Blaise Pascal was born in central France during the summer of 1623 to an important and powerful family. From an early age Pascal exhibited the qualities that would enable him to achieve great things. Included in his CV would be examples of his deep curiosity about the universe and the use of his great imagination to probe its darkest corners. Through his father's tuition, this boy prodigy would become one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He was a man who would change the entire landscape of mathematics, science and theology forever. So great were his arguments that they are as powerful today as they were during the Renaissance.

Though most scientists would consider the development of binomial theory to be his greatest achievement it should be remembered that when it comes to the intellectual legacy that he left the world, binomial theory was just the tip of the iceberg. His ingenious probability diagram is universally familiar to school children across the globe as 'Pascal's Triangle'. In fact Pascal's work with Pierre de Fermat is often described as the foundations of calculus and as the basis of all probability. Yet as is sometimes the case with a genius the theory for which they are best known is not the most important piece of work that they produce.

Scientists usually express some surprise when they discover that Pascal's name is, by the rest of society, more often associated with a seemingly unscientific concept. This concept comes in the form of a logical argument, and I consider it to be the Christian's most cherished defence against the dark arts: Pascal's Wager.

Pascal began his scientific career in the same way that many today do, with firm atheistic or agnostic beliefs. Studying the inner workings of the universe, however, revealed to Pascal a hidden architecture that for him suggested that all was not as simple as his atheistic beliefs would have him believe. A near death experience, the witnessing of a miracle and the religious conversion of his sister wrenched his God cogs into life and his conversion to Christianity became inevitable. After this great epiphany Pascal applied his knowledge of numbers and his understanding of faith to a new problem; the gamble of believing in God.

Pascal thought that there were two ways you could bet; the Christian bet and the atheist bet. If there was no God, both the atheist and the Christian will win nothing but at the same time lose nothing as the outcome is neutral. But if there is a God the atheist loses the gamble and the Christian takes all. So no matter if you are Christian or atheistic the fact remains that it is mathematically better to assume the existence of God. Pascal had found a mathematical proof not of God, but in the essentialness of faith.

The environment is everybody's favourite subject at the moment. You need only turn on the television for a few moments before you will here catchphrases like "global warming" or "climate change" being bandied about like pizza bases in an Italian restaurant. The debate moves from the evidence of it happening to what we should do about it quicker than you can say "margarita". As the earthly temperature has increased the intensity of the debate has also reached boiling point and it seems that from all sides, it is getting nasty. The debate into whether global warming is even happening is still the main point of contention in some places. Most scientists agree that there is ample evidence that climate change is a very real and very happening nightmare, but there are others who are not convinced.

It comes back to the age–old problem with evidence and proof. What is proof for one person is not for another. What is needed is a greater proof that would silence all those who have everything to lose from the cutting down of emissions, for example the petrochemical industry. This proof would need to be as undeniable as it is inescapable. What is needed is mathematical proof.

Shall we gamble? Imagine this, there is an environmentalist bet and a sceptic bet. If we are not damaging the planet, both the environmentalists and the sceptics will neither win nor lose anything. But if we are damaging the planet we all lose. The strongest way to bet would be with the direction that doesn't have the possibility of negative side effects. The environmentalist need not fear a 'green house effect' and the Christian need not fear Satan's whip. Can Pascal's wager really be applied to the environment debate?

The short answer is not exactly. Within the theological wager is a very individual choice. If you are a good person, then it's reward time for you, but only you. With the environmental wager if you're green and everybody else isn't then it's still melting ice–cream time for you as the wager is very much a group bet. If one person pulls the plug on your lifeboat then you all go under, it's as simple as that.

So what does this mean for the environment? Well, it means that treating the planet with respect is an absolute necessity. All those failing to do so should be asked to leave at the next available opportunity. The sceptics of environmental damage should think long and hard about what their individual opposition is going to cost the planet, and join those who would like to have a habitable planet now and for the rest of time. Those who complain about the financial costs of being green should consider the alternative, that of living on Venus.

Our place on earth is slightly different than our place in God's kingdom because our security here is dependent on the complete co–operation of those that are the most unwilling to co–operate. The evil money–grabbing multinationals of yesterday are today's saviours of the planet, or so their adverts say. Petrol companies are designing solar powered cars, supermarkets are becoming 'environmental', and politicians are changing from blue, red and yellow to a dirty shade of green. Could it be that we have reached a turning point in history? Have we hit the rewind button? Are we sucking the Carbon Dioxide out of the air and replanting the rain forests? Are we putting the fish back in to the sea?

The turning point we have reached is one where it has become fashionable to be seen as being green rather than just being green. We now live in a world where supermarkets hide their excessive waste behind their twenty foot billboards which ironically enough advertise how environmental they are. Politicians will cycle to work on the days when they are followed by a BBC helicopter and proclaim aloud, "hey you, look how green I am!" Maybe "clean–green–smokescreen" should be a new advertising jingle?

The truth is that we need to push for change harder now than ever before. The culprits and instigators of the damage are manipulating a naïve public into believing that they are reformed individuals. Yet these reformed individuals continue to profit from the destruction of our only planet. Good deeds in good number have brought us this far. Every day, global damage and that which tempts men to be its cause is eroding the foundations of our entire civilization.

Pascal's wager shows us that living dangerously is a gamble. Action without thought of consequence will be the ruin of our entire race. We each need to decide what consequences we would like to see, and how best each of us can in our own way act as to achieve those consequences. It seems Pascal¹s wager is more powerful than we could have envisaged.

David Boyce, PhD Student, Astrophysics, Leicester University