Atheist's wager

Part of a series on
Atheism
Concepts Implicit and explicit atheism Naturalism Negative and positive atheism
History History of atheism Atheism during the Age of Enlightenment New Atheism
Society Atheist feminism Criticism of religion Demographics of atheism Discrimination against atheists Secular ethics Secularism Separation of church and state State atheism
Arguments Arguments for atheism Atheist's wager Creator of God Evil God challenge Fate of the unlearned Free will God of the gaps Hitchens's razor Incompatible properties Inconsistent revelation Nonbelief Occam's razor Omnipotence paradox Parody religion Poor design Problem of evil Problem of Hell Russell's teapot Theological noncognitivism
People Lists of atheists Julian Baggini Mikhail Bakunin Mario Bunge Albert Camus Richard Dawkins Daniel Dennett Denis Diderot Ludwig Feuerbach A. C. Grayling Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens Baron d'Holbach Lawrence Krauss Michael Lou Martin Karl Marx Jean Meslier Friedrich Nietzsche Michel Onfray Bertrand Russell Peter Singer Victor J. Stenger
Books Atheism: The Case Against God Breaking the Spell De rerum natura The End of Faith The God Delusion God Is Not Great The System of Nature
Related stances Irreligion Agnosticism Freethought Secular humanism Atheism and religion Christian Hindu Buddhist Jewish Muslim Theism Criticism of atheism
Outline Category Philosophy portal WikiProject
v t e

The Atheist's wager, coined by the philosopher

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] Another formulation suggests that a god may reward honest disbelief and punish a dishonest belief in the divine.^[4]

Explanation

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][5]

• You may live a good life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
• You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
• You may live a good life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
• You may live a good life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
• You may live an evil life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
• You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
• You may live an evil life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.
• You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.

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

the option of living an evil life, regardless of belief in a god. Whether one believes in god has no effect on the outcome.

References