Erin Hess
PHIL 102
Writing Assignment #2
07/20/2025
​
Blaize Pascal (1623-1662) was a mathematician and physicist, notably credited with
creating the first mechanical calculator. Much like his wager, his philosophy was not relevant
until death, when his works were published from various writings of his that were found. Within
these writings, we find The Wager, referred to in the prompt as Pascal’s Wager.
​
In the textbook (and perhaps in philosophy as a whole) Pascal’s Wager is positioned
beside the concept of practical versus epistemological rationality, as well as the belief in God.
The textbook describes practical rationality as believing in something because holding that belief
is most beneficial to you, while epistemological rationality is believing only what is most likely
to be true. Of course, the belief in God is neither properly basic, nor does it have sufficient
evidence in its favor (according to most people). Therefore, the belief in God, at least in the case
of Blaize Pascal and William James (a theist philosopher and critic of Pascal), is practical.
​
Pascal’s Wager essentially argues that one should believe in God simply because one is
forced to choose one or the other, and one has more to gain if one is right than to lose if one is
wrong. Pascal starts with the premise that there are no good theoretical arguments that God
exists, but hinges the possibility of God on the reality of the unknown and the infinity. He states
that “we know that there is an infinite, and we are ignorant of its nature” (68). He then poses
faith as a wager, rather than a belief based on facts or emotion, which he insists is being played
on the other end of infinity as well as on our end (68). To paraphrase, Pascal posits that you have
been forced into this “bet” (to believe or not to believe) and both your knowledge and infinite
happiness (Heaven) are at stake. He believes that because you are forced to bet, your reason is
not truly at stake, and that an infinite prize is worth any amount of finite loss. He derives his
views on Heaven and belief from “Holy Scripture” (70), and says that the finite downsides of a
pious life are worth the possibility of infinite gain. In the words of Pascal, “there is thus infinite
force in the position I am taking, when the stakes are finite in a game where the chances of
winning and losing are equal and the prize is infinite” (70).
​
Pascal’s Wager is certainly thought-provoking, especially regarding his balance of risk
between the finite and the infinite. However, there is one premise which I must wholly disagree
with on epistemological grounds, and an issue with the validity of the argument which leads me
to reject the entire argument on practical grounds. Firstly, Pascal assumes that the existence of an
infinite unknown means that there is an equal chance of God existing and God not existing,
stating that the wager is “an equal chance of gain and loss” (69). I disagree. I do not see what,
beyond the cultural bias of a Christian society, points to the unknown as a perfectly even binary
between eternal life and instant nothingness. If I throw a bottle into a river, I do not know where
it will end up, but that does not mean it has an equal probability of ending up in Heaven as it
does ending up not in Heaven. This corresponds with the second premise I take issue with.
Pascal’s Wager is meant to encourage the belief in God based on a wager on his existence
wherein the prize is “infinite happiness” (69). Even if all his premises are true, (infinity exists,
therefore it is possible that God exists, and life is finite and worth risking for infinite happiness),
they do not necessarily add up to mean that there is a practically reasonable chance at infinite
happiness. If God exists in the literal sense, there are still a number of outcomes that do not lead
to infinite happiness, there are still a number of possible outcomes for a believer that are
unaccounted for by Pascal. There is still debate amongst cultures, religions, and even sects of
Christianity what the implications of a pious life and a Just God are. It is possible that God is
vengeful, vindictive, apathetic. It is possible that the Heavenly reward is finite. It is possible that
you were born into the wrong religion, or read the wrong version of the Bible. The inverse is true
as well. Pascal does not account for God’s infinite nature, even though he acknowledges it.
Perhaps I do not have faith in God, but God’s fundamental unknowability accounts for such
things, and grants me peace anyway. I am not arguing that it is true, but left unaccounted for, it
renders Pascal’s argument invalid.
This does not mean that there is no practical rationale for the belief in God. I find Pascal
most compelling when it comes to piety outside of the hypothetical afterlife wager, where he
states, “Now what harm will come to you if you make this choice? You will be faithful, honest,
humble, grateful, a doer of good works, a good friend, sincere and true. Admittedly you
will not dwell amid tainted pleasures, in glory and luxury, but will you not have others?” (71).
Still, I do not find the Wager argument to be practical. Practical rationale is holding a belief
because doing so is beneficial, but it does not mean believing what is most beneficial if it were
true. In this way, I am more receptive to William James’s argument that a pious life (even a finite
one) is a better life, and argues in favor of true practical reason against epistemological rule.