One of the first questions when entering into a betting relationship is “what’s at stake?” The stakes are often the contingent variable necessary to understand before a reasonable person would entertain a wager of any sort. Perhaps the next question would be “what are the odds?” For Pascal, the answer to the first question is one’s soul—the wager revolves around the existence of God (does He or does He not exist?). In terms of the odds, Pascal would answer 50/50: God either exists, or God does not exist. Before the reader decides to back out of the wager, Pascal is quick to explain “you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked.” If one must wager, and if the wager is the existence of God, and if the stakes are one’s soul, and if the odds are 50/50, what does one choose?
Reason is the first to go—in a situation where “heads or tails will turn up,” either may turn up: “According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions . . . your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other.” This sentiment is echoed later in the reading when Pascal explains that while reason is helpful, it should not be the sole basis for belief or disbelief: “If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysteries and supernatural elements. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous.” If reason cannot be wholly depended upon to assist in this decision, one must turn to the next best thing: personal interest. What do I have to gain and what do I have to lose? If the decision to wager has already been made (and “you must of necessity choose,” Pascal says), it is imperative that one wager in one’s best interest. In an intriguing move, Pascal places the notion of happiness in the center of one’s interest asking the following: if happiness is at stake, which side should be chosen?
For Pascal, happiness weighs heavily on the vote that God is. He weighs the gain and loss of the wager in light of happiness and concludes: “if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.” In other words, if one wagers that God is, and is right, then he/she will spend a happy eternity with Him. If one wagers that God is, and is wrong, then there is nothing to lose. In the reverse of the decision, if one wagers that God is not, and is right, there is nothing to gain, but if one wagers that God is not, and is wrong, then there is eternal happiness to lose. In Pascal’s view, the answer to the wager is simple, but one may be quick to suggest that there is more to be considered in terms of happiness in this present life. If one wagers that God is not, and is right, he/she may work harder to obtain present happiness in light of eternal nothingness.
Pascal addresses this notion by explaining that even in this context, the wager still favors believing that God is because the immediate benefits of such a belief (assuming it is sincere) include the quality of being “faithful, honest, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, [and] truthful.” He explains that if one leans toward this side of the wager, he will most likely not obtain glory and luxury, but dismisses this argument by labeling these “poisonous pleasures.” In this light, Pascal has already presented the wager with a bias leaning heavily on the side of God is. Perhaps the wager becomes more complicated when one considers the notion of chasing present happiness (no matter how elusive) inherent in the wager that God is not. Perhaps Pascal is too quick to dismiss the unbeliever as one bent on glory and luxury; as one not socially inclined to faithfulness, honesty, humbleness, gratefulness, generosity, sincerity, and truthfulness. Perhaps the wager remains, but the choice is anything but simple.