Occam’s razor is a principle of logic that suggest going with the simplest of options, the one making the fewest assumptions as long as they both provide a sufficient explanation of the evidence. It’s earliest uses were in medieval apologetics to argue for monotheism over pagan polytheistic pantheons. In other words, why do you need 20 gods to make the universe to work if only one can get the job done. This principle has stood the test of time and is a relatively reliable method of choosing between two explanations.

There are many apologetic methods that are utilized today. Some are much more sophisticated than others, but one of the most popular is still Pascal’s Wager. This is an argument that if Christianity is correct then belief in God will give you the utmost of eternal reward and the rejection of said belief will subject you to horrific suffering for all eternity. Life on this earth will be no worse for you if you believe, therefore it’s worth taking the gamble that Christianity might be true and “believe” just to hedge your bets.

Let’s break this down to several of the assumptions that are logically required for Pascal’s Wager to work:

1. Naturalism is insufficient to explain the cosmos. It’s made great strides, but it will never answer the few remaining big questions about the origins of the universe in general and life in particular.
2. Your life on this earth will be no worse if you believe in god and ascribe to Christianity than it would be if you don’t.
3. If there is a god, then the god of the Abrahamic faiths is the correct one to choose from out of the millions of gods that have been proposed throughout history.
4. Christianity (in one of its forms) has the correct understanding the Abrahamic god and it’s mode of worship is the the correct form of worship of that god.
5. There is an afterlife with the binary option of paradise or torment for all eternity.
6. The determining factor in your eternal fate is the belief in this particular god.
7. Someone who dishonestly feigns belief would be judged favorably, while someone who honestly rejects belief on the grounds of insufficient evidence would be judged unfavorably.
8. God is so narcissistic that this ploy would actually work.

That’s at least eight assumptions required to make Pascal’s Wager work. That’s a lot.

Before we bring down the Razor, let’s look at the atheistic side. It’s essentially that what we see is what we get, when we die we simply cease to exist, and that we need proof when someone make’s a claim. So what assumptions are required for this?

1. The only way we can know things is if they can be proven empirically.
2. Naturalistic explanations of the cosmos have progressed so far that there is no reason to suspect that a supernatural explanation is required for the few remaining mysteries.

If we simply go with the application of Occam’s Razor, atheistic naturalism’s two assumptions are preferable to the eight assumptions required for Christianity per Pascal’s wager. So by that one standard alone, the wager fails.

Pascal’s Wager is popular enough that I would like to tear it apart a little more, but you’ll have to wait until next time for that.