In the last post, I referenced a “fine-tuning” argument for God’s existence and talked a lot about the role that “probabilities” end up playing in a defense both for and against the assertion that God must exist. Probabilities, for the scientist, are part-and-parcel to the discussion of anything that is uncertain since they help lead to conclusions on what is “most-likely true”. For people, such as myself, who find God’s existence compelling, the uncertainty of a science-driven conclusion isn’t much of a concern. Science isn’t the gold-standard for how I choose to trust the things I think that I know. But for the person who struggles with the level of scientific uncertainty and is unable to assert a set of beliefs about God (aka the “agnostic” view ), the question stands of what they ought to do given their predicament. After all, just because a person determines that God is unknowable, that doesn’t have any real bearing on whether He is actually there or not, correct? All they’ve determined in agnosticism is that a human being is incapable of being able to prove something to the truest sense of the term. Being that one doesn’t know for sure, might the smartest plan moving forward be to begin living in such a way that assumes God does exist as opposed to assuming He doesn’t?
A guy named Blaise Pascal wished for some friends of his to ask themselves that same question about three hundred and fifty years ago. Pascal, before his conversion experience, was a carouser who lived a fast life – women, drinking and lots of gambling. He was also known to be an incredibly brilliant mathematician who was famous for his intellectual ability and mastery of a variety of disciplines including physics, philosophy and others. Pascal’s contribution to this question of God’s existence comes in the way he analyzed what he felt his friends ought to do given their reluctance to believe what he did about a supreme being. When it came to uncertainty, he saw the answer for how to respond in what he and his friends knew best: gambling.
See, when it comes to gambling, one’s best course of action is always to choose the bet which has the highest level of value compared to all the other options one has. For a mathematician like Pascal, the question can be framed in a simple formula.
The value of a bet = ([the probability of being correct] x [the expected payout]) – [the cost of the bet]
All games have probabilities and a known payout (e.g. Texas Hold ’em poker where the probability of making a certain ‘hand’ changes as the community cards are revealed and the payout is sitting right in front of you — the jackpot!). The cost to you is whatever you have to give up in order to make the bet.
In the case of a question like “does God exist?” to the agnostic, the value of placing your bet for God’s existence far outweighs the value of placing your bet against it – this is what Pascal wished to demonstrate to his friends and so I now share with you.
If the truth of God’s existence is a toss-up, then there is a 50/50 chance for both options.
Let’s consider the value of both bets:
- When the probability of God existing is 50% and the payout of the bet for God is infinite in value (eternal life should you believe in Christ), the product is a value which is also infinite in measure. Should the cost to you to live under that belief be significant, it is still only a finite amount. Therefore the final value of placing a bet for God is infinite.
- When the probability of God not existing is also 50% and the payout of the bet against God is significant, but finite (earthly bliss – free of morals and absolute truth), the product may be of significant value, but it is still finite. While the cost to you for choosing this option is nothing, the payout is finite and the value to you of betting against God is also only some finite amount…
Pascal was hoping that his friends would see the value in “betting on God” when compared to the lesser value of betting against Him. The question still remains, “what does it mean to ‘bet on God’?” Like I said earlier, Pascal wanted his friends to pursue a life where they would take the chance on God being there and would actively seek to know more about Him.
Will the path eventually lead to a full-fledged belief in Jesus Christ? That again is uncertain and not the point of this demonstration. Unfortunately, I can’t give you faith through a mathematical formula on how to bet. That question is in God’s hands and because of that I pray for you often. “Pascal’s Wager,” as it is called, serves only to be a reminder that your uncertainty doesn’t leave you with reason to assume that you’re not making a bet of some sort regardless of what you do. If you choose a scientific approach to truth, the uncertainty you’re left with forces a bet to be made. Given that situation, Pascal shows that your bet for God is always the better choice.
I’m looking forward to future posts where I hope to step past a scientific approach to truth and discuss the reasonable nature of belief in light of what God has revealed to us both in creation and through His Son Jesus Christ.
If you want to talk more about what it means to “bet on God,” email me at salvationassurance@gmail.com. I’ll be glad to continue the discussion.
at the trailhead 