Atheist's Wager

Part of a series on
Atheism
Concepts History Antitheism Nontheism Atheism and religion (Criticism of atheism / of religion) History of atheism State atheism Outline
Types Implicit and explicit Negative and positive Christian Hindu (Adevism) Buddhist Jewish Muslim Feminist New Atheism
Arguments for atheism Against God's existence Atheist's Wager Evil God Challenge Fate of the unlearned Free will God of the gaps Hitchens's razor Incompatible properties Inconsistent revelation Nonbelief Omnipotence paradox Poor design Problem of evil Problem of Hell Russell's teapot Theological noncognitivism Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
People Anne Nicol Gaylor Annie Laurie Gaylor Aron Ra Avijit Roy Baron d'Holbach Bertrand Russell Christopher Hitchens Dan Barker Daniel Dennett David Silverman Ed Buckner Ellen Johnson Frank Zindler Greta Christina Hemant Mehta Ibn Warraq Jason Torpy Jennifer Michael Hecht Jon Garth Murray Kai Nielsen Madalyn Murray O'Hair Matt Dillahunty Michael Martin Rafida Ahmed Bonya Richard Dawkins Ruth Hurmence Green Sam Harris Seth Andrews Sikivu Hutchinson Victor J. Stenger
Related stances Agnosticism Weak Strong Agnostic theism Agnostic atheism Ignosticism Apatheism Irreligion Anti-clericalism Antireligion Freethought Parody religion Post-theism Naturalism Humanistic Metaphysical Methodological Religious Secularism Secularity Secular Buddhism Secular humanism
Category Portal WikiProject

The Atheist's Wager, popularised 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.

Explanation

The Wager states that if one were to analyze their options in regard to how to live their life, he or she would arrive at the following possibilities:

• 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

	Belief in god (B)	No belief in god (¬B)
Good life (L)	+∞ (heaven)	+∞ (heaven)
Evil life (¬L)	-∞ (hell)	-∞ (hell)

No benevolent god exists

	Belief in god (B)	No belief in god (¬B)
Good life (L)	+X (positive legacy)	+X (positive legacy)
Evil life (¬L)	-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.