On Hedging Bets

French mathematician Blaise Pascal, who later in life joined a strict Catholic cult, used an example from gambling to prove why we should believe in God. Known as Pascal's Wager, it goes: if there's the slightest probability that God exists, then it's worthwhile to believe in Him.

That's because if He doesn't exist, a non-believer has nothing to lose, but if He does, a non-believer has everything to lose. In other words, why opt for a no-brainer alternative?

Too many people quote this without realising what a no-brainer the wager itself is. For instance, if He doesn't exist, then does a non-believer really have nothing to lose?

A lot of our finest works in painting, music, dance and literature have been created by some of history's deeply devout people who have been moved by their faith to such acts of creation. It's arguable that if that faith had not been there, the artistic output may have been lost.

Science would have also lost out. Galileo, who Einstein has called 'the father of modern science', was a very religious Catholic who nevertheless overturned one of the Vatican's most important Biblical beliefs that the Earth was the centre of the known universe.

His contribution to physics would never have happened if he didn't think the 'Book of Nature', written in the language of mathematics, should agree with the 'Book of Scripture', written in everyday language.

As for a non-believer having everything to lose should He exist, what kind of a Creator can be so dumb as to not be able to see through a ruse that it might be 'worthwhile' to believe in Him?