In Pascal’s wager, an argument in his Pensees, he tries to convey God’s existence to those who don’t want to make a choice, which are the agnostics. Paschal claims that “ you must wager” (418 p. 121-125) and that it is in a person’s best interest to do so because there is much to gain if one is right, but will lose only a finite amount if a person is wrong. Pascal’s argument however has some flaws, and many have argued against it for countless years.
The idea that Pascal is trying to convey is that there is simply no logical reason in not believing in God. He claims that believing in God is like a wager, where you risk “your reason and your will” (418 p. 121-125), and lose only finitely. He suggests that a person’s reason or their knowledge is not what drives this decision, but rather their will or their happiness. This person’s reason is of no bias, meaning it would be complacent to choose either to believe or not believe in God, so Pascal bases this decision in the hands of their happiness. If a person believes in God’s existence, and he turns out to actually exist, then they would have infinite happiness, in comparison to if he doesn’t, for which they would have no finite gain or loss. Vice versa, if a person doesn’t believe in God and he does exist, then they would have lost infinite happiness and risk only not having any finite gain or loss. This is his wager: is it worth losing infinite happiness to doubt God’s existence when the option to believe in God is free and offers only the reward of infinite happiness if they were right? Pascal seems to think this is the simplest decision, and that those who doubt, or the agnostics, are fools. Paschal thinks he makes a great argument with no gaps to contradict, however there are actually many contradicting ideas that can be applied.
One of the main objections to Pascal’s wager is the idea that the will is the sole decider if a person believes in God or not. In his wager, Pascal states that “[r]eason cannot decide” (418 p. 122) which side of the argument is correct, and that “reason cannot probe either wrong” (418 p. 122). He determines that the only way a person can decide on the existence of God is through the will, which determines one’s happiness. However, the idea that we as humans cannot chose our beliefs, rather we are compelled by our innate desires towards certain beliefs is false; reason and will work in unison. Reason allows humans to make certain conclusions through evidence, and the will helps in the decision by gauging whether the decision will bring happiness to the person or not. Modern philosophy would support this objection to Pascal’s wager, for 1 of its main ideas is that cause and effect cannot be supported through just will; reason is needed to decipher experiences, which leads to the discovery of the relationship between the cause and effect. In this case, modern philosophers, like Hume, would object to Pascal’s claim that the belief in the existence in God leads to infinite happiness. There is no evidence, which inhibits the ability of reason to be used and therefore weakening Pascal’s argument to speculations and ambiguous statements; how would this convince any person that already has doubts and speculations? This would just add to the confusion of the agnostics.
Pascal says that his argument is “conclusive, and if men are capable of any truth, this is it” (418 p. 121-125). One counterargument against Paschal’s wager and its proposed conclusivity is that his argument has no proof; it is based on the assumption that God alone exists. For context, Pascal was writing during the 1600s, which was when most of Europe was majority Christian. He bases his beliefs in monotheism and Christianity. The problem with his argument is that he doesn’t take into account the other major world religions, like Islam and Hinduism, generalizing the Christian God to be the only “God.” In fact, later in his Pensees, he states that “[t]he Christian religion alone is adapted to all” and that “pagan” religions are “not for educated people” (215 p. 73). Taking Islam into consideration, Muslims believe also in a higher deity, however their god’s name is Allah, and they believe he has different properties than the Christian God. If a person chose to believe in the Christian God as Pascal proposes, but in reality, Allah alone exists, is infinite happiness still gained? Both are seen as “God,” but Allah wasn’t the specific “God.” Taking Hinduism into consideration offers a different way of thinking because it is a polytheistic religion. This begs the question: which is the real “God?” If there was, for example, all the Hindu “Gods,” Allah, and the Christian God to consider in believing, a person ends up with more options and therefore more opportunities to be wrong and lose infinite happiness. In fact, the choices are infinite, and almost seems better to pick at random. As a whole, Pascal’s argument loses strength because he closes out the possibility of other religions and their gods.
When Pascal discusses the finite losses of the wager, he says that believing in the Christian God and finding out He doesn’t exist is only a finite and minimal. One counterargument to take into consideration is the true devotion of zealous Christian religious life, like priests and nuns. They devote their lives to God, practicing celibacy and following every law that God has from the Bible. Pascal fails to acknowledge the time and energy these people use in the name of God. They resort to the minimum and live in a state of relative poverty, basically suffering or struggling day to day. These people could be having successful careers in medicine, law, or even blue-collar jobs, but Pascal avoids to acknowledge these things, for he only seems to care about the infinite gain that is offered if a person believes in God, and God turns out to be real. Also, the measure of belief in God is not defined. Two people can believe in God in different levels; for example, priests have a stronger belief in God than people who go to church once a year and never follow the traditions of the church. Pascal does not enumerate the level to which a person has to believe in God to obtain infinite happiness. Moreover, would it seem plausible for a person who has committed murder yet believes in God to receive the same infinite happiness as a devote Christian? According to Christian beliefs, which is how Pascal is mainly deriving his wager on God’s existence, just believing in God is not enough to reach eternal life. A person must incorporate acts of charity and live according to the rules of the Christian faith. Also, a person must feel remorse his or her actions because according to Christian doctrine, God is seen as omniscient and would know if one is lying or not. God is seen as punishing, yet forgiving for those who feel sorry not because of the wrath of God, but because of his or her love for God. According to Pascal, this does not matter. In fact, his wager seems to encourage people to just believe that God exists for their own well-being. Even though Pascal believes that “the heart [is] which perceives God and not the reason, quantifying this love for God as either reward or loss completely contradicts what the Christian church believes true faith is; this also shows the hypocrisy of Pascal, in that he believes the heart should decide a person’s faith in God’s existence, however his wager pushes agnostics to believe just to save them in the end.
In conclusion, Pascal’s wager offers a very simplistic and logical argument for the existence of God. He attempts to convince agnostics that it would be in their best interest to believe in God, for the reward is infinite happiness and the loss would be finite. However, there are many objections that contradict Pascal’s principles. The probable existence of other Gods and the weight of belief in God are just two of many, however I believe these hold much weight in proving Pascal’s wager should not be followed. His wager is too biased towards the Judeo-Christian belief system, and his reasons for the wager are oversimplified. Pascal’s wager simply does not take into account alternate factors into the belief in God’s existence; he does not define other alternatives to infinite happiness, like the equally probable idea of infinite sadness in Hell, or the extent to which one feels finite loss.