Pascal’s Wager

    Blaise Pascal takes a unique approach in answering the eternal question of
God's existence. Instead of arguing for or against His existence like all
those before him, Pascal wanders off the beaten path and measures the
merits against the detriments of the choice to believe. His argument,
however, is confounding, and invites the question; can belief in God truly
be reduced to a wager? Furthermore, does this discussion on belief in God
lend itself to a wager's status?

    Using the notion of infinity as an example, Pascal reminds his
audience that there exist ideas which are beyond human comprehension;
however this does not deny their existence. I would argue that it confirms
the shortcomings of humanity in the face of such concepts, further
reinforcing Pascal's notion of belief in God as a wager. For when
examining an idea so large and confounding as the existence of God we must
admit defeat in the sense that the very nature of the concept prohibits us
from the grasp of a complete understanding. As Pascal explains, ".we do
not know.the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits."
(61) To recognize our defeat in this instance is the foundation of belief
in God as a wager for one cannot make a sound decision about that which
he/she is uncertain. With this understood Pascal engages the reader in a
logical development which concludes that to believe in God is the safest
way to live one's life.

    Pascal begins his thesis with two simple options: to believe, or not
to believe. Pascal then brings to the table two more possibilities: either
God exists, or he does not. Pascal presents his argument to the audience
by ranking the consequences of each situation in matching the four
variables against one another: if one believes in God and He exists, then
this the best possible outcome for the believer will be treated to an
eternity of reward. If one believes in God and he does not exist, while it
seems like a waste of time to have spent one's life believing in nothing,
there remains a worse evil. For if one fails to believe and God does in
fact exist, well then this foolish person will be in trouble for infinity.
(Of course, if one does not believe and if God does not exist then nothing
is gained or lost.) Thereby Pascal artfully explains that one who believes
gains the most, while one who does not believe faces the alternative of
paying an eternal consequence.

    However, some may find Pascal's measurements to be skewed. He
asserts that "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
(61) Here Pascal neglects to recognize the loss evident in a life of
belief in God in the instance that he does not exist. As has been
established, reason can only take one so far as to conclude that the chance
of God's existence is equal to that of his inexistence. With the odds so
equal, is it truly the logical choice to chance freedom in the case of
God's existence, or is the choice of greater logic based on that which we
know? We know that we exist in the present; we do not know what may exist
in the form of a future. Thereby, to chance that which we are sure of for
the mere possibility of a God which exists is a much greater wager than
Pascal lets on.

    Yet, the disenchanted may rest at ease, for there remains a gain in
this alleged loss. He/she who believes in God in the present will not go
without prize. For a life devoted to God, as many religions argue, is
truly a life devoted to the betterment of one's self. If God is that which
we profess Him to be, He requires no worship. It is insufferable to claim
that God requires petty veneration. "Religion", said one Karl Marx with
amazing accuracy "is the opiate of the people". To subscribe to religion
is to create for one's self a sense of purpose, a community, and a set of
moral guidelines. Simply put, to commit to God is no more than to commit
to one's self. "Now what harm will befall you in taking this side?"
While Pascal clearly lays out the pros and cons in a life of belief or
disbelief in God, once more those in opposition to the wager ponder the
validity of Pascal's discussion in the context of the God in question.
What Pascal achieves in his wager is the extraction of all that is mystical
and reliant upon faith in the belief of God. To believe in God only
because of Pascal's wager is to believe in God for none other than selfish
motives. As Pascal asserts, if the only reason to believe in God is to
find an eternal happiness, the disenchanted might ask, will God grant this
happiness to someone who believed only for this purpose?

        Indeed, a fundamental problem with Pascal's argument is that religion
requires belief to be a leap of faith, not a product of reason and an
ultimate choice of lesser evils. One may eat a balanced diet to stay
healthy and live a long life and this as a motive is perfectly acceptable
for the vegetable is not hurt by the feigning of like toward it. On the
contrary, however, to believe in God and live a life in his name for the
sole purpose of attaining eternal happiness is arguably not a viable
option. The omniscient God of which we speak would see through this act
and by no means would He allow this deceiver into heaven. However, it has
been discussed that God does not require worship; rather a life of worship
is of service to the believer. Thereby, even he, who feigned worship, if
he did so correctly and followed the word of God, would participate in
virtuous acts. Despite his internal wishes to deceive, he who feigns
belief in God must act as a believer and thereby his actions would be good.
Good actions being the ultimate demand of religion then would be exactly
the ticket to paradise.

        Moreover, in spite of the wager's failure to instill in the reader a
belief in God, in the big picture, belief is irrelevant. Pascal's Wager
achieves exactly that which God sought in His attempt to evoke belief from
His creations. God rightfully assumed that people would neglect to obey
that in which they did not have faith. Thereby, belief becomes the logical
antecedent for obedience and effectively loses its importance. God's
demands as we understand them are to act in a moral manner; reverence is
merely the motivation. As it is improbable that one would follow the word
of a creator in which he/she did not believe, belief is merely the best
means to the imperative end of obedience and righteousness. So, if
someone's motivation to act in godly manner is Pascal's Wager, the
important thing is the actions themselves, not the underlying reasons.
On the topic of God, in which we are so much in the dark yet so
desperately trying to get to the light (heaven), humankind is undoubtedly
forced to engage in a gamble. Blaise Pascal, through the use of logic,
establishes that in the instance of belief in God, the right choice may not
be akin to the truth; rather it is that which is safe. An examination of
Pascal's logical workings proves his gamble on God to be not only an
appropriate, but also the best available option.

        With the guidance of Pascal's logical wager, the rational being can
only conclude that it is to his advantage to believe in God and so he/she
shall. This newfound appreciation of the value of such a belief will lead
to the creation of a better self coupled with a fifty-fifty chance of
eternal bliss; one ought to be ready to embark upon the path to belief.
However, Pascal stops short in his argument and leaves the readers whom
have just been persuaded to believe in God at an even greater crossroad
than where they started. In which God and through which religion are we to
believe? A thorough read-through of Pascal's wager reveals nothing about
God's nature other than the human inability to comprehend it. As is
aforementioned, we do not know the character of God in the slightest. With
such a distance between us and Him, our choice of religion is as great if
not a greater wager as the choice to believe. It is in this wager where we
lack the luxury of our logic to point us in the right direction.