Pascal’s Wager: gambling with an immoral god

2008 June 18
more by

Podcast: Download

By David Annis
Article ID: 1232

The French philosopher Blaise Pascal made a famous argument, today called “Pascal’s Wager“. It says: A person cannot prove God’s existence through reason. Since by believing in God you have nothing to lose – and potentially everything to gain – you should behave and believe as if that God exists.

Nevertheless, I’m wagering against the existence of the God of evangelical Christianity, and here’s why.

The God of evangelical Christianity is allegedly omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent.  We are supposed to believe that this God fathered a human child with a woman who was already engaged to a carpenter in Bethlehem about 2000 years ago.

So, if I lose nothing by believing this story, why do I choose not to? First, the logic is wrong.  If the only choices were believing in Christ or not believing in Christ the argument might hold, but those are not the only choices. Perhaps by believing in Christ and not believing in Allah or some other god, I’m still condemning myself to eternal damnation. Perhaps – for some perverse reason beyond my comprehension – there’s a God who rewards atheists and punishes believers.  Making an informed wager means having a realistic set of odds that each god exists and knowing how jealous each god is.

Many religions have a concept of an afterlife where you’re rewarded based on what you did while alive. The problem is that there are different requirements for different religions. In some you must be baptized (some religions, such as Mormonism, allow you to be baptized after death) in others you must confess your sins to a priest, in some you must accept that Mohamed is the prophet. You can’t believe everything and fulfill all of the requirements.

Wagering that the Christian god exists might lull me into a false sense of security, believing that I’ll go to heaven. That may result in my behaving a little more badly and therefore being reincarnated as an untouchable in India.

However, there is an even stronger argument against wagering with Pascal. An omnibenevolent God would not create a world in which thinking moral beings are presented with religious choices given such flimsy evidence to support them, and they are then punished for picking the wrong set of beliefs. If God knows what is in my mind, then he knows that I try to behave morally. Were he omnibenevolent and omnipotent, he would need to provide unambiguous evidence, such as mile high burning letters in the night sky saying, “You must be a Roman Catholic for salvation”.  To do less implies an arbitrary capriciousness that at best is a serious moral lapse on the part of God.

Some Christians might argue that I am not being punished for my actions, but for the original sin of Adam and Eve eating the apple in the Garden of Eden. Holding me accountable for the sins of my most distant ancestors is not omnibenevolent or moral. It’s less.


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Philosophy, Religion

7 Comments
2008 June 27
Chris permalink

David,

You are the first person to come close to my objection to Pascal’s wager.

Thank you.

I would explain the fourth paragraph slightly differently.

No religion I know of, not even Pascal’s Catholicism, claims that mere belief in God gets anyone to some desired goal like heaven. Every religion I know claims you must also do some additional actions or believe some additional things. In Protestant Christianity, for example, mere belief that Christ is God is not enough. You must also believe Christ’s death “saved” you. Catholicism, in addition to this belief, also requires participation is certain sacraments.

And, even if all religions are wrong and Pascal’s argument that merely believing in God will get to some paradise is correct, how would you possibly know?

So, in my opinion, Pascal’s wager provides no useful guidance about what to believe.

2008 July 11
sebastion permalink

David Annis did not let his readers know that Pascal wrote in a time and environment wherein the only choice to the people was Christianity or non-belief. Thus, Pascal’s logic is sound given that context.

2008 July 26
Allan permalink

To ake sebastian’s point a little further…David your arguements are sound given your personal context in these times. And based on this ..who knows what the future holds and what contexts will be available for the ideas of those times. Great isint it?

2008 July 30
David permalink

Sebastion, I am not sure about your claim that the only choices available in Pascal’s time were Christianity or non-belief. Although non-Christians were not treated fairly in Pascal’s time there were certainly Jews and to a lesser extent Muslims in Europe and I would venture to guess other minority religions. Surely, Pascal was aware of the existence of other religious belief systems – so he could have chosen to believe in Zeuss or Allah. Even among Christianity there were already lots of beliefs that he could have chosen. Would Pascal have said that it was a good bet to believe in Allah if you were in Jeddah but Christ in Paris?

David

2009 July 2
Matt permalink

Although I agree with the basic pillars of your logic, this is only a surface level breakdown of Pascal’s Wager. At its basic level, even as a Christian, I do not agree with Pascal, since the Bible does not state that salvation is available if you just believe in a vague notion of God.

However, my biggest disagreement with your argument is the lack of research and criticism of each individual religion. Sure, there are hundreds of contradictory religions, each of which holds to differing views on God, salvation, heaven, hell, life, death, and everything else in between – but what if one of them offers a coherent, systematic set of beliefs in all of those areas (eliminating the “crazy” ones), a set of beliefs that has been believed for thousands of years (eliminating the “pop-up” religions), and has an extremely accessible and comprehensive description of history and God’s design and plan within that history for both for himself and humans (down to maybe 2 or 3 options). I think that you owe it to yourself to look into those few religions with an open mind, and if you still find nothing believable, proclaim yourself an educated atheist.

By the way, even if God HAD put a giant sign in the sky, we would still have found a way to explain it away.

2009 July 2
David Annis permalink

Matt,

I’m glad that you agree with my basic logic. I’d like to address some of your disagreements:

Your “biggest disagreement” is “the lack of research and criticism of each individual religion.” Given that you begin the next sentence with “Sure, there are hundreds of contradictory religions, each of which holds to differing views on God, salvation, heaven, hell, life, death, and everything else in between” I would say that a short essay can’t delve in detail into all of them. In fact, any one could be the subject of a book by itself. Then you narrow it down —

a coherent, systematic set of beliefs in all of those areas (eliminating the “crazy” ones), a set of beliefs that has been believed for thousands of years (eliminating the “pop-up” religions), and has an extremely accessible and comprehensive description of history and God’s design and plan within that history for both for himself and humans (down to maybe 2 or 3 options).

The problems with your system of narrowing is that:

Your “crazy religion” is someone’s “systematic set of beliefs”.

Something being believed for thousands of years makes it no more likely to be true. Take for example the idea that the earth revolves around the sun — believed by many for thousands of years — not true.

In fact, most people don’t pick religions by systematically studying them and choosing one, they just believe what mom and dad believed.

You assume that because I do not believe I do not know. In fact, I have years of religious education. I can read Hebrew and Aramaic. I can recite portions of the bible from memory. I’ve got a copy of the Book of Mormon. I know all about Allah, Raelians, Rastafarians, Xenu, and Zeus. I have studied eastern religions too. I know how to wash my hands at a Buddhist temple, know to clap my hands twice at a Shinto shrine, have read the Tao Te Ching, and the writings of Confucius.

2009 July 2
David Annis permalink

Matt,

One more thought:

You also narrow the field based on: “extremely accessible and comprehensive description of history and God’s design and plan within that history for both for himself and humans”

That assumes that any religion without a God with a plan for history is false. Many religions, have neither a single God, nor a plan. These religions are better at explaining the evils we see in the world – childhood disease, war, etc. than religions which have a single omniscient and omnibenevolent God.

Your narrowing criteria seem self serving, designed to point toward your religion as one of a few worthy of consideration.

David

Comments are closed for this entry.