Nick Trileski
1
Introduction to Philosophy
Section K
2/10/11
The High Stakes Gamble
Blaise Pascal, a French mathematician and theologian in the 17th century introduced a new way
of answering the question “should we believe in God?” Instead of taking the standard approach of
proving or disproving God’s existence he declared the existence of God to be unknown by way of
reason. He then went on to analyze the gains and losses of believing in God. Through thorough analysis
Pascal not only found the answer to his question, but also paved the way for modern Probability Theory
and expected value. According to Pascal it is rational to believe in God. Pascal explains his argument by
first stating that it is impossible to prove or disprove God’s existence because he is infinite “without
limits or parts”. He then says that we must bet on whether God exists or not. To support his argument
Pascal analyzes all the gains and losses of believing in based on God’s existence. He concludes his
argument saying that it is more beneficial to believe in God because of the chance for eternity in
heaven.
Pascal uses uncertainty about God’s existence as his foundational premise. To prove this
premise he first states that God is infinite. Pascal defines an infinite thing as “a point moving everywhere
with infinite velocity; for it is one in all places, and is all totality in every place.” He defines God as a thing
which is everywhere at once. Therefore, Pascal shows that God is an infinite entity. He then compares
the infinity of God to the finite nature of humans. He makes a statement saying that since we are finite
we cannot truly understand infinity. And since God is infinity, we cannot truly understand God. To make
this easier to understand, a finite number compared to infinity is so small that “the finite is annihilated
in the presence of the infinite”. So, Pascal makes a sub-conclusion stating that we are unable to
understand what God is.
Nick Trileski
2
Pascal then makes another claim stating that we are unable to understand whether God exists.
He first states that we know that numbers infinite because they have no limits. We also know that they
exist because they are an extension of something that exists (i.e. numbers such as 1, 2, 3, and 4). Then
Pascal goes on to make the statement that God has no extension because “He is infinitely
incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us.” By this quote Pascal
states that God has no extension to us because He has no parts and that He is also infinite, this means
that we don’t know what God is or whether he exists. After making the sub-conclusion that we can’t
really know anything about God, even whether he exists, Pascal proposes the wager of belief.
Pascal states that we must wager whether God exists, because according to his previous
premises and sub-conclusion it is impossible to defend God’s existence or prove that God doesn’t exist.
Pascal also argues that it is not optional to wager because according to him we are embarked, which
mean we are in this life and we have to make a choice to believe in God or not.
Pascal first notes that you cannot lose reason by wagering on or against God because both
wagers are equally reasonable. He starts off with analyzing what you gain and loose if you wager on
God. If God does exist you gain eternal happiness and if he doesn’t you lose nothing. Then if you wager
against God it will be worse if God actually exists and you will gain nothing if God doesn’t exist. From
here Pascal makes the statement that it’s better to wager on God. However, he is quick to offer a
possible objection to one of his premises “That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager
too much.” By this he means that we actually do loose something when we place a wager on God.
Pascal describes the loss of a lifetime in the next part of his argument.
Pascal then adjusts his argument saying that there is a 50% chance that God exists and a 50%
chance that he doesn’t exist. He then argues that if God exists and you wager on God you gain 2 lives
(hypothetically) and if he doesn’t exist you lose 1 life. This proves that it is better to wager on God. Then
Pascal makes the statement that the “prize” for wagering on God is actually an infinity amount of lives
Nick Trileski
3
because we get eternal life in heaven if God actually exists. This part of the argument supports his first
part by analyzing the possibility of God’s existence. His final part of the argument makes the assumption
that there is very small (but a non-zero) chance that God exists.
In this part of the argument Pascal says even if there is a very small chance that God might exist,
the infinite happiness of the possibility of God’s existence surpasses all the finite amounts of life that
you lose. Pascal concludes from here that it is only rational to wager God. “It is all divided; wherever the
infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate,
you must give all” This quote demonstrates Pascal’s conclusion for his argument, that the belief in God
has the most favorable outcome.
In conclusion, according to Pascal, it is rational to believe in God. Pascal proves this point by first
demonstrating that there is no way to surely prove or disprove God’s existence. He then makes the
claim we must make a wager whether to believe in God or not. Pascal explains the rationality behind
placing the wager on God’s existence by describing the gains and losses of dedicating time to believe in
God. He finally concludes that it is rational to believe in God no matter the possibility of His existence
because in the end the reward is infinite. Pascal finishes of his argument with a clever remark “I would
have far more fear of being mistaken, and of finding that the Christian religion was true, than of not
being mistaken in believing it was true.” By this he means that he would want to avoid misery and enjoy
infinite happiness in heaven if he is right.