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.
.jpg)