Final Statement
I believe that Pascal’s Wager provides a rational reason to believe in God, because the tradeoff makes it more reasonable compared with uncertainty.
Talking Points
The first thing that comes to our mind would be why people believe in god if we are considering finding our faith. In apologetics, many theories are elaborated to explain why God, or, specifically, the Christian God, exists and does different things. e.g., C.S. Lewis suggested the Universal Law of Human Nature, the Trilemma, and the Argument from Desire. But these arguments all rely on premises that themselves require defense. This was because the case is unprovable and unfalsifiable. A theory must include all possibilities to actually give helpful ideas. This is what Pascal’s Wager was doing. It categorized two uncertain facts into different conditions. For each of them, whether it can be true or false, there are 4 situations in total.
If god exists and the person believes in god, he will get infinite benefit.
If god exists and the person does not believe in god, he will get infinite loss.
If god does not exist and the person believes in god, he will experience only finite cost.
If god does not exist and the person does not believe in god, he will gain finite benefit.
Anyone who considers this carefully will realize that the rational choice is to believe in god, because the expected value of that is almost infinite, regardless of the possibility of God existing unless it is 0.
Another point would be why this matters or why this theory is believable. Most importantly, it does not include any religious events such as Jesus’s crucifixion. A theory based on those events would itself need to prove its truth first, which creates a regress problem since none of the stories can be completely proved. Instead, Pascal’s Wager avoids this problem entirely. The only thing it considers is to accept that humans are relatively rational, who make decisions based on weighing costs and benefits. This principle is also reflected in Scripture. Most significantly, in John 6:26, “Jesus answered, ‘Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.’” This is obviously one example of how Jesus does not completely prohibit the motivation of getting benefits, since he didn’t reject those people while they were asking for food. And in John 6:27, Jesus said, “Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.” This implies that Jesus still accepts those people and will try to convert them into real believers. In Mark 8:36, Jesus said, “What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?” In this excerpt, “world” was translated from the Greek word “κόσμος”, which has 3 meanings: Physical World, Humanity, and Worldly System. It is obvious that he is using the third meaning, as the same thing was also mentioned in Matthew 16:26, and in Matthew 16:27, he also said, “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.” They were obviously talking about something with eternal consequences. This suggests that Jesus also used thoughts that align with Pascal’s Wager, as secular values are always limited compared to the eternal, infinite benefit, which rational deliberation must be aware of. The causal relationship of seeking secular value will lose the soul is also supported by Matthew 6:24, which mentions that “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” While a person is seeking secular value, god then becomes the second, and this causes the consequence. What Jesus was mentioning is a similar form to the opposite of the “God exists” column of Pascal’s decision matrix.
There are some limitations of Pascal’s Wager as well. Firstly, if a person converted from an atheist to a Christian only because of seeking the benefit after considering the decision matrix, is that still a legit belief or not? In Hebrews 11:6, it is written, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” This excerpt explains that those disciples precisely know the reward God is giving. The initial motivation could be utilitarian, but later on, this motivation is able to be transferred to an intrinsic belief. Psalm 34:8 also mentions, “Taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the one who takes refuge in him.”
God genuinely allows people to try that out and gradually convert to a devoted disciple. A second limitation is the classical “Many Gods Objection”. Pascal’s decision matrix only provides a reason for people to believe in god in general, instead of believing in a specific god since multiple religions promise infinite rewards if believing in them. This actually refines this theory and solves another problem as well. Pascal’s Wager then only provides the reason to make people aware of starting to build the faith rather than forcing them to believe in a specific one immediately. The latter sanctification processes also play essential roles. In this way, Pascal’s Wager works alongside other apologetic arguments rather than replacing them.