No argument in the history of philosophy is as misunderstood as Pascal's Wager. It is often said that the Wager argument fails because the options—believing in the Christian god and not believing in any god at all—are not exhaustive. But this assumes that Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was directing his argument to the world, rather than to a particular audience. In fact, he had a particular audience in mind: his backsliding Christian friends. These friends were gamblers, womanizers, and libertines. Following his religious experience, which changed his life, Pascal sought to save the souls of his friends. To him, the end of bringing his friends back into the fold justified the means. In other words, he was willing to do whatever it took to bring them back: force them, coerce them, manipulate them, or persuade them.
What it took, in his view, was an appeal to self-interest. He had to show that it was in the long-term self-interest of his friends to come back to the religion of their birth and youth, namely, Christianity. The means Pascal chose was probability theory, which his friends understood from their gambling experiences. Pascal constructed an argument specially designed to save his friends' souls. It appealed to what his friends valued—their self-interest—and it made use of a technique that they understood, namely, the maximization of expected value.
The Wager argument is directed to those for whom there are only two choices: Christianity and no god at all. It is not directed to those for whom there is some third choice. That Pascal made an argument at all, rather than an appeal to emotion or some other form of manipulation, shows that he considered this the most likely way to save his friends' souls. If he thought some other means would have been more effective, he would have chosen it. For philosophers to dismiss Pascal's argument on the ground that not everyone will accept its premises is scandalous; it shows that they have not taken the time to understand what they are talking about.
Addendum: Pascal would have promoted fighting if he thought it would bring his friends back into the fold. Whatever it takes.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 