Whether it is morally permissible to believe in God simply because it is to your practical advantage is a complex question at the heart of Pascal’s Wager, a philosophical argument put forth by the 17th-century French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.

Pascal’s Argument for Belief in God

As discussed in Vaughn’s book (presumably, Doing Ethics or a similar text on ethical theory), Pascal’s argument, often framed as a decision theory problem, proposes that when faced with the question of God’s existence, reason alone cannot definitively prove or disprove it. Therefore, one must “wager” on whether God exists, as remaining neutral is not an option – our lives inherently reflect one choice or the other.

Pascal presents a pragmatic calculation of infinite stakes:

• If God exists and you believe: You gain infinite reward (eternal salvation/happiness).
• If God exists and you do not believe: You suffer infinite loss (eternal damnation/unhappiness).
• If God does not exist and you believe: You gain finite loss (some earthly pleasures, time, or intellectual discomfort from believing in something unproven).
• If God does not exist and you do not believe: You gain finite reward (some earthly pleasures) but nothing more.

Given this payoff matrix, Pascal argues that the only rational choice is to believe in God. The potential gain of infinite happiness far outweighs any finite loss, while the potential loss of infinite unhappiness makes non-belief an absurd risk. He acknowledges that one might not be able to simply choose to believe, but suggests that by acting as if one believes (e.g., attending church, praying, engaging with believers), genuine belief might eventually follow.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Pascal’s Reasoning

Strengths:

• Pragmatic Appeal: For those on the fence or struggling with intellectual certainty, the Wager offers a practical, self-interested reason to lean towards belief. It appeals to a rational calculation of risk and reward.
• Acknowledges Limits of Reason: Pascal rightly points out that certain existential questions may lie beyond the sole grasp of empirical or logical proof, forcing a decision based on other criteria.
• Focus on Action: It shifts the focus from intellectual assent to behavioral engagement, suggesting that action can precede belief.

Weaknesses (identified by other thinkers, as discussed in Vaughn):

1. The “Many Gods” Objection: This is perhaps the most significant criticism. Pascal’s Wager assumes a specific God (typically the Christian God) who rewards belief and punishes non-belief. However, if there are many possible gods or deities, each with different requirements for salvation or damnation, which one should one wager on? Betting on one might offend another, leading to infinite loss regardless. Pascal’s framework doesn’t provide a method for choosing the “correct” God.
2. Inauthentic Belief (Moral Objection): Critics like William James (though James also explores the pragmatics of belief) and Søren Kierkegaard argue that belief born solely out of self-interest is not genuine faith. A God (especially an omniscient one) would presumably see through such a pragmatic calculation and might not reward a belief that isn’t sincerely held out of conviction, love, or genuine spiritual connection. This turns belief into a cold, calculating transaction rather than a spiritual commitment.
3. The “God of the Gaps” Problem: While not a direct criticism of the Wager, it relates to the idea that if evidence were to emerge that disproves God, the pragmatic belief would become irrational. The Wager’s strength relies on the unknowability.
4. Assumptions about the Afterlife: The Wager makes significant assumptions about what happens in the afterlife, specifically that belief guarantees infinite gain and non-belief guarantees infinite loss. There’s no empirical evidence to support these specific payoffs. What if God rewards genuine atheists for their intellectual honesty, or punishes superficial believers?

The Argument Against Believing in God Without Sufficient Evidence

This argument is rooted in evidentialism, a philosophical position that states it is rational (and for some, morally obligatory) to believe something only if there is sufficient evidence to support that belief. Prominent evidentialists, like W.K. Clifford, famously argued in “The Ethics of Belief” that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

The core points of this argument are:

• Epistemic Responsibility: Believing without evidence is seen as intellectually irresponsible. It encourages laziness in inquiry and can lead to holding false beliefs, which can have negative consequences (e.g., the shipowner in Clifford’s famous example who believes his ship is seaworthy without proper inspection, leading to disaster).
• Truth-Seeking: The primary goal of belief should be to align one’s understanding with reality. Believing for practical advantage, rather than for truth, is seen as a deviation from this fundamental epistemic goal.
• Consistency: If we demand evidence for other important claims in life (e.g., medical diagnoses, legal judgments), why should religious claims be exempt from this standard?

Would God Look Kindly on Atheists and Agnostics Using Reason?

This is a theological and philosophical question with varied answers depending on one’s concept of God.

• Plausibility of God Looking Kindly: It is certainly plausible that a benevolent, rational, and just God would look kindly upon atheists and agnostics who genuinely refuse to believe without what they consider sufficient evidence.

  • Using God’s Gift of Reason: If God is indeed the creator of the universe and endowed humans with reason, critical thinking, and a drive for truth, then one could argue that using these very faculties to carefully assess claims (even claims about God’s existence) is precisely what God would want. From this perspective, blind faith, or belief based purely on self-interest, might be seen as less virtuous than an earnest, though ultimately skeptical, pursuit of truth.
  • Honesty and Integrity: A God who values honesty and intellectual integrity might appreciate those who maintain intellectual rigor, even if it leads them to agnosticism or atheism. The sincerity of their quest for truth could be seen as a form of worship or reverence for reality itself.
  • Moral Atheism/Agnosticism: Many atheists and agnostics live highly moral, compassionate lives, driven by secular ethics and a desire for human flourishing. Some theological perspectives might argue that such a life, lived in accordance with principles of love, justice, and kindness, is more important than mere intellectual assent to God’s existence.

• Counterarguments:

  • Some religious traditions hold that belief in God (and specific doctrines) is a necessary condition for salvation or divine favor, regardless of one’s reasoning or moral life. From this perspective, the “gift of reason” might be seen as intended to lead one to God, and rejecting that path, even with careful thought, would be a fundamental error.
  • Another view suggests that God’s existence is self-evident or revealed in creation, and therefore, an honest use of reason should lead one to belief. In this case, atheism or agnosticism might be attributed to a willful suppression of truth rather than a pure application of reason.

In conclusion, while Pascal’s Wager offers a compelling pragmatic argument for belief, it faces significant challenges regarding the authenticity of belief and the problem of multiple deities. The evidentialist argument highlights the moral and intellectual responsibility of believing with sufficient evidence. Whether a benevolent God would look kindly on atheists and agnostics who prioritize reason is a matter of theological interpretation, but the argument that they are simply utilizing a divine gift of reason provides a strong philosophical basis for that possibility