Atheist's Wager

Part of a series on
Atheism
Symbol designed by Atheist Alliance International in 2007
Concepts History Antitheism Atheism and religion (Criticism of atheism / of religion) History of atheism State atheism New Atheism Outline
Types Implicit and explicit Negative and positive Christian Hindu (Adevism) Jewish Evangelical Feminist Libertine-atheism Scientific
Arguments for atheism Against God's existence Atheist's Wager Evil God Challenge 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 Demographics of atheism Discrimination against / persecution of atheists Lists of atheists
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
Atheism portal WikiProject

The Atheist's Wager, formulated 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, a reward which would then be jeopardized by a dishonest belief in the divine.

Explanation

The Wager states that if you were to analyze your options in regard to how to live your life, you would come out with 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.