Problems with Pascal’s Famous Wager

Most who study Christian Apologetics have heard of Blaise Pascal; others note a problem with Pascal’s Famous wager.

The wager

According to Got Questions,

The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose. If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven.

If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss.

If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the better of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if he had faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith.

Some objections

Noted in the same article are objections to the wager.

Dawkins raised the possibility of a “god” that might reward honest disbelief while punishing blind faith. Of course, atheists are biased against believing in the biblical true God. When serious problems with evolution (design, complexity etc) are highlighted, they’ll bypass Him and insist on waiting for a natural solution. In other words, they suppress the truth. Read the entire Got Questions article.

Another issue noted is that: “there is no reason to limit the choices to the Christian God. Since there have been many religions throughout human history, there can be many potential gods.” This is closely linked to atheism in the sense that one looks everywhere else for their “truth,” while avoiding God, Christ, and the reason for the cross.

Simple, challenging and misleading

The idea behind Pascal’s Wager is discussed in John Piper’s book, A Peculiar Glory, and on his website.

He has concerns with it. He states that it gives an impression that saving faith is a choice one can make without seeing God as true and compellingly beautiful. The one which makes the wager does not know if God is really there, and yet they’re compelled to choose.

Now Piper has received criticism for his pietism and views on “Christian Hedonism.” But he makes biblical points about “choosing God,” and the basis of a choice rooted in natural things. He writes about the new birth,

Without this new birth, we are merely flesh — merely human, merely natural. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). And the mind of the flesh cannot submit to God (Romans 8:7); it cannot please God (Romans 8:8); and it cannot see the things of God as anything but folly (1 Corinthians 2:14).

In order, therefore, for saving faith to come into being, God must grant repentance. “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25)…This new birth “through the living and abiding word of God” (1 Peter 1:23) gives the light of the knowledge of the glory of God. “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).

In conclusion

While Pascal’s wager can stimulate philosophical discussion, it cannot in itself lead to salvation. Certainly, God can use it as a stepping stone to further revelation, repentance and salvation. But saving faith is a product of God’s working, not a response to a wager.