Pascal's Wager doesn't pick a winner.

Question

Even granting the wager's logic, it cannot select between mutually exclusive faiths. Bet on Christ, lose to Allah. Bet on Allah, lose to Vishnu. Bet on the Christian God, and a sincere Calvinist will tell you you've still gone to hell for picking the wrong denomination. The wager only works if you've already, by other means, narrowed the field to one candidate — which is the entire question.

Blaise Pascal · Answer

The wager was never a starting point. It was a closing argument.

Read me whole, not in fragments. The wager appears late in the Pensées, after I have spent hundreds of fragments arguing for the historical specificity of Christianity — the prophecies, the witness of the apostles, the figure of Christ, the strange persistence of the Jewish people, the testimony of the saints. The wager is addressed to a man who has already been brought to the threshold and cannot make himself step across.

To such a man I say: the cost of betting wrong on Christ is bounded; the cost of betting right is infinite. Given that you have already narrowed the field, the calculation favors faith. I never claimed it would narrow the field for you. That work is done by the evidence, not by the wager.

The atheist who lobs "but what about Allah?" at me has not read me. Or has read only the fragment that flatters his refutation.

C.S. Lewis · Answer

Christianity is not one mythology among many. It is the one that happened.

I came to Christianity through the back door of mythology. I loved the dying-and-rising gods of the pagans — Balder, Adonis, Osiris — long before I loved Christ. What converted me was not the discovery that Christianity was unique, but the discovery that it was the true version of what the myths were groping toward. The pagans had dreamed it; the Jews had been prepared for it; in Christ it actually happened, in a particular place, under a particular Roman governor.

The world's religions are not interchangeable bets on a roulette wheel. They make incompatible historical claims, and those claims can be examined. Christianity uniquely stakes itself on a public, datable, falsifiable event — the resurrection. If the tomb was not empty, Paul says, our faith is in vain. No other religion makes itself so vulnerable to history.

The wager, properly understood, is not "pick a god, any god." It is "having examined the evidence, commit."

John Henry Newman · Answer

Many candidates do not mean equal candidates.

That a question has multiple proposed answers does not mean the answers are equally weighted. There are many theories about what causes cancer; this does not mean every theory is one-in-many and therefore none can be chosen. The investigator weighs the evidence and the candidates resolve into a probable hierarchy.

The same is true of the religions. Examined seriously — their historical foundations, their internal coherence, the lives they have produced, their capacity to bear philosophical weight — they do not present as a flat menu. The convergence of probabilities, what I have called the illative sense, is exactly the faculty by which a serious person navigates such a field.

The atheist's "many gods" objection treats every religion as evidentially equivalent. No serious comparative theologian believes this, including atheist ones. The objection survives only by refusing to do the actual comparison.

The Logician · Answer

The objection misunderstands decision theory.

The many-gods objection is sometimes presented as if it were a knockdown refutation of the wager. It is not. It is a refinement. Decision theory under uncertainty handles competing hypotheses the same way regardless of the domain: you weight by prior probability and expected outcome.

If the priors over the candidate religions were genuinely uniform — every religion equally likely on the evidence — the wager would indeed dissolve into noise. But priors are almost never uniform. Some religions have more evidential support, more internal coherence, more historical specificity than others. Updating on this, the wager reconstructs itself for the leading candidate.

The atheist who deploys "but what about Zeus?" is making a claim about priors: that Zeus and Yahweh are evidentially symmetric. He should be asked to defend that claim. He almost never can.

Pascal's Wager doesn't pick a winner.

The objection, in full

The wager was never a starting point. It was a closing argument.

Related objections