Belief as a bet worth placing
If reason cannot decide whether God exists, how should a person who must live anyway place their bet? Pascal turns the question of faith into a calculation of stakes.
The wager meets the unbeliever on his own ground. Reason, Pascal grants, cannot settle whether God exists; the coin is spinning and one must wager, since not betting is itself a bet. He then weighs the stakes: believe and be right, the winnings are infinite; believe and be wrong, the loss is small and finite. On those odds only the reckless decline. It is not a proof of God but a proof that betting on God is rational, aimed at a worldly gambler who trusted odds. And Pascal knew belief cannot be willed cold, so he advised acting as the faithful act until the habit takes.
- faith
- reason
- theology
- epistemology
- evidence
- judgment
- prophecy
Enter a dialogue
- A doubter says the honest course is not to bet at all. Why is he already in the game, with a coin spinning over an infinite gulf?
- You advise a doubter to act like the faithful, taking holy water and having masses said, until belief follows. Would a God worth believing in be fooled?
- You note that Christians themselves call their faith a foolishness and so cannot be blamed for lacking proof. Doesn't that admit that belief has no reasons?
- You tell a doubter to labour for fewer passions, not more proofs of God. Why would passions, rather than evidence, be what stands between him and belief?