The Biggest Bet of Life

- The Pascal's Wager

Blaise Pascal was a renowned French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist of the seventeenth century. In his early years, Pascal devoted himself primarily to mathematics and physics, making extraordinarily significant contributions, especially in mathematics. However, during the final ten years of his life, he devoted all his energy to the study of philosophy and theology. In his famous proposition known as Pascal’s Wager, Pascal argued that a person’s belief in the existence of God can be understood as a “wager.”

There are many versions of Pascal’s Wager. One version may be stated as follows:

For any person S, there are two possible choices: choice α and choice β. If choosing α brings greater benefit to S, then S ought to choose α.

Given that the probability of God’s existence or nonexistence is at least equal, and that believing in God brings greater benefit to person S,

one should therefore choose to believe in the existence of God.

What did Pascal mean by “benefit”? It refers to the belief that by accepting God, a person may enter heaven. Of course, given Pascal’s Christian background, the benefit mentioned in the Wager specifically refers to the path to heaven opened by Jesus Christ. Why is believing in God said to bring greater benefit? Because if one believes in and accepts God and God does exist, one may enter heaven; if God does not exist, both believers and non-believers arrive at the same outcome. However, if God does exist and one does not accept Him, that person loses any opportunity to enter heaven.

Some argue that if the probability of God’s nonexistence is greater, why should one still choose to believe in God? The reasoning is simple. From the perspective of decision theory, the benefit of entering heaven can be regarded as infinite (∞), while the benefit of not entering heaven is zero. Even if the probability of God’s existence is very small, when multiplied by infinity it still yields infinity; conversely, no matter how large the probability of God’s nonexistence is, when multiplied by zero the result is still zero. Therefore, choosing to believe in God is a wager that can only result in winning, or at worst, breaking even. By contrast, choosing to believe that God does not exist offers no chance of winning and carries the risk of total loss.

Regarding Pascal’s Wager, contemporary American philosopher Peter Kreeft has pointed out that most philosophers regard it as the weakest argument for belief in God, whereas Pascal himself considered it the strongest. In Pensées, Pascal wrote: “This is the conclusion; if one can grasp a truth, this is the truth.” Among all of Pascal’s theological writings, this is the only place where he expressed himself with such certainty. Why was Pascal so confident? He regarded knowing God as humanity’s ultimate goal. When reason alone cannot determine whether belief in God is necessary, one must place a wager on belief, because it is a wager that allows only gain and no loss. Moreover, what is at stake is one’s eternal life—the most important matter of all.

According to Pascal’s Christian faith, merely believing in God’s existence does not guarantee entry into heaven; nevertheless, belief in God’s existence is the first step toward heaven. If one does not even believe that God exists, then one is wagering on a draw or a loss, with no possibility of winning or hope.

Peter Kreeft also provides several hypothetical examples to illustrate Pascal’s Wager. Suppose one of your relatives is critically ill, and a doctor offers a medicine that has no guarantee of curing the illness but has a 50 percent chance of doing so. Logically, would you be willing to give this medicine to your relative, even if it costs some money? Of course you would. If the medicine were free, you would be even more willing. This decision is not driven by emotion but is a rational and logical one. Refusing to administer the medicine would eliminate even the slightest chance of recovery and would be the truly irrational choice.

Consider another example: you receive a report that your house is on fire and your children are inside, but you are unsure whether the report is accurate. What would be the more rational decision? To ignore the report, assuming it is false, or to rush home immediately regardless? Clearly, you would rush home. If the house is not on fire, nothing is lost; if it is on fire and your children are inside, you still have a chance to save them.

American philosophy professor Jeff Jordan, in his Oxford University Press monograph Pascal’s Wager, provides another example. A castaway stranded on a deserted island lights a fire in the hope that passing ships or aircraft might see it. Although he has no evidence that any ship or plane will pass by, he still gathers branches and lights the fire to increase his chances of rescue. His reasoning is entirely practical: lighting a fire has greater potential benefit than not lighting one. No one would question his wisdom or rationality. Importantly, lighting the fire does not require certainty that it will be seen—only the belief that it might be.

