Drazin's Bet
Blaise Pascal made a rather famous statement regarding
religious beliefs called “Pascal’s bet” or “Pascal’s wager” or “Pascal’s
gambit.” Those who accept his notion try to believe in God – even though they
are convinced that He does not exist.
Who was Blaise Pascal?
Blaise Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist and
religious theologian who lived a brief thirty-nine years from 1623 to 1662. He
had a mystical vision in 1654, was enraptured, abandoned his scientific work,
and devoted himself to theology. Among his works, he wrote Pensées,
which was published after his death. The book contains his famous “wager.”
What is Pascal’s Wager?
Pascal argued that it is a far better bet, gamble, gambit or
wager to believe that God exists than to deny His existence. Belief in God, he
contended, assures that a person will have an enormous, everlasting and joyous
benefit after death if God exists. Non-belief yields nothing in the hereafter
whether or not God exists. Thus, it is stupid, he claimed, to cleave to
non-belief.
What is wrong with Pascal’s Wager?
Pascal’s wager raises several problems:
1. Insisting that
people believe, rather than learn the truth, promotes blind credulity rather
than rational thinking.
2. People corrupt
themselves and their integrity when they push themselves to believe something
that they know is wrong.
3. Pascal’s wager
arrogantly implies that God punishes non-believers unjustly. It implies that
God has no consideration or mercy for people who are simply unable to believe
because of their environment, education or lack of intelligence.
4. It is impossible
to force people to believe something they are certain is irrational and wrong.
Why did Pascal focus on beliefs?
It is virtually certain that Pascal concentrated on beliefs
rather than acts because of the general Christian attitude, derived from the
first-century Paul’s teachings, that faith is more important than acts. Thus,
Pascal would answer item 1 by saying that there is no problem in suppressing
rational thought and accepting blind belief because this is what God demands.
Thus also, in regard to item 2, people are not corrupting themselves by
believing; they are fulfilling the demands of Christian teachings. Many
Christians also believe item 3’s contention that God punishes non-believers,
even those who try to believe but fail to do so. Pascal realized the
psychological difficulty of coercing beliefs mentioned in item 4, but insisted
that, although hard, a person can overcome his thoughts and natural
inclinations and force himself to believe.
A Chassidic Tale
It happened that a Chassidic rabbi delivered a sermon
to his disciples. The rabbi taught that everything that God created, everything
in the world, is good. One of the disciples questioned his teaching.
“Everything?” asked the disciple.
“Yes, everything, with no exceptions,” the rabbi responded.
“What about atheism?” asked the disciple.
“Yes, even atheism can be good.”
“But what is good about atheism?” the disciple wondered.
“Atheism,” the rabbi answered, “teaches people an important
lesson. Whenever a person has an opportunity to perform an act – such as giving
charity – the person should not sit back and piously claim, ‘I don’t need to
act. I believe in God. God loves all people. God will feed the poor.’ No!
Whenever there is a need to act, think as an atheist thinks. Think that there
is no God. Think that the only way to get the job done is if you, not God, do
it; the only way to help the poor is by you giving charity.”
What is Drazin’s Bet?
Unlike Pascal’s wager, Drazin’s bet focuses on behavior, not
belief. It recognizes that it is usually impossible or at least difficult to
force a person to believe something contrary to his nature, training and
inclinations. Also, unlike Pascal’s wager, the bet addresses religious people
rather than atheists.
According to Drazin’s bet, if a person believes in God, two
possibilities exist. The first is that God requires people to be passive spectators
- to sit back, relax and depend on Him. God, according to this notion, wants
people to recognize that He knows what He is doing, and that He is acting like
a parent or king. People are expected to understand that God will take care of
humanity when He wants to do so. He will bring the messianic age. He will feed
the poor and clothe the naked. He will ensure that war, pestilence, ignorance
and spoiling the environment do not destroy the world. He will protect
unsecured families against robbers, sick people against death and the uneducated
against mistakes.
The second possibility
is that God wants people to do these things.
In my opinion, the first view is misguided and dangerous. But
be this as it may, I propose Drazin’s bet. I suggest that even if people are
convinced that God will take care of everything and that there is no need for
any effort on their part, they should still hedge their bets. For it is
possible, contrary to their idea, but consistent with mine and that of the Chassidic
rabbi, that God wants people to act.
The bet states that whenever there is a need for something to
be done – to help people, society or the world in general – people should
behave as if there is no God and nothing will be done to resolve the problem at
hand unless they themselves do what must be done. The bet takes into account
that if I am wrong and God is there as a loving parent, ready, willing and able
to resolve the problems of toddlers, then since He is good, and since He knows
that the individual who acted in His place is doing so for a good reason, He
will be pleased with the person’s behavior.
The bet goes one step further. It supposes that God would be
displeased with people who contend that they should sit back, pray, read
religious texts, and not work to improve themselves, society and the world, to bring
about a messianic age.
Thus the bet is a sure thing; there is no way of losing. If I
am right that God expects people to act, the individual is doing God’s will.
If, on the other hand, God feels that He wants to do all that needs to be done,
He will still be satisfied with the person who assumes His role.
However, the pious person who does not take the bet and who
sits back doing irrelevant devotional deeds, expecting God to remedy human and
societal needs when God expects people to do so, will suffer divine wrath.
