PASCAL'S WAGER SUMMARIZED

Pascal's Wager had a relatively short popularity doing his time. In addition, it doesn't have the impact it once had. To better understand the "Wager" it would be to your benefit to read the original work. But, here is a summary.

Suppose we could flip a coin to determine whether there is a god or there isn't a god: heads, there's a god; tails, there isn't a god. And the stakes are our lives. He argues that it is more pragmatic to put our lives on heads; that there is a god. And he reasons thus:

You put your life on heads.

1. The coin lands on heads, your gain is infinite.
2. The coin lands on tails, you lose nothing.

You put your life on tails.

1. The coin lands on heads, your loss is infinite.
2. The coin lands on tails, you lose nothing.

Everyone knows that there is a 50% chance that this "cosmic" coin will land either on heads or tails. Also, the stakes are extremely high. For this reason, it is more pragmatic to put your life on the side (which in this case is heads) where your gain is either infinite or you loss is nothing, rather than if you put your life on the side (in this case tails) where your loss is infinite or you lose nothing.

When I initially read the "Wager" there were some questions I had. First, and the most obvious inquiry is, "Which god is the right one to believe in?" Although Pascal has the Judeo-Christian God in mind, there is no argument for Him, per say. Perhaps this is because the Christan God was seen as a given. Second, and intuitively, there seems to be something wrong with expecting a non-believer to believe just because it is pragmatic to do so. I think there is a lot more to argue for before a non-believer can be persuaded. Third, just because you believe that a god exists, doesn't necessarily mean that you'll go to heaven if he actually does exist, which is why the Christian God comes to mind here.

Likewise, reading the essay wouldn't have convinced me at the point I completed it. It did, however, put me on the right path to a true conversion in Christ. In other words, it got me to thinking about the possibility that erring on the side of the Creator is the right thing to do, and though my family is very religious, it wasn't until reading the essay that I took god seriously. So, I wasn't a non-believer who read this and had to be convinced that a god exists. I was a believer who lived like there wasn't one. In other words, my life was lived as a practical atheist: "Having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof..." II Tim. 3.5. I can see where it would be harder to convince a true atheist of Pascal's argument. But, in the subsequent entries, I hope I can defend it and go a little further with it.