Why Pascal’s Wager is Misunderstood

It’s not surprising that our modern interpretation of Pascal’s Wager would make it so simple as to become laughable. My feeling is that this is more likely a symptom of our own shallowness rather than the weakness of his argument. Because many of those who have strong opinions about Pascal’s Wager haven’t once opened his Pensees, we’ll discuss what his Wager truly entails and discuss its strengths and weaknesses.

What I was taught about Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager comes from the third section of his book, Pensees. Pensees is a collection of fragments and thoughts (many of which revolve around religion) from Blaise Pascal, who on top of his philosophical writings also made advancements in mathematics (his probability theory was a necessary precursor to Leibniz’s development of calculus).

In high school and college, I was told that Pascal’s Wager went something like this (obviously I’m simplifying the simplification that I received):

Premise 1: There is the possibility that Hell exists
Premise 2: Belief in God is the only escape from Hell
Synthesis: Therefore, one should believe in God

By thinking that the argument was so crude, I never felt the compulsion to actually read the text. Pensees may have taken me a week or so to read when I got to it in the last year, but the chapter that contains the argument, I would wager probably takes only 20–30 minutes to read. I reread it yesterday just to prep myself.

I’ve talked to a lot of people with very strong opinions about Pascal’s Wager or Jesus’s teachings, but a lot of these same people haven’t taken the time to even read the texts in question. One blog estimates that it only takes an hour and a half to read the book of Mark in the Bible. I would strongly recommend reading the original sources instead of taking anyone’s word for it, even my own. Pascal’s Wager is about twenty pages in length, so even though I’m attempting to expand upon the argument above, it will still be a simplification.

Pascal’s actual wager (with quotations)

Pascal’s 194th fragment begins, “Let them at least learn what is the religion they attack, before attacking it.” This same idea can be extended to his argument. We ought first to try to understand the content of his words before we dismiss them.

He begins to develop the wager more fully in fragment 233:

Let us then examine this point, and say, “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Pascal then deals specifically with the response that the proper choice is not to choose at all:

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things at stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weight the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Unpacking the wager and updating the argument

I wasn’t specifically counting, but Hell shows up only a handful times in the 20 pages of the chapter, but for some reason we’ve simplified the whole argument to be about fear of Hell. If one takes the time to read his argument, the argument is entirely in the opposite direction. At the beginning of the chapter, he writes in fragment 187:

Men despise religion; they hate it, and fear it is true. To remedy this, we must begin by showing that religion is not contrary to reason; that it is venerable, to inspire respect for it; then we must make it lovable, to make good men hope it is true; finally, we must prove it is true.

He even explains that the wager is not about convincing someone to run away from something but rather to encourage them to run toward an object, God. If one is torn between belief and doubt, where belief gives meaning and hope and doubt provides nothing, why are people so inclined to doubt? Pascal is absolutely correct that our reason does not provide us with an answer to this riddle, and he is far ahead of his peers who try to prove God’s existence.

I want to rewrite the philosophical argument in a way that more closely resembles Pascal’s text (although this will be a simplification as well):

Premise 1: There is the possibility that God exists
Premise 2: God would be the greatest happiness to those who knew Him
Conclusion: As much as it is possible, one ought to seek to find God

Conclusion

Pascal’s greatest advancement in the world of religious philosophy was removing the idea of reason from the argument for God. One cannot find immaterial facts through material sciences, so we are left in the dark concerning metaphysical realities, at least while we look for answers to these questions through scientific processes.

There are still many questions that this blog hasn’t attempted to answer. This is in some ways intentional. If you haven’t read Pensees, it’s well worth the time. And if you only want a better understanding of the Wager, then only read the third chapter. How could you not want to read a book that includes these amazing lines: “Too much and too little wine. Give him none, he cannot find truth; give him too much, the same”; “The eternal silence of these infinite spaces frightens me”; and “Wisdom sends us to childhood.”

If you read the Wager or Pensees and think I’m wrong, please reach out and tell me. I write these blogs mostly in the hope that they would begin a dialogue. I know that I’m not the authority on this subject, but I’m equipped to write about it because I simply read it. I’d love to talk with you about what you’re reading and thinking about, especially if it’s revolving around the question of God.