The Errors of Pascal's Wager

Pascal's wager is a particular type of religious argument; instead of attempting to prove the existence of a God, it attempts to prove the rationality of believing in God. According to Pascal, reason cannot determine whether or not God actually exists. Since God lies in the realm of epistemic probability, argues Pascal, one must wager on the belief or non-belief of God's existence. Belief in God, holds Pascal, entails infinite gain if God actually exists, and only minor loss if God doesn't. However, non-belief of God entails infinite loss if God exists, and only minor gain if God doesn't. Thus, no matter the probability of God's existence, it is to one's own rational self-interest to always wager on the side of God existing, argues Pascal.

This essay will reveal the tremendous flaws in Pascal's reasoning, using this argument as a backdrop to show the utter irrationality of belief in God. Additionally, this essay will show the malicious and fear-mongering nature of Pascal's approach.

Firstly, Pascal's premise that belief is a choice, analogous to a wager, is wrong. Belief is a consequence of both sensory input and conscious thought. The mind comes to conclusions without regard for permission from conscious wishes. If I put two pencils next to another two pencils, I am able to see that two pencils and two pencils are the equivalent of four pencils. I therefore believe that two plus two equals four. My observation that two plus two equals four leaves me unable to doubt it, as it would be a contradiction to believe something juxtaposed to what is self-evident to me. My choice to think or not to think can lead me to an alternative conclusion, but it is not a choice of belief per se.

Likewise, the belief or non-belief of God's existence is not a direct choice, and therefore an issue which no one can wager on. Therefore, Pascal's wager is pointless, as even if I were convinced that believing in God was rational, that would leave me unconvinced of God's existence.

Pascal's greatest error is his premise that reason can say nothing of whether God actually exists, and thereby that God's existence lies in the realm of epistemic probability. In actuality, God is a metaphysical impossibility because its existence contradicts the self-evident metaphysical axioms: existence, identity, and causation.

If God has the power to deliver infinite rewards or infinite punishments, then there is no limit to God's power, including existence itself. Therefore, Pascal alleges that God is a being capable of suspending the laws of reality. God is a being of identity violation, as it could possess two or more mutually exclusive characteristics simultaneously. God is also a being of causation violation, as it can undo the nature of death and usher individuals into the afterlife.

To exist is to exist as something in particular, or in other words to possess a definite metaphysical identity. To have an identity entails acting in accordance with that identity, in other words, to be causal. Since these corollaries of existence are necessarily true, no being can ever undo them. therefore, no godlike ability, as Pascal alleges, is possible.

Additionally, the notion of God's infinite ability to deliver rewards and punishments runs into a seemingly endless cascade of self-defeating contradictions, such as whether God could create a rock too heavy for it to carry, or create a car too fast for it to outrun. No coherent description of such a being is possible, and therefore no serious consideration of it is warranted.

Even if it were the case that God was merely an issue of epistemic probability, it wouldn't follow that belief in God is rationally self-interested. "The Bomb" argument clearly demonstrates this flaw in Pascal's reasoning. If we are to grant that a God capable of delivering infinite rewards and punishments is theoretically possible, then it is equally possible for there to exist a God who punishes theists and rewards atheists, or who indiscriminately punishes, or who indiscriminately rewards. Given this new context, it would still be rationally self-interested to not believe in God, since the "small" gains from non-believing and "small" losses from believing would outweigh the equally possible infinite gain or infinite loss from either position.

Additionally, Pascal massively underestimates the opportunity cost of believing in God. Belief in an eternal afterlife, for example, will incentivize the waste of the finite existence which one actually possesses. Another consequence in the belief of God's existence is the idea that faith is an efficacious means of gaining knowledge. After all, faith is the only means by which one would be capable of communicating with such a supernatural arbiter of existence.

No principle can ever help one judge when to use reason and when to use faith, save for the complete adherence to one or the other.

Reason and faith are opposite forces; to have faith means to sabotage one's own mind and stifle one's own thought. to have faith in something is to ignore contradictory evidence of it, in other words to suppress the full functioning of one's mind. To suppress the full functioning of one's own mind is to ignore reality. In contrast, reason means to pay attention to reality and always think about and question what one is told. It is impossible to compartmentalize reason and faith; since all truth is connected, one will ultimately tend towards consistency of one or the other.

To tend towards the consistency of reason is to reject the possibility of God's existence, and go on to live a happy, thriving, and selfish life. To tend towards the consistency of faith is to sabotage one's ability to achieve one's goals. The consequence of this is to make mistaken and irrational decisions based on "God's" ideas. To believe that one should suppress one's own mind is to implicitly accept the evil and mistaken idea that self-sacrifice is a moral virtue. If you regard having and raising children as a moral act, this code will cause you to resent them, as you will regard rearing them as a sacrificial act. This principle will apply to all those who surround you in your life, whether they be a spouse, co-worker, or acquaintance. Following this code will cause you to live a dutiful, miserable life. Your inevitable choice to cheat on this code, if you choose to live, will cause you to be plagued with chronic guilt. The opportunity cost of believing in God's existence, as well as those ideas which follow from it, is incalculable.

This brings me to the last point: the fact that when Pascal's wager is applied to any other situation, its malicious and fear-mongering nature becomes apparent. Imagine a prehistoric society which has not yet developed industrial technology or mass agriculture. One day, Bill proposes that people in this society should start farming for food rather than only hunting for wild animals. He says this would bring a far greater quantity of food for this society over the long term than what is currently available.

Bill's idea is harshly opposed by the council of elders, who tell him that getting food in any other way than the natural way will bring upon the anger of the gods, who will furiously destroy the world with lightning and flame. Bill has no evidence that such gods exist, or that they will be angry with his attempts, or that they will react in the way as the elders describe. In the end, Bill has two options: a) trust his own judgement and cultivate agriculture anyway, or b) give in to the irrational fear of the elders.

Pascal's wager would tell Bill not to pursue his agricultural ambitions, as no matter the probability of the Gods reacting in this way, the punishment for disobeying the Gods, if they exist would always be greater than the possible gains from agriculture if they don't. Observe how the reasoning of this kind leads to the complete stifling of human progress. The psychological consequence of accepting this kind of reasoning is chronic terror of invoking the wrath of any set of hypothetical Gods for any number of hypothetical reasons. Pascal's wager is an irrational and malicious ploy attempting to browbeat you into betraying your own mind.

For the reasons outlined in this essay, in addition to many others, you should profoundly reject the Pascal's wager argument, due to its flawed premises, absurd implications, and malicious consequences. Pascal's wager utilizes the most evil tactic of trying to convince people to accept the existence of God; that is, the threat of infinite punishment for rational and independent thought. For the reasons mentioned in this essay, belief in God is utterly irrational, and is not worth the consideration of anyone with honest conviction. Instead, one should uphold an inviolate commitment to reality and reason, rejecting all forms of mysticism and supernaturalism.