pascal’s wager
There have been many criticisms of Pascal’s wagers in the centuries since it was proposed. Those with the most merit are briefly explained below.
The many Gods objection
Some believe Pascal’s wager is too simplistic. Specifically, the focus on a Christian God may prevent someone from receiving the infinite rewards of a God from another religion.
By extension, would someone have to believe in multiple gods or indeed all Gods to realize infinite happiness?
If a Muslim were to apply Pascal’s wager to the existence of Allah as the sole God, then rationality would require them to believe in multiple incompatible hypotheses.
Failing to account for multiple Gods from different religions thus renders Pascal’s wager invalid.
The impossibility objection
Others believe that such a wager is impossible because individuals cannot form beliefs based on their potential benefits.
If someone offered you $100,000 to believe the sky was green, this or indeed any other amount of money would make you believe it was true.
To believe in a God simply for the payoff is the wrong motivation to believe in the first place.
Pascal’s argument and the four outcomes can be represented in a decision table, but this assumes that the same table applies to everyone.
This objection boils down to the different ways in which people perceive rewards. Consider, for example, a predetermined infinite reward for believers in God and finite utility for non-believers.
Which of the two is a more rewarding outcome is subjective, with the prospect of salvation more attractive to some than it is to others.
Put another way, the hedonistic atheist is more concerned with the pursuit of life pleasure than the miserable puritan who sacrifices this pleasure for a payoff after death. In either case, the decision table of Pascal’s wager is rendered invalid.
Examples and Case Studies
- Belief in Karma and Reincarnation: Individuals who believe in the concept of karma and reincarnation may choose to live morally upright lives to accumulate good karma and achieve a better future life. This can be seen as a form of wager, where they act based on the potential consequences of their actions in future lives.
- Environmental Stewardship: Some people advocate for environmental stewardship based on a similar wager-like idea. They believe that if they take care of the environment and make sustainable choices, it might result in a better future for the planet and future generations. This belief guides their actions and lifestyle choices.
- Precautionary Principle: In the field of risk assessment and decision-making, the precautionary principle is often used as a form of wager. It suggests that if there is a potential for serious harm or irreversible consequences, even without definitive evidence, preventive action should be taken to avoid those risks.
- Investing in Long-Term Goals: Individuals who invest in education, skills, and personal development are essentially making a wager on their future success and well-being. They believe that the effort and resources invested now will lead to better opportunities and outcomes in the future.
- Medical Treatment Decisions: When faced with a medical condition, individuals may consider different treatment options based on potential outcomes. They might opt for more aggressive treatments, even with potential side effects, if they believe it offers a higher chance of survival or improved quality of life.
- Career Choices: Career decisions often involve weighing potential risks and rewards. Individuals might choose a stable but less fulfilling job for financial security or take a risk on pursuing their passion with the hope of greater long-term satisfaction.
- Social and Political Beliefs: People’s political and social beliefs may also be influenced by a wager-like thinking. They may align with a particular ideology based on perceived benefits or consequences for society, even if there’s uncertainty about the ultimate outcome.
- Pascal’s wager is a philosophical argument positing that individuals should wager their lives on the existence (or non-existence) of God.
- Pascal used elements of game theory to support his idea that a belief in Christianity was rational. In arguing the case for rationality, Pascal equated it to a wager. Individuals could choose to believe in a God (or not) and whether such a God existed.
- There have been many criticisms of Pascal’s wagers since it was first proposed. Some believe it is overly simplistic and not rational, while other objections relate to the fact that people cannot form beliefs based on their potential benefits.
- Origin and Definition: Pascal’s Wager is named after Blaise Pascal, a 17th-century French mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. It suggests that individuals should make a wager on the existence of God since evidence cannot definitively settle the question.
- The Wager Concept:
- Pascal used game theory to argue that believing in Christianity is rational.
- He framed belief in God as a wager: if you believe and are correct, you gain everything; if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing.
- Conditions and Outcomes:
- Two conditions: Belief in God and God’s existence.
- Four possible outcomes: Gain infinite happiness, suffer infinite suffering, gain finite disadvantages, or gain finite pleasures.
- Many Gods Objection: Pascal’s focus on the Christian God overlooks potential infinite rewards of other religions.
- Impossibility Objection: Beliefs formed solely for rewards lack authenticity and genuineness.
- Subjectivity of Rewards: People perceive rewards differently, making the decision table subjective.
- Examples and Case Studies:
- Belief in Karma and Reincarnation: Individuals act morally for better future lives.
- Environmental Stewardship: Actions for a better future based on potential consequences.
- Precautionary Principle: Taking preventive action based on potential risks.
- Investing in Long-Term Goals: Investing now for future success.
- Medical Treatment Decisions: Choosing treatments based on potential outcomes.
- Career Choices: Balancing risks and rewards in career decisions.
- Social and Political Beliefs: Aligning with ideologies based on perceived societal benefits.
Read Next: Occam’s Razor
Connected Thinking Frameworks