Pascal's wager facts for kids

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)

Pascal's wager is a famous idea from Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). He was a brilliant French thinker, mathematician, and scientist from the 1600s. His idea suggests that people are always making a big choice about whether God exists. It's like a gamble on life itself.

Pascal believed that smart people should choose to live as if God is real and try to believe in God. Why? Because of what could happen. If God doesn't exist, you might only miss out on a few fun things in life. But if God does exist, you could gain something amazing, like an endless happy life in Heaven (as many religions teach). You would also avoid terrible losses, like an endless time in Hell.

Pascal first wrote about this idea in his book Pensées ("Thoughts"). This book was a collection of his notes published after he died. Pascal's wager is important because it was one of the first times someone used ideas from decision theory (how we make choices) and existentialism (thinking about life's meaning).

Some people don't agree with the wager. They ask how we can truly prove God exists. Others point out that there are many different religions, each claiming to know the truth about God. This is called the argument from inconsistent revelations. Also, some wonder if believing in God just for rewards is truly honest faith.

Even with these questions, Pascal's wager still makes people think. It sparks talks about belief, being reasonable, and the big questions about a higher power.

What the Wager Says

Pascal's wager uses a simple kind of logic. Here are some of his main points from Pensées:

• God is real, or God is not real. Our human reason (our thinking ability) cannot decide which is true.
• Life is like a game where you have to pick "heads or tails."
• You must make a choice. You can't avoid it.
• Let's think about what you gain and lose if you bet that God is real. If you win, you gain everything (like an infinitely happy life). If you lose, you lose nothing (because there's no God anyway).
• So, Pascal says, bet on God without hesitation! You have a chance to gain endless happiness. What you risk is small.

Pascal also pointed out that humans often face big choices without fully understanding the results. We use reason a lot, but sometimes we just have to make a guess. He listed many things in life that are uncertain:

• Everything is uncertain: "I look on all sides, and everywhere I see nothing but obscurity. Nature offers me nothing that is not a matter of doubt and disquiet."
• Our purpose: "What is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing."
• Reason itself: "There is nothing so conformable to reason as this disavowal of reason."
• Science: "There is no doubt that natural laws exist, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything."
• Religion: "If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator, I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state."

Pascal believed that humans are limited. We can't fully grasp God's infinite nature. Since reason alone can't prove if God exists, Pascal said it's like a coin toss. But even if we don't know the outcome, we still have to act. We must choose to live as if God exists, or as if God does not exist. We might be wrong either way.

Pascal felt that we can't avoid this wager. Just by living, we are forced to choose how we will act.

Pascal's Own Words on the Wager

Here's a part of what Pascal wrote about his wager:

If there is a God, He is so huge that we can't understand Him. We can't know what He is like or even if He is real....

..."God is, or He is not." Which side should we pick? Our reason can't decide. There's a huge gap between us and God. It's like a game being played far away where a coin will land on heads or tails. What will you bet? Based on reason, you can't pick either side.

So, don't blame those who have chosen. You don't know anything about it. "No, but I blame them for making a choice at all! Both the one who chooses heads and the one who chooses tails are wrong. The right thing is not to bet at all."

Yes, but you must bet. You don't have a choice. You're already in the game. So, what will you choose? Let's see. Since you must choose, let's see what costs you the least. You have two things to lose: truth and goodness. And two things to bet: your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness. Your nature wants to avoid error and sadness. Your reason isn't more shocked by choosing one over the other, because you have to choose. That's settled. But what about your happiness? Let's weigh the gain and loss if you bet that God is real. Let's guess these two chances. If you gain, you gain everything. If you lose, you lose nothing. So, bet on God without hesitation.

"That sounds good. Yes, I must bet; but maybe I'm betting too much." Let's see. If there was an equal chance of gaining two lives instead of one, you'd still bet. But if there were three lives to gain, you'd have to play (since you must play). You'd be foolish if you were forced to play and didn't change your life to gain three lives in a game with equal risk. But here, there is an eternity of life and happiness. If there were endless chances, and only one was for you, you would still be right to bet one life to win two. You would be stupid, being forced to play, to refuse to bet one life against three in a game where out of endless chances, there's one for you if there's an endless, infinitely happy life to gain. But here, there is an endless, infinitely happy life to gain, a chance to win against a limited number of chances to lose, and what you bet is limited.

Pascal explains that human reason can't prove or disprove God. So, we must "wager" by looking at what could happen. He assumes that no one can refuse to play this game. We are already "embarked," meaning we are already living out a choice.

We only risk our "reason" and our "happiness." Pascal says if there's an "equal risk of loss and gain" (like a coin toss), then reason can't help. So, we should decide based on what makes us happiest.

He points out that if you could gain two happy lifetimes versus nothing, you'd be silly to bet on nothing. The same goes for three lifetimes. He argues it's even more foolish to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the chance of gaining nothing. The smart choice is to bet that God exists. If you win, you gain eternal life. If not, you're no worse off than if you hadn't believed. But if you bet against God, you either gain nothing or lose everything.

What if You Can't Believe?

Pascal knew that some people might find it hard to truly believe, even if the wager makes sense. He suggested that "acting as if" you believed could help you believe.

But at least learn that you can't believe, since reason leads you to this, yet you still can't believe. Try to convince yourself, not by more proofs of God, but by calming your strong feelings. You want to have faith, but don't know how. You want to stop not believing and ask for a cure. Learn from those who were like you and now risk everything. These people know the way you want to follow. Follow how they started: act as if they believed, use holy water, have masses said, etc. This will naturally make you believe and make your sharp doubts less strong.

