One thing philosopher Blaise Pascal is often remembered for is his “wager” on the existence of God. He figured that believing in God was a safe bet. Simply put, if God doesn’t exist and one chooses to believe or not believe in God, nothing much is lost in the eternal scheme of things, either way. But if God does exist and one chooses not to believe, a person is at high risk for eternal considerations. So, the safe “wager” is to believe in God … that way, if God does exist, a believer has made a bet that protects one from adverse eternal consequences. It may not feel intellectually honest, but it makes some sense.

In a recent editorial, Thomas Friedman lays out a similar kind of argument as he makes a case for taking action on climate change. He argues, “If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent. But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell.”

As the scientific and sometimes unreasoned debate around climate change seems to drag the public into a divided opinion, I think it’s prudent to apply the Pascal Wager principle. Let’s go with taking climate change seriously, knowing that our actions will be beneficial whatever happens. I think the same is true with regards to believing in God (even while thinking there are good reasons to believe in God that are a little deeper than a wager.)