Why Believe in God
The question of whether God does or does not exist has captured the minds of philosophers and everyday people for thousands of years. Those who do believe often point to miracles and strange phenomena to justify the existence of God, while those who don’t believe will seek other explanations for these events. Combining empirical evidence and other ideas, philosophers have come up with many supposed “proofs” of God’s existence. However, these “proofs” usually do little to convince the reasonable agnostic. That’s where the French philosopher Blaise Pascal comes in. Pascal states that we are incapable of truly knowing if God exists as, “He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us”. Because of this inability of humanity, instead of looking for empirical evidence to support believing, Pascal considers practical reasons to believe in God. Comparing believing versus not believing in God to a bet, one can either bet that there is a God and live a devout life, or bet that there isn’t a God and live a dissolute life. Although Pascal attempts to demonstrate that belief in God is advantageous, the bet he proposes rests on several assumptions, and is thus unconvincing to the reasonable agnostic.
Pascal’s Wager
Faced with the choice to believe in God or not believe in God, the logical thought may be to say that there isn’t enough evidence or information to choose. However, as Pascal says, “you must wager. It is not optional”. One cannot abstain from choosing to believe or not to believe. This is the first key idea that comes into play in Pascal’s Wager. Pascal presents the argument in the form:
P1: Either God exists or God does not exist.
P2: One can either believe in God or not believe in God.
P3: If God exists and one believes in God, one goes to Heaven, but if one does not believe, one goes to Hell. If God does not exist, it is slightly preferable to not believe in God than to believe in God.
P4: Heaven is an infinitely good outcome, Hell is an infinitely bad outcome.
P5: Therefore, the expected value of believing in God is always greater than the expected value of not believing in God.
C: It is always prudent to choose the choice with the highest expected value, thus we should wager for God.
Looking at the expected value of each case shows Pascal’s line of reasoning. Let PGod be the probability that God exists, and PnoGod be the probability that God does not exist. Pascal states that the value of eternity in heaven is infinite (∞), the value of living a dissolute life is vdissolute and the value of living a devout life is vdevout where vdissolute is higher than vdevout.
Assuming that PGod ≠ 0, the expected value of believing in God is then:
(PGod ∞) + (PnoGod vdevout) = ∞
The expected value of not believing in God is either:
(PGod -∞) + (PnoGod vdissolute) = -∞
if the idea of hell for non-believers is considered or
1\vdissolute = vdissolute* when the idea of hell isn’t considered.
Using either consideration, the expected value of believing in God is infinite and is always higher than the expected value of not believing. It is always prudent to choose the option with the highest expected value, therefore it is prudent to believe in God.
Objections
While Pascal’s main argument for why one should believe in God is logically valid, it is not sound. One objection that can be raised with premise 3 is the idea that God exists, but not the Christian God that Pascal envisioned. For example, there could be a generous God that rewards everyone with eternity in heaven. In this case, the expected value for believing and not believing would both be infinite, and there would be no advantage to choosing one over the other. On the other side, there could be a different God who punishes those who believe in the Christian God with eternity in hell. Another possibility is that whether or not someone goes to Heaven or Hell depends entirely on their moral conduct and not on belief. Considering this, the expected value of believing in God becomes undefined, as long as both the probability of these Gods is not zero. One can also take issue with the binary options presented in premise 1. The God or gods of other religions could also exist, and again as long as the probability of them existing isn’t absolutely zero, then believing in each of them would have infinite expected value. The fact that there isn’t one defined God to either believe in or not believe in makes Pascal’s Wager much less effective in convincing the reasonable agnostic to choose to believe in God.
Another key idea of Pascal’s argument that requires closer analysis is the notion of choosing to believe. Pascal says that by adopting a devout lifestyle one will naturally become a believer. However, the idea that choosing to believe something for practical reasons can become truly believing can also be challenged. Just because one has a practical reason to believe in something doesn’t mean they can truly believe it. For example, a smoker addicted to cigarettes has a practical reason for believing that smoking cigarettes has no negative health benefits (i.e. so that they can continue smoking), but it’s unlikely that they truly believe it. It is impossible to remove the knowledge of the health risks from their brain through will alone. But even more problematic is the nature of a so-called ‘practical argument’ for the existence of God. Even if one is able to fully convince themselves that something is true because it’s practical, would this make them a “true believer” in the eyes of God? Believing in God out of self-preservation is hardly a worthy reason. Proponents of Pascal’s argument would argue that through living a devout life and following the ideals of God, that is enough to deserve the merits of heaven. However, a key component for many people is the ‘leap of faith’ that one takes to believe in God, and reducing belief to a statistical calculation takes away from this idea. Is Pascal Convincing?
While Pascal’s argument seems valid, his premises are flawed. In the model he presents to show that one should believe in God, both the idea of what it means to believe and what type of God could exist are fixed. In reality, these are also unknown. Depending on one’s interpretation of God or possibly Gods, and what it means to truly believe, Pascal’s argument breaks down. There’s simply too much uncertainty that Pascal doesn’t address, and the assumptions that he made about God and believing can be challenged. For this reason, Pascal’s Wager, while an interesting argument, is unlikely to convince the reasonable agnostic.