On Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager is a thought experiment originating from Blaise Pascal, in which belief in God is in question. It could also be called the “What if you’re wrong?” argument when used in debate. In origin, it is found within a posthumously published book entitled Pensées. The wager is rather remarkably simple in structure: There are four different scenarios on the table.

There is: belief/God not being real, disbelief/God not being real, belief/God being real, and lastly disbelief/God not being real. In each of these scenarios there are one of four potential outcomes: that being of loss/gain. The Wager thus asserts that it is better to believe than not, on of the potential consequences. On this graph, we will see it visually represented:

Now, Pascal’s Wager is as stated before: a thought experiment. It does in no way actually prove the existence of God, nor was it intended to be. However, there are problems with the Wager even as a thought experiment. Firstly, there is the problem of inconsistency. The Wager presupposes a Christian worldview, which is hardly surprising given Pascal was Catholic. However, the broader topic of God’s existence is not just of the Christian God’s existence specifically. The Wager does not for the existence of or discussion on other gods. Realistically, it should include the probability of the god of Muhammad, the Hindu gods, of Buddhism being true, of the Hellenic gods, and so on.

There is also the mathematical side of the issue with the Wager. When Pascal came up with the Wager, he ascribed a 50/50 chance to each side. 50% chance that God either exists, or he doesn’t. A metaphysical coin toss, if you would. As he wrote: “Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up.” However, this is a flawed premise. We cannot be certain what the exact percentage likelihood of God existing or not even is. But to say it is perfectly and exactly 50/50 frankly, strains credulity.

However, there are problems even if we presuppose a more Christian worldview. Now, the God that Pascal would describe is one of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. However, the Wager itself would suggest belief over evidence regardless of whether an individual can or cannot convince themselves of the necessary presuppositions that are necessary for belief in God. As Pascal himself said: “Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam; and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs, that they are not lacking in sense.” This being the case, it would suggest believing even if you cannot believe.

This, naturally, is rather paradoxical. However, it also would imply the feigning of belief. This would not work with a God who knows all, as he could easily see through the façade of supposed belief. Therefore, according to the Wager itself you would not believe. Not truly, at least. Which, for Christianity does matter.

Pascal himself addresses this, on page 68. He essentially asks a hypothetical question from the perspective of someone who does not believe. He then offers a reply to said question. “‘I confess it, I it it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?’—Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc.” However, this is insufficient as a response. The Bible itself is not proof of, nor evidence of God. It is a collection of stories, metaphors, and parables. It communicates no definitive proof of God outside of direct faith. Which, to a skeptically minded person would not suffice. As Islam could with the Quran, or Hinduism could with their countless scriptures. Shintoism, with the Kojiki. Any number of other belief systems that have existed throughout human history.

Pascal continues on with the question/response format: “‘Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?’ True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your ions. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. 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.”

Now, this is also not a satisfactory response either. Pascal here suggests that living the life of a Christian is sufficient to make an individual believe. He even says that one should “convince themselves” of God’s existence not by proof or reason, but rather by playing along essentially. By acting, taking holy water, going to Mass; which supposedly an individual will naturally believe after some time of living the life. This however, does not logically follow. Merely acting as if you believe or “fake it til you make it” is not reasonable proof of God. Therefore, it could be called into question whether it would even naturally make you believe; or if it would be a disingenuous belief. However, as Pascal himself additionally said: don’t convince yourself by increasing proofs of God, but by acting as if you believe, by abating your ions.

Conclusion

Pascal’s Wager, whilst rather popular and well known, is a very flawed way of attempting to persuade someone to believe in God. There is very little reason to suggest that the Wager itself is good argumentation, or particularly convincing to anyone who does not already believe. Then again, it was never meant to be. It fundamentally relies upon flawed premises, and is severely lacking in of consistency.