Since its introduction, Pascal’s Wager has faced considerable opposition. According to Jeff Jordan, objections generally fall into three categories: moral objections, methodological objections, and theological objections. Moral objections argue that Pascal’s Wager establishes belief based on utility rather than evidence, which is considered unethical because a moral person should base belief on evidence. Another moral objection claims that the Wager exploits human self-interest. Methodological objections focus on the Wager’s validity, such as the problem of polytheism: since Pascal’s Wager does not specify which god one should believe in, it is therefore invalid. Theological objections concern its apparent conflict with the doctrine of predestination, which holds that salvation is predetermined by God rather than chosen by humans.

Supporters of Pascal’s Wager have responded to these objections. They argue that the Wager does not deny the importance of evidence but emphasizes that when sufficient evidence is unavailable, practical reasoning is not immoral. The Wager is supported, to some extent, by decision theory. Moreover, it is not purely selfish, as it is often presented to help others. Regarding polytheism, Pascal’s Wager addresses the choice between theism and atheism; regardless, wagering on atheism offers no winning outcome. As for predestination, it represents only one theological view. A more widely held view is that God chooses those who believe in Christ and offers salvation to all, while humans retain free will to accept or reject that invitation. Pascal’s Wager addresses precisely this choice and therefore does not conflict with such theology.

Beyond these objections, there is also what is known as the “anti–Pascal’s Wager.” British biologist and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins proposed such an argument in The God Delusion. He argues that if God does not exist, wagering against God allows one to enjoy a richer life, whereas wagering on God involves spending time in worship, making sacrifices, and even giving one’s life. Thus, the former yields greater benefit in this life.

However, this counterargument contains many flaws. Dawkins assumes that the probability of God’s existence is extremely small, which is itself a biased assumption. Still, his argument raises an important question for Christians: should believers expect to pay a price in this life for eternal life? On this point, the Apostle Paul would agree. Christians must indeed pay a price in this life, and Paul states that if Christ has not been raised, Christians are to be pitied more than all others.

Pascal accepted Christ as his Savior and Lord in 1654 and began writing a Christian apologetic work. Eight years later, he died of illness before completing it, leaving behind numerous notes. These were later compiled into Pensées, which includes Pascal’s Wager. Although it is not the strongest apologetic argument, it has attracted intense criticism from atheists because it challenges them more than it reassures believers. It also places agnostics closer to atheism, since the Wager presents only two options: belief in God’s existence or belief in God’s nonexistence.

I cite Pascal’s Wager not as a definitive apologetic argument. I fully acknowledge that belief in God’s existence alone does not open the path to heaven, and that faith is not a gamble like one in Las Vegas. For me, faith in Christ is a harmonious integration of proof, reason, and faith. As Peter Kreeft has noted, Pascal’s Wager represents a third ladder, alongside reason and faith, but it is the lowest of the three. A faith based solely on wagering is immature and shallow, resembling the Chinese proverb, “Better to believe it exists than not.” Such an attitude cannot produce firm faith and risks becoming blind belief.

Nevertheless, Pascal’s Wager reveals an important truth: atheism (including agnosticism) requires an even greater leap of faith. Reason and science alone cannot bridge the gap needed to deny God’s existence. To be absolutely certain that God does not exist requires faith beyond what evidence, reason, and science can provide. Questions such as the origin of the universe and the first living cell remain unanswered by atheism. Appealing to time does not solve the problem, because atheistic assumptions preclude belief in creation from nothing. If atheists distrust faith because it may be mistaken, they must also confront the possibility that their own faith—that God does not exist—may be mistaken.

Peter Kreeft recounts a story in which an atheist visited the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, demanding proof of God’s existence. Buber refused and instead asked, “Can you be certain that God does not exist?” Forty years later, the atheist wrote, “I am still an atheist, but that question has haunted me every day for forty years.” Even the most resolute atheist cannot be absolutely certain that God does not exist. This, Kreeft argues, is the enduring power of Pascal’s Wager.

Pascal’s Wager ultimately asks every atheist:
“Can you be certain that God does not exist? Do you realize that you are placing a wager that cannot possibly win?”