<---back to
Words of Wisdom index
"You should believe in god, because if hes real and you believe in him, you gain eternal life. If hes real and you don't believe, you suffer eternally. If hes not real, you lose nothing. Therefore, you should believe in god because you have everything to gain and nothing to lose."
This argument is not new. In fact it dates from the 17th century and is the creation of the French philosopher, mathematician and scientist Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). Pascal says, "Reason can decide nothing here...According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions." According to Pascal, reason is impotent on this issue, so we should believe in god just to be on the safe side.
It is hard to imagine what is more amazing; that a
scientist of Pascals intellect could create such a lame wager, or that
the wager could survive for over three hundred years, in varying forms,
down to the present day.
First of all, it is patently untrue that reason cannot
help us decide the issue. The burden of proof rests entirely on believers,
since they are the ones advancing the idea that god exists. Atheists, by
questioning this, do not have to prove that there is no god out there somewhere
in the universe; they have only the burden of rebuttal. The believers
proof must either be demonstrated empirically (through the senses), or
else explained rationally. Failing in this, the atheistic position must
of necessity prevail.
Secondly, the argument is not really an argument at all, but rather a crude attempt to psychologically manipulate people. Although Pascal doesn't specifically mention hell, it is strongly implied in his argument.
The third point is that Pascal is guilty of religious ethnocentrism, of seeing the position only through his own biased Catholic eyes. Apparently, he never met anyone who wasn't a Catholic or an atheist, since these seem to be the only positions that occurred to him. What about Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews? Couldn't a similar argument be drawn up for them or, for that matter, for any other existing religion? If one wants to just "play it safe" and believe a particular religion, then one might just as well choose the religion with the worst hell in it. Here, Pascals Wager works in favor of the Muslims, and not the Catholics.
Apparently, the thought never dawned on Pascal that god just might not be Catholic. If our reason cannot help us decide, as he insists, then by what criterion do we decide which religion is true? Pascal would naturally choose Catholicism, but why this religion rather than any of the others? Without our ability to reason and compare the various options, there is no way to choose.
In addition, it should be pointed out that there are literally thousands of different religious sects worldwide, most of them claiming to be the "one true faith." Logic and common sense tells us that they cannot all be right, since they make different claims. So, with the odds being stacked thousands to one against you, your happening to choose the right religion seems a remote possibility indeed.
Which leads us to the question of why this allegedly all-powerful Supreme Being would allow so much confusion to occur. If he wants the best for us, his children, then he should make his demands known in a clear, unequivocal way. There should therefore be only ONE church. If god exists and if he or she had done this, then perhaps there might be some validity to Pascals Wager.
Another problem is the issue of integrity. Pascal wants us to toss aside all our previous knowledge, study and conclusions and accept Catholicism solely on the basis of his flawed argument. Didn't he consider that his all-knowing god just might be able to see through such self-serving hypocrisy? Why is blind subservience more important to god than intellectual integrity? If god truly is, as believers claim, all-knowing, how could he possibly be threatened by our using the minds he himself gave us?
In addition, Pascals conclusion does not logically
follow his premise. There is much to lose here, including our self-respect,
our intellectual integrity, and self-esteem. If we throw all this away
for an imaginary "next life," instead of losing nothing, as Pascal claims,
we lose everything!
Back in the 1970s, philosopher George H. Smith (author
of Atheism: The Case Against God) delivered a talk to the Society of Separationists
in which he focused on Pascals Wager. He devised a counter wager which
runs like this:
The existence of god can be proven only by reason, and our reason tells us that such a being does not exist, and that, as a consequence, belief in this being should be rejected by rational people. Now the question arises, "But we are fallible human beings. What if our reason is wrong here? What if there is a god who will punish us for non-belief, and whose existence cannot be proven by reason?" Here is where Smiths wager comes in. Wager on reason, Smith says. This should lead you to atheism. There are only four possibilities, as follows:
1) There is no god. The atheist is correct, and consequently lives a happy, fulfilling life free of mindless dogma and emotional tyranny.
2) The second possibility is the god of deism, who was said to have created the universe and then left it to run on its own. There is nothing to fear from such a god; he or she is impersonal and does not reward or punish us.
3) This third possibility is a god that is concerned with humanity. He is a fair and just god. Such a god, in his infinite goodness would never punish anyone for honest errors of reason, assuming of course that there is no moral turpitude involved. Here again we have no reason to fear such a god. In fact, if our reason is what separates us from the animals, then not to use it might be construed as the gravest of "sins." If anyone is in danger of punishment here, it is the theist, and not the atheist.
4) The last possibility concerns an unjust god. Unconcerned
with justice, he will burn us whether our mistakes are honest or not. There
is, after all, no greater injustice than to punish someone for an honest
error of belief, and yet that is just what this fourth god, the Christian
god, promises to do. He is unconcerned with issues such as honesty and
intellectual integrity and, according to the Bible, will burn us eternally
if we doubt his existence. No matter what kind of life we have led, this
issue is central in determining where we will spend eternity. Gullibility
thus becomes a virtue rather than a vice. Therefore, by definition, this
fourth god is a most unprincipalled deity. Christians have always felt
that they are in a better position here, but if one thinks about it, they
are really in the same boat as the atheist. Why? Simply because, if this
god really gets such a thrill out of creating people just to burn them,
what could give him greater enjoyment than to promise the Christian eternal
bliss and then turn around and burn him too? Certainly, you cannot trust
the word of an unjust god when he promises you something, since he must
have a sadistic streak in him to begin with.
This then is the wager: Use you reason in all areas
of human endeavor,
including religion. This should lead you to atheism.
If there is no god, you are correct. If the Deistic god exists, you have
nothing to fear. If a just god exists, there is again nothing to fear;
the only one who is at risk is the believer. And if the fourth god exists,
we do indeed live in a nightmarish universe, but the Christian is in no
better position than the atheist, so why not live our lives as rational
human beings? Why not do all we can to make this world, our only home,
a better place and do all we can to make life worthwhile and enjoyable
for all? In Smiths wager, there truly is nothing to lose!
1) Gambling on God: Essays on Pascals Wager Edited
by Jeff Jordan. Published 1994 by Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
2) Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith.
Published by Prometheus Books.
3) Atheism: A Philosophical Justification by Michael
Martin. Published by Temple University Press.
4) Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker. Published
by FFRF, Inc.
5) Lucifers Handbook by Lee Carter. Published by
Academic Associates.