Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager is an argument for beleiving in the existence of god, first formally formulated by Blaise Pascal. Its one of the most well know arguments used against atheists here on the web, so I have decided to post an examination of it here.

Pascal's Wager contains four points:

1. If you believe in god, and you're right, you have gained everything (that is, you have attained Heaven).
2. If you believe in god and you're wrong, you have lost nothing.
3. If you don't believe in god, and you're right, you have gained nothing.
4. If you don't believe in god, and you're wrong (that is, if god really does exist), you have lost everything (that is, you go to hell/limbo/purgatory/etc.).

On the surface, it seems like a fairly reasonable argument. However, on closer examination, the argument turns out to be rather flimsy, and the worst argument for believing. Let's examine each point in detail, and find out why this isn't a very strong argument:

If you believe in god, and you're right, you have gained everything.

First of all, most religions disagree with this. Simply believing in god doesn't get you to heaven. You have to believe in the right god. For example, according to Christianity, anyone who believes in any other god besides the Christian (triune) god is still going to hell. Islam teaches that anyone who worships anyother god but Allah is eternally damned. And so on and so forth.

Second, most religions require a little bit more than merely believing in their god to go to Heaven. Christianity requires the acknowledgement that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins. In Judaism, a Gentile must keep the Seven Noachide Laws, whereas a Jew must keep all the applicable laws of the Torah.

Third, this argument assumes god rewards based upon beleif. However, some beleive in an exclusively-moral god who judges on the basis of one's actions, and this determines one's entry into heaven. Belief does not come into it at all. So, we need to find out what kind of god this argument is arguing for (generally, its whatever god the arguer believes in).

Without this first statement, the argument does not have a leg to stand on. Without the first point, the rest of the argument is moot. Still, let's continue on with out examination of this wager.

If you believe in god and you're wrong, you have lost nothing.

Most religions have laws and/or commandments that restrict your life and/or cramps your lifestyle. For example, the almost universal taboos on sex. Also, most religions use guilt to control their members, or fear of an ever present judge in the sky, watching your every move, waiting to convict you on the slightest thought that may be unorthodox (for example, the Christian teaching that looking at a woman in lust is the same as commiting adultery).

So what have you lost if there is no god, but you have spent your life as if there was one? Well, you have lost control of your own life. You have ceded that control to a higher power that doesn't exist. You have given it over to a being just as imaginary as the toothe fairy or Santa Clause. That, in my opinion, is losing a lot!

If you don't believe in god, and you're right, you have gained nothing.

This one is related to the last statement. If you don't believe in god and you're right, you have gained the same thing as the person who did believe and was wrong had lost: Control of your life wihtout the fear of some sky-fairy judging your every thought, ready to condemn you. We don't have to live with the guilt that religious people often have to live with when we mess up, and after we have remedied it. To me, this is well worth the threat of hell if the sky-fairy does happen to exist.

If you don't believe in god, and you're wrong, you have lost everything.

This one is related to the first point. It assumes a god that rewards belief. To me, if a god does exist, it is much more likely that it is the exclusively-moral god I discussed earlier. Which lead me to the atheist's wager (a varient of Pascal's Wager): You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. 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 may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

I, of course, do not do good because of the atheist's wager (to me, that is the same as living your life controlled by some non-existent deity), but in my opinion it does raise some good points.

Now, a couple of things that have to do with the argument itself:

• Belief is not something you can just turn off and on. You must be convinced of something in order to believe it. So, this makes the entire wager moot, since you cannot choose what to believe in.
• It is not too smart for one to place his/her bets on the bet that has the highest reward, but rather which bet he/she feels is the most likely outcome. To bet because it has the highest reward often has no payout. For example, how many people buy lottery tickets because of the huge payout, but how many actually win the jackpot?

I hope that this discussion has shown you why and how Pascal's wager is not a good argument for believing in god. If it has, then I have accomplished my goal.