Does Pascal's Wager Prove God Exists?

　　From Christianity's beginning, philosophy has informed theology and doctrinal discussions. One famous example of Christian philosophy is Pascal's Wager.

　　Paul the Apostle was well-schooled in both Jewish and Greek education styles. While he didn't rely only on philosophical arguments, Paul used philosophical structures and thought to support and defend the Gospel. Since Paul often ministered to Gentiles in a non-Jewish Hellenistic culture, his ability to speak philosophically served him well.

　　Christianity developed through the first two centuries. Jews largely rejected Christ and the Gospel, while most of the disciples were Gentile. Therefore, we begin to see the influence of Greek thought and culture early in the writings of the Church Fathers.

　　This influence continued to develop in modern-day apologetics. Pascal's Wager is a prime example of such an influence.

　　

What Is Pascal's Wager?

Pascal's Wager is a famous philosophical argument by seventeenth-century French mathematician, physicist, and philosopher Blaise Pascal. It addresses whether it is rational to believe in God, particularly if concrete proof is absent. Pascal's Wager is a pragmatic approach that suggests believing in God is rational even when one cannot be certain about God's existence.

　　Pascal's Wager begins by acknowledging that when it comes to belief in God, individuals have two options:

　　Belief in GodDisbelief in GodPascal argues that there are four possible outcomes based on these two options:

　　If you believe in God, and God exists, you will gain eternal happiness (heaven).If you believe in God, and God does not exist, you lose nothing.If you do not believe in God, and God does not exist, you gain nothing.If you do not believe in God, and God exists, you face eternal damnation (hell).Pascal's Wager suggests that when you weigh the potential outcomes, it is rational to believe in God, even if there is no definitive proof. Why? Because the potential benefits of believing in God (eternal happiness) far outweigh disbelief's consequences (eternal damnation). The expected value of believing in God is infinite. The expected value of disbelief is finite or zero.

　　Pascal's argument is rooted in decision theory and probability theory, emphasizing the practical consequences of belief or disbelief in God. Pascal believed that, from a rational standpoint, it is more reasonable to choose belief in God because the potential reward of eternal happiness is so significant that it justifies the decision, regardless of uncertainty about God's existence.

　　While many have criticized the idea, Pascal's Wager remains a thought-provoking and influential argument in the philosophy of religion and Christianity. It still sparks philosophical discussions about the nature of faith and belief.

　　

Where Do We Find Pascal's Wager in His Writings?

Pascal's Wager appears in Pensées (French for "thoughts"), a collection of notes, fragments, and reflections intended to defend the Christian faith and critique skepticism. It was left unfinished at Pascal's death in 1662 but published in 1699. It is considered a masterpiece of French literature and philosophy.

　　In Pensées, Pascal addresses various aspects of faith, skepticism, and human nature. He explores human reason's limits and the relationship between faith and reason.

　　Pensées presents Pascal's Wager as a series of interconnected thoughts and arguments rather than a single, isolated passage. Pascal discusses the concept in several sections, but the core idea appears in the section labeled "Thoughts on Religion." The following are some key excerpts.

　　Pascal's Wager (Thought #233): "Let us now speak according to our lights; we shall thereby be the better instructed in our duty. We have so much evidence for God; and this evidence is in such proportion to our evidence for other things, and so powerful in itself, that we are compelled to decide that God is, without the consideration of any other thing."

　　The Nature of Belief (Thought #233): "At least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavor, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy: learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions."

　　Expected Value of Belief (Thought #418): "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him."

　　

What Famous Apologists Mention Pascal's Wager?

While it is impossible to list all Christian apologists who mention Pascal's Wager, here are some notable ones who have referenced or it.

　　Danish existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard engaged with Pascal's Wager and its implications in his work, particularly in his book Concluding Unscientific Postscript. He critiqued the argument and discussed the idea of faith as a subjective leap.

　　Philosopher William Lane Craig delved into Pascal's Wager, scrutinizing its merits and weaknesses in contemporary Christian apologetics. He has referenced the wager in his book Reasonable Faith, shedding light on the rationality of belief in God.

　　Alvin Plantinga, celebrated for his profound contributions to the philosophy of religion, has cited Pascal's Wager in many seminal works. Notably, in Warranted Christian Belief, the third volume on his trilogy on the notion of warrant, Plantinga dissected the rationality of faith in God, drawing from Pascal's insights.

　　Peter Kreeft has devoted extensive writings to a range of apologetic topics. He has thoughtfully examined Pascal's Wager, particularly in his book Handbook of Christian Apologetics, offering an insightful perspective on Christian apologetics and philosophy.

