Maybe it’s the lawyer in me, but I find that sometimes it’s useful to pretend you have to make arguments supporting the opposing side. So, how would you imagine an intelligent rejection of Pascal’s Wager?
This imaginary person would, it seems to me, have to say this sentence to himself:
Okay, I understand that it would be very bad for me if it turned out there was the God of Christianity and I died without accepting Him, and that conversely it would have been really good under those circumstances if I had accepted Him; but I’m so confident that there is no such God, and so desirous of living a life on this earth that He would not like, that I’ll roll the dice.
So there are two propositions here: (1) thinking it unlikely that the God of Christianity exists; and (2) wanting to live a life on this earth that He would not like. You would want to believe both to at least some degree, but I suppose that the more strongly you believed one the less strongly you would need to believe the other.
***
On the first proposition, how would you be convinced that there is likely no God at all — or, barring that, be convinced that Jesus of Nazareth is unlikely to be divine? My sense is that both of these positions simply are quite vulnerable to sound arguments and documentation — with the former requiring a demonstration that, while the supernatural may of course be counterintuitive, it’s nowhere near as hard to believe in as a godless universe; and with the latter hinging on logic and the reliability vel non of ancient documents.
On the second proposition, what is it that you would want to do so much, or so much not want to do, that you would roll the dice? Answers will vary, of course, but maybe it is useful to think about what sins are people least willing to give up. Fornication, of course, and even married sex if it is homosexual (and fornication can lead one to the greater sin of abortion); drugs and pornography are addictive (and likewise lead to additional, worse sins). And there is monetary greed, another gateway sin (from simply worrying a bit too much about financial security, to not tithing, to grand larceny).
***
So what is the lesson for evangelists here? Simply that they must be prepared to answer both propositions. It is rather obvious, I suppose, that one must have good arguments that God exists and that Jesus was and is God; it might be a bit less obvious that the evangelist needs to be able to persuade a sinner that his sins of choice are really not so pleasurable and irreplaceable (I’ll add that, by the way, it is my sense that it is often when sinners conclude on their own that their sins — especially ones rooted in addiction — are more painful than pleasurable that they come to Christ).