In this article, we are going to delve into the topic of Atheist's wager and explore its different facets. Atheist's wager is a topic that has captured the attention of many people in recent times, and it is a topic that generates conflicting opinions. Throughout this article, we will examine different perspectives on Atheist's wager, from its impact on society to its influence on popular culture. We will also explore its relevance in different contexts, both historically and contemporary. Through this detailed analysis, we hope to provide a more complete view of Atheist's wager and generate deeper reflection on this topic.
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.
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. Another formulation suggests that a god may reward honest disbelief and punish a dishonest belief in the divine.
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:
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.