Flaws in the Logic of Pascal’s Wager
https://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/
The article above explains the logic behind one of the most popular applications of game theory: Pascal’s wager. This idea was developed by the physicist Blaise Pascal in the 1600s, and through this idea, Pascal argues that it is most optimal for people to believe in God. In Pascal’s wager, he mentions that there are two choices that people can make: to believe in God or do not believe in God. Also, there could be two possible conditions: God exists or does not exist. Then, he draws a table and defines returns that individuals receive for their choices and given conditions. If a person believes in God and God actually exists, they receive infinite pleasure; if a person does not believe in God and God exists, they receive infinite suffering; if a person believes in God and God does not exist, then they receive some finite disadvantages for living a very restricted life; and if a person does not believe in God and God does not exist, then they receive some finite pleasure for not having restrictions in their life. His logic organized in a table would look like something like the following:
| God exists (T) | God does not exist (F) | |
| Believe (B) |
|
|
| Do not believe (N) |
|
|
I thought the application of game theory in an area beyond our world is fascinating. However, I believe that Pascal’s logic is flawed in a way that it greatly underestimated the complexity of the issue. The first flaw is that people have more than two choices to make. Some people simply do not choose to make a decision whether to believe or not to believe in God; it does not necessarily mean that they disproved God. Also, some people practice different religions. Pascal’s logic is also flawed because belief in God does not always guarantee infinite joys and grace. According to the bible, the believers must strictly follow His words to enter heaven. That is, developing a fragile faith and not practicing the words of God could also lead to punishments after death.
Additionally, practicing religion may not always lead to finite disadvantage even if God does not exist. Although it may not be a perfect example, I will take Buddhist monks as an example (and I believe this example is good enough because a lot of teachings in the two religions are quite similar, especially when they emphasize humbleness and elimination of greed within themselves). They practice a life of non-possession, a lot of monks claims that they have found true happiness. Similarly, Christians also may be able to live a happy life by the following bible. Thus, it is not a thoughtful decision to simply conclude that developing a belief leads to negative returns on earth.
As arguments stated above suggests, the main flaw of the logic of Pascal’s wager is simplification and ignorance of the complex conditions, variety of choices, and range of repercussions of people’s choices. Even if Pascal was right in simplifying such conditions and dealing with the issue by applying two players game theory, there are two Nash Equilibria on the table: (B, T) and (N, F). Thus, Pascal cannot merely conclude that believing in God (or playing B) is the dominant strategy for humans.