Pascal’s Wager is an argument in philosophy that was developed by the 17th-century Philosopher Blaise Pascal. The premise of the argument hinges on the difficulty of knowing whether God exists. Pascal argues, “yet we must ‘wager’ one way or the other.” Therefore, everyone is already placing a wager whether they realize it or not. Quite simply, Pascal states, that if given the choice between two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. Even more so when the reward is eternal happiness. The wise decision, therefore, is to wager that God exists because “if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.” Interestingly, this idea of wageringwithone’slifetapsintothe ever-present risk-reward assessment that all humans use in daily life. Commercial advertisers key in on this phenomenon by presenting a reward (product) for taking the risk (cost). Most of the decisions we make involve this type of analysis based on probabilities. Therefore, this concept of decision-making is not something new; it is a universal aspect of being human.
The deliberation of possible outcomes for any given choice can be best analyzed in light of what is known as Decision Theory. According to Decision Theory, consideration is given to the state of the way things could be, and to a strategy that the wagerer may follow to achieve the desired outcome based upon the strategy chosen. However,philosopherMichaelRota notes that “To assess the suitability of the various available strategies, thedecisionmakerattemptstoform a judgment about how valuable the various outcomes are.”
To better understand the implications of deliberating on the value of each possible outcome and choosing the wager, Decision Theory is best illustrated through a simple example. Suppose that a person offers a $100 bill if a coin flip turns up heads. If the coin flip turns up tails, however, the wagerer has to pay $1,00. A person who always chooses to play could expect to win an average of $49.50 on each flip over the course of a series of flips. In this decision matrix, the benefit of choosing to play is quite evident. Surely, however, wagering onwhetherGodexistsismuchmore complex than deciding whether to play a coin flip or not. Enter infinity!
Once the concept of infinity (eternity) comes into play regarding the value of the potential outcomes, the decision matrix becomes even more weighty. Specifically, it quickly becomes evident that the finite loss or gain realized if God does not exist is dwarfed by the infinite potential gain that exists if God does.
Although the wager has been nuancedmanytimesovertheyears, in its basic form, it is presented as follows: “It is rational to seek God and live a deeply Christian life because there is very much to gain and very little to lose.” Now, words are always important, and it is in the presentation to the wager that many misconceptions, and thus many criticisms, are founded. George Schlesinger, for example, presents the wager as “I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing such and such [taking the wager].” This presentation is quite different in its’ premise in that it erroneously presents the wagerer as losing nothing. Nothing to lose cannot be the case. Choosing God does involve a cost, regardless of how small that cost may be. It really comes down to determining the probability of God’s existence. In the case of the coin toss, the odds are 50 percent that the reward actually exists (turning up heads). The coin will either turn up heads or tails. Unless it is a trick coin, everyone knows this to be a fact.
Additionally, in the given example, the value of $100 has crystal clarity. Regarding Pascal’s Wager, however, the precise probabilities of the outcomes are much more challenging to determine. Additionally, a low likelihood of a particular outcome does not necessarily diminish its attractiveness. For example, as a society in general, we often pursue medical treatments for cancers that have a less than 50 percent chance of achieving remission. This phenomenon is understandable given our survival instinct. In a sense, patients take a Pascalinetype wager to seek reward even when the probability of the desired outcome is very low. After all, life is at stake. A patient may, and often does, deductively formulate within their mind that there is very little to lose and everything to gain. Pascal asserts that all humans have one life and that one life is represented as a one-coin flip. The flip turns up only heads or only tails: God either exists or He doesn’t. At any rate, it cannot be overstated, whether a person takes the wager and flips the coin or not, whether he chooses to play or pass, everyone is already playing the game! Pascal argued that his wager was not in itself a proofofGodbutratheranargument based on probability that showed belief in God to be the best possible outcome. Now it seems to me, based upon the cumulative evidence for the existence of God presented here in article after article, the only safe and rational wager is to “choose God and live” (cf Deut 30:19-20).
Gloria in excelsis Deo! Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics, and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of the Waurika church of Christ, and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at: dr.kerley@isGoddead.com.