The Problem of Magical Ice Cream Overlords when Betting on God’s Existence
Why Pascal’s Wager is Unsuccessful in Proving we Should Believe in God.
Why should we believe in God?
The answer most theists give is that we have good evidence that God exists. Just like we believe we are sitting on a chair because we can see and feel the chair, theists argue that we can know God exists through the existence of religious texts or the intricate beauty of the universe pointing to it being designed by a God.
Yet the French mathematician and philosopher, Blaise Pascal takes a different approach. He argues that no amount of reason or argument can ever prove whether God will exist or not exist, as God is an infinite being and our limited intellect prevents us from conceptualizing such a being.
So instead, Pascal gives a different reason to believe in God: it’s the safest bet. It’s an intriguing idea that has gained a significant following since it was first argued almost four hundred years ago. In this post, I will briefly explain how Pascal’s Wager works, before showing why I think it is ultimately unsuccessful through the problems posed by magical ice cream overlords — be prepared for a brain freeze!
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal says there are four squares on the roulette table of life: we can either choose to believe in God, and God either exists or doesn’t exist; or we can choose not to believe in God and God either exists or doesn’t exist. This creates a table like this:
Pascal says we can’t know the odds of this wager (because no amount of reason can ever prove whether God does or does not exist), so which square do we bet on?
Surely, Pascal argues, it must be the first! Pascal argues that we can only go to heaven through believing in God, where we are granted the reward of eternal bliss and happiness. So to bet on this square, we have to believe in God. Pascal argues that even if it turns out God doesn’t exist, the downside is only small: we may have wasted some time praying to a non-existent God and followed some rules that limited our happiness, but we can still live an enjoyable and fulfilling life.
Yet if we were to choose not to believe in God, we risk going to Hell, where we are punished for eternity (as Pascal argued that people who refuse God’s existence will go to Hell, though this is disputed by many including Pope Francis himself) and our gamble can only bring small, finite benefits at best.
Therefore, Pascal argues that even if there is the smallest chance of winning eternal happiness, we should take it, and if there is even the smallest chance of risking eternal punishment, we should avoid it because of how severe the consequences are. Therefore, we should believe in God.
Pascal’s Icy Problem
Over the years, many have found various faults in Pascal’s Wager, but I believe the biggest (and most entertaining) problem with Pascal’s Wager is the problem posed by magical ice cream overlords.
Imagine Steve is eating delicious ice cream in a park when suddenly, an intense brain freeze brought on by rapid consumption of the ice cream causes him to collapse. Everyone in the park sees Steve collapse, and his unconscious body lying on the floor while his ice cream melts into the grass next to him.
People run over and try to wake Steve and after a few minutes, Steve unexpectedly shoots up, gasping for air.
“I have had a vision!” Steve exclaims, “Our all-powerful ice cream overlord has told me to spread the message: if we do not worship his holy sweetness and show our faith by eating three ice creams a day, we will be punished by living in a giant, empty freezer for the rest of eternity. However, if we show our faith, we will be rewarded by transcending to ice cream heaven after our death where we can eat ice cream and other desserts to our hearts’ content!”
What should we do if we were a member of the crowd trying to help Steve? It seems obvious that Steve has just suffered a concussion from his collapse and his vision is simply a figment of his imagination, so we should get poor Steve to the hospital straight away.
However, it is impossible to prove this magical ice cream overlord doesn’t exist for certain. After all, Steve says it is a magical, transcendent being — we are not able to check whether the Ice Cream Overlord exists as we are not able to transcend the universe. Therefore, according to Pascal’s Wager, the best thing to do is to believe this ice cream overlord exists as it is the safest bet:
According to Pascal’s Wager, even if there is even the smallest chance this magical ice cream overlord exists, we should eat three ice creams a day because of the eternal rewards this could bring, and the potential eternal punishments we would avoid.
Yet this seems absurd! The chance of the ice cream overlord existing is minuscule considering it is highly likely that Steve just suffered a concussion and the fact there is absolutely no concrete evidence that points to this overlord existing.
It gets even more absurd if we continue the thought experiment and imagine Steph is in this cursed park the following day, eating some carrots when she chokes on the orange vegetable and also collapses. After she wakes, she also proclaims to have had a vision, but this time from a magical carrot overlord who says that if we do not show our faith in his holy crunchiness by never eating sugary snacks or ice cream, then we will be condemned to a life suffocating in soil for eternity. Yet if we manage to refrain from eating sugary snacks and ice cream, we will get to go to carrot heaven.
What do we do now? Eating ice cream risks both eternal reward and eternal punishment with Steve and Steph’s conflicting visions, so Pascal’s Wager fails completely as there is no longer a safe bet.
Thus, by focusing only on the consequences of a belief (and considering which is the safest bet) and ignoring all reason and evidence for believing in something, Pascal’s Wager forces us to believe in the most absurd things that we know with almost complete certainty to not be true.
I personally believe in God, but because I think there is sufficient evidence to show that God exists, not because it is the safest best. The magical ice cream overlord thought experiment causes the convincing nature of Pascal’s argument to melt away.
What do you think? Are you convinced by Pascal’s Wager, or do you think the ice cream overlord example shows it fails? I would love to know your thoughts in the comments below.
