Part of a series on |
Atheism |
---|
![]() |
The Atheist's wager, coined by the philosopher Michael Martin and published in his 1990 book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, is an atheistic response to Pascal's wager regarding the existence 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 with Pascal's wager, which presumes a god who rewards belief and punishes disbelief regardless of moral conduct. Philosophers such as John 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 their options in regard to how to live their life, they 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 clearly dominates the option of living an evil life, regardless of belief in a god. Whether one believes in god has no effect on the outcome.