Pascal introduces an unconventional approach to the question of whether god exists. Pascal poses the inaugural notion that all information regarding the divine is inaccessible to humans, due to the scale of our separation. Having drawn this initial premise, he elucidates that the probability of God’s existence, which remains inaccessible to us, is comparable to the flip of a coin. These odds form the basis of the titular wager. This is not a strong claim, or at least is not a logical conclusion to form based on the premise.
Pascal presents the first premise of the wager in comparison to infinite numbers. He compares divinity to infinity, in that the concept is recognizable to us but intangible. We cannot impose upon infinity by adding or subtracting from it. The nature of the divine, according to Pascal, operates in the same manner. We cannot access any tangible information on divine being but rather develop peripheral concepts and actions. Pascal also emphasizes that though choices remain subjective to individuals, the nature of God’s existence is a forced one. Every person must commit to an answer, refusing to do so is impossible.
Having established that we are without means of discerning divine existence, Pascal assigns the odds to 50/50. In this instance, he suggests that the benefits and drawbacks of belief in God can be reduced to infinite gain and finite loss. In the circumstance that God does exist, the believer is a candidate for infinite gain, while the nonbeliever is a candidate for finite loss. In the reciprocal circumstance, wherein God does not exist, both lose nothing. Pascal underscores these chances by posing the ultimate question; why not bet on God? He insists that in the face of this wager, God’s existence is the choice to stake everything on.
I remain unconvinced. The theory leaves too many possibilities unaccounted for. Though that is not necessarily grounds to discredit an entire theory, it certainly contends with the idea of God’s existence as a gamble. The first issue is we cannot assume that God accepts the terms of this wager. On account of the massive discrepancies in nature proposed by Pascal, we also cannot engage with these terms meaningfully. In the case God exists, we do not have the access or foresight to determine where infinite gain and finite loss are assigned, if at all. This logical lacuna raises the primary concern with the wager.
Pascal undermines his own logic almost immediately upon assigning the outcomes. If we are to underscore the premise that the divine is, by nature, inaccessible, then we are in no position to assign probability and later consequences in the extension of our fictitious probability. We have no reason to perceive belief and gain as dialectical concepts, when in fact they may be antithetical to one another. This idea is merely a projection of our own societal functioning, where positive behavior is rewarded, and the opposite is punished. Though those outcomes are logical in practice, we can’t apply them to the nature of God and belief. We have no evidence, and will be unable to procure any, in the case that the premises are true. To reiterate, given the inaugural premise, we are in no position to assign any outcomes at all. We never will be. If the premises are true, there cannot be an argument to follow. Unfortunately, the premises must also be the conclusion if they are to be true.
In this case, Pascal’s original argument is also the objection. The most significant portion of which, boils down to the idea that there is nothing to lose by believing in God. The possibility of infinite gain should always be the right choice when measured against a loss that will be less significant. Once more, in order to enact this pragmatic approach, one should have or be able to access the terms of the wager. Even in the face of this pragmatic logic, we are still unable to assign probable outcomes given the premises. The wager itself is a false one.
I think there is a stronger objection to be made, not in the critique of the wager, but rather in the nature of the critique. It’s worth evaluating biblical premises, and where they intersect with our need for belief. The bible lays out the justice system as we understand it, in the most simplistic form. Good is rewarded, and bad is punished. God is the ultimate judge or cosmic arbiter. In the circumstance where God cannot offer a beneficial outcome to satisfy the archetype we created, God is no longer a functional actor. Perhaps we need this logic to be sound, we need God to adhere to the terms as prescribed by Pascal so as not to undermine our own understanding of morality and consequence. What I mean to say here is that we stand to benefit from accepting this wager. Biblical structures have shaped Western morality for centuries, specifically the dialectical relationship between good behavior and rewards. The narrative is a convenient one, that we don’t stand to benefit from in the case of its unraveling. Abandoning critique of this wager is beneficial to bolstering and profiting from the behavior/reward relationship. Regardless, the larger implication of morality and behavior in society is not a factor in the extension and application of these premises. My original point remains in the face of both objections. Should the premises be true, there is no argument to follow. The premises must also be the conclusion.
Pascal’s wager is not a strong argument, nor should it be presented as one. Though the premises are sound, they do not allow for any logical extension. Pascal’s premises undermine the rhetoric to follow. Though the wager is a hypothetical one, it can be a misguided or guilt-inducing lens to view religion through. It sets a trap, where beliefs that may develop over a lifetime, under the influence of infinite factors and experiences, become a forced decision. People deserve to cultivate such deeply personal beliefs with ideas that are more nuanced than random probabilities assigned to a wager, and those beliefs should be encouraged to evolve over time. It is imperative to underscore critical thinking here, so as not to fall into the trap of the wager.
Literary Musings 