Contents
Pascal’s Wager
I am fully convinced that even if God exists, He cannot be as described by religions. Mathematically speaking, it has been argued that believing in the existence of a god is more logical than not believing. How was this demonstrated? Proponents of this idea rely on what is known as “Pascal’s Wager.”
Pascal’s Wager: The Equation of Gain and Loss
Blaise Pascal argues: Let’s first consider the case of a person who believes in the existence of God. After death, this person faces two possible outcomes:
- Either God exists, in which case they gain (+1).
- Or God does not exist, in which case they lose nothing (0).
The sum of these outcomes is (+1), meaning that the believer wins in either scenario. Therefore, believing in God is the better choice.
Now, let’s examine the case of a person who does not believe in God. After death, they also face two possible outcomes:
- Either God exists, in which case they lose (-1).
- Or God does not exist, in which case they gain nothing (0).
The sum of these outcomes is (-1), meaning they risk a 50% chance of losing.
Based on these results, believing in God appears to be the safest bet. This argument seems logical and compelling, and I personally believed in it for a long time without questioning God’s existence. It felt like an absolute solution, and I am certain that many people see it as a strong argument in favor of belief.
But is it really that simple?
The Problem of Choosing the Right God
The issue is far more complex than a simple mathematical equation. It is not just about whether to believe in God or not. If that were the case, we wouldn’t see atheists engaging in intellectual battles against religions. So, we need to delve deeper into the matter.
First, to believe in God, you must choose between multiple gods. You could believe in the Christian God, the Jewish God, the Hindu gods, and so on. Then there is the question of belief based on heritage—where a person follows the religion of their parents—or belief acquired through personal conviction over time. Let’s analyze this issue using a mathematical approach.
Can You Choose the Right God?
Assume that we have five major religions. This means you have a 1 in 5 chance of choosing the “correct” god, leaving you with a 4 in 5 chance of being in the same position as an atheist. This suggests that believers face a greater risk than atheists since they might be following the wrong god.
But merely believing in the right god is not enough. You must also choose the correct prophet, the right holy book, and the right sect, since every religion is divided into numerous sects, each interpreting sacred texts differently.
What About the Right Sect?
Let’s assume that each religion is divided into five major sects—a conservative estimate, as some religions have dozens of sects. Each sect claims to have the absolute truth, which increases the likelihood of being wrong because, after choosing a religion, you also need to choose the correct sect.
If we combine these probabilities, you have a 1 in 25 chance of choosing the “right” belief. Even if you are lucky enough to make the right choice, the issue does not end there, because a true believer must also practice their faith; otherwise, they are considered a hypocrite, something that all religions strongly condemn.
In fact, a hypocrite is seen as worse than a non-believer because they know the truth but do not follow it. Thus, their punishment is even greater. Furthermore, religious commitment is not easy—it requires sacrificing worldly pleasures since believers see life as a temporary passage to the afterlife.
What If It’s All Wrong?
A believer who has a 1 in 25 chance of being on the right path must also sacrifice their entire life for God through prayers and obligations, and in some cases, even martyrdom.
But what if this person dies and finds that the god they believed in never existed? How can we claim they lost nothing? In reality, they lost their entire life! On the other hand, if an atheist finds out that God exists, they only lose 50%, while a believer who followed the wrong religion loses 100%.
Reevaluating the Wager with the Life Variable
Let’s reconsider Pascal’s Wager by including the life variable and compare two cases:
Case of a believer who chose the right religion and sect and was devout:
- If God exists: They lost their life (-1) but gained an afterlife (+1).
Final result: (0). - If God does not exist: They lost their life (-1) and gained nothing after death (0).
Final result: (-1).
Total score: (-1).
Case of an atheist:
- If God exists: They enjoyed their life (+1), but after death, they will face the same fate as a believer who followed the wrong religion or was not devout, meaning (-1).
Final result: (0). - If God does not exist: They enjoyed their life (+1) and lost nothing after death (0).
Final result: (+1).
Total score: (+1).
The Result?
According to this analysis, the atheist is the biggest winner. This makes perfect sense because we must include additional variables in the equation, most importantly real life, which we must experience before considering anything else.
This time, the atheist is not only the winner but won even before the devout believer, who sacrificed their life for a god. Moreover, the atheist lived freely, enjoyed all of life’s pleasures, and relied on themselves instead of an uncertain god.
Conclusion
There is no democratic god who grants us true freedom, including the freedom to believe or not, without burdening us with prayers and religious duties that contradict our human nature. A god who imposes harsh laws and punishes with eternal torment in hell cannot be a wise and just entity.
If there is a god truly worthy of worship, it would be a god who grants us complete freedom to believe or not, without imposing rituals and restrictions.
A Final Thought
If a president tells you:
“You are free to choose me as your leader, and you are free to love me or not. But if you do not vote for me or love me, you will be imprisoned and tortured.“
Would you say this president granted you freedom? If yes, how?
Now, compare this to your god!
