Blaise Pascal’s Of the Necessity of the
Wager
Commentary by Michael Wagman
A nutshell of Pascal’s argument: You don’t know whether
or not God exists so you can live as if God exists or you can
live as if God does not exist. The problem is that if you live
as if God does not exist and it turns out that God does exist
then you are eternally damned. Wagering based on probability,
then, it is most wise to live as if God does exist because you
lose nothing if God does not exist and you gain everything if
God does exist. I think this is a forceful argument, especially
since it appeals to the agnostic position, which is traditionally
difficult to counter with theistic arguments. However, there is
one clearly shaky premise: that if God doesn’t exist and you
live as if God does exist then “you lose nothing.” The skeptical
interlocutor could interject here: I lose nothing, you say, Pascal?
What a short-sighted view! I lose only my entire life, which I
would have lived differently had I known that God did not exist.
Perhaps, then, the critical question for the wagerer is whether
or not the religious life has intrinsic value. If she decides that it
does not, then Pascal’s argument loses much of its force.
