Blaise Pascal advocated what has been designated as "The Gambler's Argument" for the existence of God. This particular argument differs from those previously cited. The Teleological, Cosmological and Ontological Arguments strive to provide a logical and rational foundation, which gives credibility to belief in God's existence. However, the Gambler's Argument does not advocate belief in God's existence on the basis of logic and rationality so much as it advocates belief in God's existence based upon one's self-interest.
Pascal's friends were gamblers. It seems that they refused belief in the existence of a deity. Pascal's argument is the result of his desire to find an argument that would compel his peers to reverse their decision. Pascal proposed that essentially his "gambling buddies" should think of belief in God, or in their cases "disbelief” in God's existence, in terms of the ultimate gamble. On the one hand, to believe in God and die only to discover that God does not exist is to lose absolutely nothing. On the other hand, to disbelieve in God and die to discover that God actually does exist is to lose it all. For Pascal his friends were putting it all on the line. Consequently, the shrewd gambler will place his "bets" on the possibility that God exists.
Pascal's wager focuses upon four possible outcomes.
1. If we bet on the existence of God and win (God exists) then we gain eternal life.
2. If we bet on the existence of God and God does not exist nothing is lost. We may miss out on certain worldly pleasures, waste many hours praying, and live our lives under an illusion, but this is nothing compared with the loss of placing our bet on the perceived likelihood that he does not exist only to find that he actually does.
3. If we choose to bet on the option that God does not exist and we win (God does not exist, then we live a life without illusion and feel free to indulge in the pleasures of this life without fear of divine punishment.
4. If we choose to bet on the option that God does not exist and lose (God does exist) then we at least miss the chance of eternal life, and may even run the risk of eternal damnation.
Pascal determined that the most rational course of action is to believe that God does exist. However, as previously stated, the rationality of Pascal's proposal is highly questionable. The argument appears to be based in little more than pure self-interest.
Objections:
1. A person cannot simply decide to believe. The argument provides no rational basis for belief in God's existence. An individual simply cannot decide to "believe" in God's existence. Belief in God requires more than a casual assent to a proposition. Is there not a difference in simply deciding to believe a proposition and genuinely arriving at the conclusion that a statement actually reflects "truth?"
2. The argument seems to trivialize the issue of God's existence. Pascal's proposal seems to call for insincere commitment to a profound possibility. In fact, William James (1842-1910) argued that if he were God in the dilemma proposed by Pascal, he would take great delight in “preventing people who believed in him on the basis of this procedure from going to heaven." (Nigel Warburton, Philosophy: The Basics, 32)