Pascal believed that if the wager is true, then not being able to believe is not logical. He thought this inability comes from our feelings. So, by calming these feelings, one could start to believe.

What the Wager is NOT

Pascal didn't create the wager to force atheists to believe. Instead, he wanted to show two things:

• That you can't use pure logic to prove or disprove God.
• To encourage people to live a good life, which he thought would help them find faith.

The wager was meant to be at the start of Pascal's book. It was supposed to show that logic alone can't support faith. Pascal's book aimed to find other ways to show the value of Christian faith.

Criticisms of the Wager

People started criticizing Pascal's wager soon after it was published. Some atheists questioned its "benefits." Religious people sometimes didn't like its ideas about God being beyond reason. The main criticisms are that it doesn't prove God exists, it might encourage fake belief, and it doesn't say which religion or God to believe in.

Not Proving God's Existence

Voltaire, another famous French writer, thought the wager as a "proof of God" was "rude and childish." He said, "the fact that I want to believe something is no proof that it exists." However, Pascal didn't offer the wager as proof of God. He saw it as a necessary, practical choice that everyone must make. He argued that avoiding the choice isn't possible, and that "reason is unable to figure out the truth." So, you have to decide whether to believe in God by thinking about what happens with each choice.

Voltaire also hinted that Pascal, who was a Jansenist (a Christian group), believed only a few people were chosen by God for salvation. This made it seem like believing wouldn't help everyone.

Pascal himself agreed that some people simply "cannot believe." He wasn't saying people could just choose to believe.

The Problem of Many Religions

Since there have been many religions and ideas of God throughout history, some argue that all of them need to be part of the wager. This idea is called the argument from inconsistent revelations. People who support this argument say that it would make the chance of believing in "the wrong god" very high. This would remove the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed. Denis Diderot, who lived at the same time as Voltaire, put it simply: "an Imam (a Muslim leader) could argue the same way."

Pascal did think about this objection in his notes. He said that people who use this argument are too lazy to find the truth. He felt that if they were truly serious about knowing, they would look closely at whether Christianity is different from other religions. But they don't bother. He said this objection might be okay for a simple "question in philosophy," but not "here, where everything is at stake."

Pascal believed that older pagan religions were not worth looking at. He saw them as based on superstition. He gave more thought to Islam, but decided it also lacked divine authority. He discussed Judaism separately because of its close ties to Christianity.

Some later supporters of the wager argue that only religions promising "infinite happiness" matter in the wager. They say that promises of limited happiness, like those from some pagan gods, don't count. Also, the infinite happiness offered by different Gods must be unique. If the happiness from Christ, Jehovah, and Allah can all be gained together, then there's no conflict.

Some people suggest that believing in a general "God" or a God by the wrong name might be enough, as long as that God has similar qualities to the one in Pascal's wager. They think that if the wager can just make someone believe in a "generic God," it has done its job.

Pascal himself hinted that Christianity is unique. He wrote: "If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible... Who then can blame Christians for not being able to give reasons for their beliefs, since they follow a religion they cannot explain by reason?"

The Problem of Fake Belief

Some critics say that Pascal's wager encourages people to pretend to believe just to get a reward. Richard Dawkins argued that this would be dishonest. He also said that God, being fair and all-knowing, would see through such a trick. This would make the wager useless.

These criticisms are not about whether the wager itself is true. They are about what might happen if someone is convinced by the wager but still can't truly believe. Pascal's advice to such a person was not to trick God. He said, "God looks only at what is inward." For someone who understands the wager but can't feel belief in their heart, Pascal offered practical steps to help them get there.

Pascal believed that simply agreeing that God exists isn't enough for salvation. The Bible says, "You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19). Salvation requires true faith, trust, and obedience. Pascal and his sister were part of a Christian group called Jansenism, which stressed faith over actions.

Since Pascal believed that "saving" faith needed more than just logical agreement, accepting the wager was only a first step. That's why he gave advice on how to reach true belief.

Other Wager Ideas

The idea of a "wager" about belief has appeared in different forms throughout history:

• The ancient Greek thinker Protagoras was unsure about gods but still worshipped them. This is like an early wager.
• In a Greek play called The Bacchae, a character named Kadmos makes a similar argument. But the god in the play punishes him for thinking this way.
• The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in his book Meditations: "If there are gods, it's not scary to leave life, for the gods won't harm you. But if they don't exist, or don't care about humans, then what does it matter to me to live in a universe without gods?"
• Ancient Buddhist texts also have arguments for believing in an afterlife, similar to a wager.
• A Muslim leader named Ja'far al-Sadiq made similar wager arguments. He once told an atheist, "If what you say is correct – and it is not – then we will both succeed. But if what I say is correct – and it is – then I will succeed, and you will be destroyed."
• The Christian writer Arnobius of Sicca (who lived around 330 AD) wrote: "Is it not more reasonable, of two uncertain things, to believe that which brings some hopes, rather than that which brings none at all?"
• The Atheist's Wager is a modern idea that turns Pascal's wager around. It suggests that living a good life without God is still beneficial, even if God exists.
• Some philosophers have applied a similar idea to modern problems like climate change. They argue that even if there's a small chance of a huge disaster, it's smart to act now to prevent it. Warren Buffett compared climate change to Pascal's Wager, saying that even a 1% chance of major disaster means inaction is foolish.

History

The poet al-Ma'arri from the 10th century wrote a similar idea six centuries before Pascal:

The astrologer and the doctor, both of them said: bodies are not put together. I said take it from me:
If what you say is true, then I am not a loser, or if what I say is true, then the loss is upon you both.

See also

In Spanish: Apuesta de Pascal para niños