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.[1][2] Another formulation suggests that a god may reward honest disbelief and punish a dishonest belief in the divine.[3]
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:[1][4][5]
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.