　　Recommended

　　9 Ways the Bible Defines True Manliness

　　The prolific Norman Geisler has woven Pascal's Wager into his writings on apologetics and the rationality of belief in God. In his comprehensive work, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Geisler delves into the various arguments for the existence of God, emphasizing the pragmatic dimension of belief as posited by Pascal.

　　While some have critiqued or expanded upon the original argument, others have referenced Pascal's Wager in the broader context of Christian apologetics, each adding unique insights to the conversation.

　　

How Do Atheists Respond to Pascal's Wager?

Atheists have offered a range of responses to Pascal's Wager. While there isn't a single, uniform response among atheists, here are some common criticisms and objections raised in reaction to Pascal's Wager:

　　One central objection raised by atheists is that belief in God is not a simple matter of choice. They argue that belief is not something one simply decides to have or not have. It's a matter of conviction and evidence. Thus, Pascal's Wager assumes that one can choose one's beliefs, which many atheists find unrealistic.

　　Atheists have pointed out that Pascal's Wager doesn't specify which god or gods to believe in. The wager assumes a particular concept of God, but the world has countless gods and belief systems. This leads to an infinite regress problem—should one bet on all possible gods to cover all bases?

　　Some atheists contend that Pascal's Wager reduces belief in God to a self-serving decision based on potential rewards and punishments rather than genuine faith or conviction. They argue that belief driven by the desire for rewards is insincere.

　　Atheists have raised ethical concerns about the idea of believing in God as insurance against hell. They argue that pursuing moral and ethical values should be based on genuine conviction, empathy, and reason rather than a fear of divine punishment or a hope for rewards.

　　Critics of Pascal's Wager note that it assumes a binary outcome (belief in God or disbelief in God). There is a spectrum of religious beliefs, including agnosticism and various shades of belief. The wager oversimplifies the complexities of religious belief and practice.

　　Some atheists have proposed alternative wagers, such as Hitchens's Wager, named after the atheist Christopher Hitchens. This counter-argument suggests that a life lived without the constraints of religious belief can lead to greater personal fulfillment and ethical behavior.

　　Atheist responses to Pascal's Wager vary widely, reflecting the diverse perspectives within the atheist community. Some may engage in philosophical debates about the wager, and others may dismiss it as an irrelevant or flawed argument not worth discussing.

　　While the Bible's teachings may present some valid criticisms of Pascal's argument as one for the existence of God, the basics are still true. It isn't selfish to have eternal reward as a motivator in Christian life. We're expressly told to live for such reward. The Bible also warns against the dangers of hell. We may not be able to simply choose our beliefs. However, alongside Plantinga's arguments and other arguments, Pascal's Wager explains how it isn't flawed logic to believe in God.

　　

Should We Use Pascal's Wager Today?

Whether Christians should use Pascal's Wager today is a matter of debate within the Christian community and largely depends on one's theological perspective and approach to apologetics. There are several angles for considering whether (and when) it is appropriate to use Pascal's Wager in modern Christian apologetics.

　　1. The Primacy of Personal Revelation: Even Pascal admits empirical evidence isn't sufficient to prove God's existence. The Bible lays the responsibility upon God to reveal himself. Therefore, personal revelation and spiritual experiences are the primary ways we know God exists. He is, after all, not a set of logical claims but a Person. Pascal's Wager must be seen as more of a pragmatic assessment of outcomes rather than a proof God exists.

　　2. Different Approaches to Apologetics. While some Christians rely on rational arguments and evidential apologetics to support their faith, others prioritize a more faith-based, experiential approach. Pascal's Wager may align better with the former, while the latter group may find it less compelling or applicable.

　　3. Role of Nature. Pascal limits his argument to simple logic and outcomes, but the Bible says our observation of nature is the first step in faith (Romans 1). This isn't a competition between two different approaches. However, we should realize there is a holistic approach to engaging with questions of God's existence.

　　4. Addressing Doubt and Skepticism. Pascal's Wager can be seen as a tool to address doubt and skepticism, offering a pragmatic reason to consider faith in God. Some Christians may find it helpful in conversations with individuals on the fence or questioning their beliefs. It can serve as a starting point for discussions about faith.

　　5. Context Matters. The appropriateness of Pascal's Wager may also depend on the specific context and audience. It may be more suitable in discussions with individuals open to rational arguments and weighing the potential consequences of belief or disbelief.

　　6. Complementary Approach. Pascal's Wager doesn't need to be the sole or primary argument in apologetics. It can be used alongside other approaches, such as evidential or experiential apologetics. Different arguments may resonate with different individuals, and a multifaceted approach may be more effective.

　　While it may not be the central or most compelling argument for many Christians, it can still be a valuable tool to engage with individuals exploring or questioning their faith. Ultimately, modern Christian apologists must use discretion, whether using Pascal's Wager will help their strategy.

　　Peace.