TheAtheist's wager, coined by the philosopherMichael Martin and published in his 1990 bookAtheism: A Philosophical Justification, is anatheistic response toPascal's wager regarding theexistence of God.[1]
One version of the Atheist's wager suggests that since a kind and loving god would reward good deeds – and that if no gods exist, good deeds would still leave a positive legacy – one should live a good life without religion.[2][3] This argument assumes that if a god exists, they are benevolent and just, rather than arbitrary or punitive in their judgment of human actions. This contrasts withPascal's wager, which presumes a god who rewards belief and punishes disbelief regardless of moral conduct. Philosophers such asJohn Schellenberg have argued that a perfectly just deity would be more likely to reward sincere moral behavior and intellectual honesty rather than belief for its own sake.[4] Another formulation suggests that a god may reward honest disbelief and punish a dishonest belief in the divine.[5]
Martin's wager states that if one were to analyze one's options in regard to how to live one's life, one would arrive at the following possibilities:[2][6]
The following table shows the values assigned to each possible outcome:
| A benevolent god exists | No benevolent god exists | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belief in god (B) | No belief in god (¬B) | Belief in god (B) | No belief in god (¬B) | |
| Good life (L) | +∞ (heaven) | +∞ (heaven) | +X (positive legacy) | +X (positive legacy) |
| Evil life (¬L) | −∞ (hell) | −∞ (hell) | −X (negative legacy) | −X (negative legacy) |
Given these values, Martin argues that the option to live a good life clearlydominates the option of living an evil life, regardless of belief in a god. Whether one believes in god has no effect on the outcome.
| Conceptions of God |
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of God |
| ||||||||||||
| Theology |
| ||||||||||||
(by date active) |
| ||||||||||||
| Related topics | |||||||||||||
