Belief, uncertainty, and commitment › The alternatives the Wager must face

The most direct challenge concerns the range of religious possibilities. Why frame the choice around the particular God and outcomes Pascal discusses? A different religion might attach different consequences to the same action. Even a hypothetical deity who rewards honest doubt would complicate an argument that recommends belief solely through possible rewards.

The objection does not establish that every imagined deity deserves equal credibility. It establishes that the Wager needs reasons for its selection of alternatives. Pascal's wider defense of Christianity provides a context in which to look for those reasons. Whether that defense succeeds requires its own examination; the payoff comparison cannot supply it in advance.

A second challenge concerns costs. Religious commitment can involve time, relinquished opportunities, and changes to relationships. These are possible costs to consider, rather than claims about every believer's experience. Pascal argues that the religious life has goods of its own near the end of fragment 233. A critic still needs to ask whether his assessment fits the actual course under consideration.

A third challenge concerns motives. Would seeking belief for a reward cultivate the relation to God that Pascal values? His distinction between knowledge of God and love of God, in fragment 280, gives this objection particular force. An advantage-seeking beginning might change through participation, but that change cannot simply be assumed. A successful defense has to explain the connection.

These objections concern different parts of the argument. The many-religions challenge questions the options and outcomes. The cost challenge questions their valuation. The motive challenge questions whether the recommended action can lead to the good it seeks. Answering one does not automatically answer the others.