One of the most misunderstood “arguments” for the existence of God is popularly known as Pascal’s Wager.
But Pascal’s Wager is not an argument for the existence of God at all. Instead, it’s an argument in favor of pursuing the questions of, and relationship with, God.
Pascal’s Wager cannot act as a replacement for the strong arguments classical philosophy has put forward for God. However, it is valuable to the modern mind that seeks justification for asking the question itself.
Found in Blaise Pascal’s famous book, Pensées, where Pascal applied his background in mathematics and probabilities to the “odds” related to the question of God, Pascal’s Wager seeks to determine whether it is more prudent to believe in God or to deny His existence, based on the possible outcomes of either choice.
The wager proposes several options regarding one’s belief in God: 1) That one’s personal soul continues after bodily death or it does not, 2) that God either exists as the Source of perfect goodness or does not, and 3) that a soul’s experience after bodily death is determined by relationship with God. Therefore, one must decide between the two options – belief or unbelief – with consequences for each depending on these contraries.
Thus, if I reject relationship with God and God does not exist, my soul experiences nothing after death. And if I seek relationship with God and God does not exist, my soul still experiences nothing. I do not “win” either way.
However, if I reject relationship with God and He exists, I reject a relationship with perfect goodness forever and “lose.” Yet if I seek relationship with God and God exists, I experience perfect goodness forever.
Pascal determined that the only way to “win” the bet, is to live as if God were real. This means that we are better off pursuing a relationship with God and fulfilling His will. From a Christian standpoint, this involves love of God and love of neighbor, what Christianity, from the words of Jesus, calls the two greatest commandments (Matt. 22:37-40).
A common objection to using Pascal’s Wager to determine whether we should believe in God is that it lacks honesty and authenticity. If this God that the wager proposes existed, He would know that one is only believing and acting out of delayed self-interest. The “believer” is just hedging his bets, so God certainly would not grant him Heaven anyway. One cannot “win” the bet that way, so the bet becomes moot yet again.
However, this belies a misunderstanding of “faith” itself. It assumes that faith requires absolute pragmatic certainty (in contrast to moral certainty) in order to be authentic.
Absolute certainty – certainty without a risk of being mistaken – is virtually impossible to attain. However, moral certainty, which means that we have every reason to believe something but cannot prove it, is often necessary.
A classic example of moral certainty is the certainty of many spouses that their respective spouses love them. In fact, it would be unreasonable to believe the opposite without clear evidence. Though technically, it is possible that despite every piece of evidence, there could be some explanation that precludes the spouse loving the other.
One can also have moral certainty on matters of faith. That is what trust means.
Though not using the contemporary terms “absolute” and “moral,” Thomas Aquinas makes this distinction in his article on faith. While faith is objectively more certain because it comes from God, it is less certain within us, the subjects.
This perceived lack of certainty does not invalidate one’s decision to live as if God existed. If anything, it makes trust all the more necessary because the certainty is not absolute. Choosing to believe in God despite a lack of absolute certainty is authentic; one could “win” the bet of Pascal’s Wager without having even played “the game” perfectly.
While it is presented via impersonal odds and numbers, the wager that Pascal puts forward demonstrates the importance of taking risks for relationship. The pursuit of God is in itself a reward. The God of Christianity is perfect goodness, so even an atheist determined to seek perfect goodness (even an imperfect conception of goodness) embarks on a noble pursuit. Even an imperfect pursuit is worth it because the pursuit is how one experiences the relationship with God.
We might as well. We have nothing to lose.
Mike Schramm is a husband and father of seven children. He teaches theology and philosophy at Aquinas High School and Viterbo University. You can find his writing at Busted Halo, Mere Orthodoxy, and the Voyage Comics Blog. He is also the managing editor of the Voyage Compass, an imprint of Voyage Comics and Publishing.
This culture article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal, a project of 1819 News. To comment on this article, please email [email protected].
