# Atheist's wager

Part of a series on :
Atheism :
Concepts
Implicit and explicit atheism
Naturalism
Negative and positive atheism :
History
History of atheism
Atheism during the Age of Enlightenment
New Atheism :
Society
Atheist feminism
Criticism of religion
Demographics of atheism
Discrimination against atheists
Secular ethics
Secularism
Separation of church and state
State atheism :
ArgumentsArguments for atheism
Atheist's wager
Creator of God
Evil God challenge
Fate of the unlearned
Free will
God of the gaps
Hitchens's razor
Incompatible properties
Inconsistent revelation
Nonbelief
Occam's razor
Omnipotence paradox
Parody religion
Poor design
Problem of evil
Problem of Hell
Russell's teapot
Theological noncognitivism :
People
Lists of atheists
Julian Baggini
Mikhail Bakunin
Mario Bunge
Albert Camus
Richard Dawkins
Daniel Dennett
Denis Diderot
Ludwig Feuerbach
A. C. Grayling
Sam Harris
Christopher Hitchens
Baron d'Holbach
Lawrence Krauss
Michael Lou Martin
Karl Marx
Jean Meslier
Friedrich Nietzsche
Michel Onfray
Bertrand Russell
Peter Singer
Victor J. Stenger :
Books
Atheism: The Case Against God
Breaking the Spell
De rerum natura
The End of Faith
The God Delusion
God Is Not Great
The System of Nature :
Related stances
Irreligion
Agnosticism
Freethought
Secular humanism
Atheism and religion
Criticism of atheism :
Outline
Category
Philosophy portal
WikiProject :
vte :
The Atheist's wager, coined 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. Another formulation suggests that a god may reward honest disbelief and punish a dishonest belief in the divine.

## Explanation

Martin's wager states that if one were to analyze their options in regard to how to live their life, they would arrive at the following possibilities:
* You may live a good life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
* You may live a good life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
* You may live a good life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
* You may live a good life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a positive legacy to the world; your gain is finite.
* You may live an evil life and believe in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
* You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and a benevolent god exists, in which case you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
* You may live an evil life and believe in a god, but no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.
* You may live an evil life without believing in a god, and no benevolent god exists, in which case you leave a negative legacy to the world; your loss is finite.
The following table shows the values assigned to each possible outcome:
| | A benevolent god exists | A benevolent god exists | No 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. Whether one believes in god has no effect on the outcome.