In simplest terms, Pascal’s Wager says all people must wager for or against the existence of God (those who decide not to wager are placed in the “against God” category).
The idea behind the wager is to choose the option that has the highest reward in regard to self-interest:
If God does not exist and one wagers for his existence, the reward is finite, benefits only in this life; if God does not exist and one wagers against his existence, it is of no consequence to the person.
However, if God does exist and one wagers against him, there is no reward, but if one wagers for Him, the reward is infinite, and eternal.
According to this, the most rational thing, based on personal gain, would be for one to wager for the existence of God.
This wager may seem crude, it can be argued that one cannot be forced, or conned, into a belief in God.
This is why Pascal added a second part to this wager, which requires a person, who has decided to wager for God, to live their life accordingly, developing an authentic belief in that God, following his commandments. Their faith must become authentic; it is not enough to just claim to believe in God; to receive the infinite reward, the person has to make and honest commitment to living a pure, religious, moral life.
Undoubtedly, Pascal’s Wager has brought forth many objections since its conception.
One of these is a moral objection- If one decides to wager for God’s existence solely because of practicality and greed for the reward, is it not then immoral to wager?
If that were the extent of the wager, then yes, such a wager would be immoral.
But, as Pascal added, once deciding to wager, one must work to have legitimate and personal faith in God. If one was first intrigued by the reward God offers, but then commited to living an authentic Christian life, then no, such a wager would not be immoral.
Perhaps the heaviest objection to Pascal’s Wager is the one put forth by Richard Gale: the wager does not define which God one should wager on, thus it leaves room for an infinite number of potential deities. With the infinite number of possible deities, the chances for choosing the correct one, the one who offers the eternal reward, becomes infinitesimal (not worth considering because each are equally unlikely).
Schlesinger defends Pascal against this claim, arguing that the number of probable gods can be narrowed down by observing theistic traditions.
These traditions speak of a God who is noble and honorable, one who is good, and who has the best interests of man in mind.
Trivials gods (like ones who would condemn a person to hell for stepping on a crack, or two cracks, or three cracks, etc) are ruled out by these traditions.
Similarily, gods who are capricious and evil are also ruled out by these traditions.
The best God to wager on would be the god with the simplest definition.
The simplest definition for a god would be one that is perfect. This definition would leave nothing to question; it answers every concern in regard to every aspect of the god. If a being was less than perfect, say 94% perfect, one would have to wonder why the being is not, say, 97% perfect, and what qualities make up the remaining percentage. It would be reasonable to wager on a perfect God, that God would be unique and in need of no further explanation.
In accordance with these rational grounds, the Christian God would seem to be the best God to wager on.
He has man’s best interest in mind: “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope” Jeremiah 29:11 (emphasis added)
He is good: “Good and upright is the Lord, Therefore He teaches sinners in the way” Psalm 25:8 (emphasis added)
He is perfect: “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” Matthew 5:48 (emphasis added)
Wager on God. He’s already wagered on your life.
Leave a comment