Pascal's Wager Argument

In his argument for the existence of God, or for the reason to believe in existence of God Blaise Pascal brings up an idea of “Pascal’s Wager.” Pascal’s Wager is an argument which states that believing in God is just like gambling, in which if the product of possibility and outcome outweigh the risk, person should take it. In his argument Pascal says that if a man ought to believe in God, and he turns out to be right, the reward of eternity in heaven outweighs the loss (which is insignificant comparing to eternity in heaven) which man suffers when he spends his life believing in God, and God turns out not to exist. On the other hand, if a man does not believe in God, and he turns out to be right, the gain which he acquires is again insignificant to the eternity in hell, if God turns out to exist.

God Exists

God Does Not Exist

Believing In God

Heaven (everlasting joy)

Hell (everlasting suffering)

Not Believing In God

Minimal loss

Minimal gain
(here is a table for the Pascal’s Wager idea)
Pascal tells us, that believing in God is in our best interest due to the risk of not believing in him, or due to the reward for believing in him (whatever one prefers to think of). And that argument should convince one to believe in God by bringing up the stakes for what is going to happen to him in the afterlife. The Wager argument’s point is to show that it is in one’s best interest to believe in God, and considering that Blaise Pascal was a Catholic Christian, he tries to persuade people to believe in his God. The Catholic Christian God might be the right God for Pascal, but the Wager argument does not convince one that he is the right one, and that the best interest is believing in him because you can’t go to heaven of one religion without going to hell of all other’s.
Pascal’s Wager argument shows that the existence of God is not relevant to the necessity of believing in him, because whether God exists or not, belief in him is in the best interest of the human being. The Wager argument does present a reason for believing in God, and it is a great argument, but it is great only in the eyes of a theist. Pascal’s Wager was made to show to people that by believing in God they are securing themselves a spot up in heaven if it exists. Being a human being, who cares about his future, one should believe in God “just in case” if he exists, because if he does, and you do not then the eternal damnation awaits you.
The most common argument against the Pascal’s Wager is that Pascal’s Wager works out for every religion, because if Pascal was born into a different cultural background, he might have as well presented the same argument for believing in any other religion.

If one is ought to believe in God, using the reasoning of Pascal’s Wager, one can believe in any religion, and it would be logical, due to Wager’s argument, because most of the religions (probably all except for Satanism, there is only hell there) have some concept for good and bad afterlife, and using Pascal’s Wager believing into any religion would grant you the good afterlife (heaven) of that religion, but considering the amount of religions the possibility of getting the right one is slim to none. And there is also no evidence that the right religion does exist, because out of all religions which do exist, there is still a very huge amount (maybe infinite) of religions which do not exist, and have just as much of a chance to be right in concern of what God is, and what he

wants.
The way I would respond to this, if I was Pascal, is that if even though the possibility of picking the right religion is low, the benefit of picking at least one could resolve into infinite gain, which makes it worth it. The idea of Pascal’s Wager is not in picking the right religion, the idea is, no matter what religion you are, and no matter what is the possibility of God’s existence, one who follows a religion has a chance of an infinite gain, while the atheists don’t. An atheist has no chance to go to heaven what so ever while a theist of any religion does have one. Pascal’s Wager does not try to provide answers to any questions, it only provides a fact, that believing in any religion you gain a possibility of going to heaven, when by being an atheist, you don’t even have that.
Another argument against the Pascal’s Wager, which I would like to discuss, is that most of the religions (mostly Christianity, and except for Satanism) consider selfishness to be a sin, and believing in God just so you don’t go to hell/go to heaven seems pretty selfish. So if a person follows the religion only due to Pascal’s Wager, an omnipotent God will see his selfish reasons, and will not allow him into heaven, because that person did not follow the religion for the “right purpose.” In Christianity, selfishness is extremely frowned upon, and according to Christian beliefs, selfishness is one of the main traits of the Devil himself, so Pascal’s Wager not only does not help, but it actually lowers the possibility of getting into heaven.
An argument which Pascal could present against this is that if one is following a religion X (let’s call it that) for a prolonged period of time, he will eventually start believing in it for the sake of it, not for the reward. Following a religion is much more that just saying that there is a God, it’s a special state of mind, to which one can only come after a prolonged practice of that religion, and once the person has got there, it will not matter what were his intentions, because at the end of the day he followed the religion the right way.
Pascal’s Wager is an argument which I profoundly disagree with. Simple logic can lead one to accept it as their reason for believing in God, and the Wager itself is very logical, but the idea the gambling in order to go to heaven seems a bit misleading to me, and even though none of the premises are incorrect, and the conclusion is right, it does not give a person an honest intent to follow the religion. Blaise Pascal was a Catholic Christian, and what he has not considered was, that out of all the religions, Christianity makes it very clear, that selfishness is a straight way downstairs, and being a man of God for personal interest is as selfish as it gets. The Wager is ought to convince people to become Catholic Christians, but if it is to convince an atheist, he is more likely to pick the religion which is common for his cultural background, because that makes it simpler for him. A person who was born in Saudi Arabia, and chose to be an atheist, will more likely become Muslim, if he is to be convinced to follow a religion by Pascal’s Wager, because in his eyes, that would be the most relevant religion because he was brought up in the culture which promotes it. Yet, aside from the choice of religion, it is impossible to believe at will, because believing in something must come out of one’s heart, not out of the brain.