Virgil Tibbs

As something of a newbie around here I've been recently introduced to this idea of"Pascal's Wager" (well, I'd heard of the concept, but did not know it had a name). In case anyone like me has not heard the term before:

"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."

(from The Atheism Web: Common arguments )

I agree Pascal's Wager is a silly argument, but it becomes even more so when one realized how easy it is to reverse. Take as premises:

1) Some sort of intelligent creator(s) of the universe exist (as an atheist I don't find this all that likely, but let's use it anyway)

2) The creator(s) purposely do not allow any evidence of their existence to be seen. (I've certainly never heard of any convincing evidence in that direction).

This brings the question of, why don't the creator(s) reveal themselves? One possible answer is that they are using this "mystery" as a test. But why assume it is a test of belief in the creator(s)? Could the creator(s) reasonably expect anyone to believe in them without providing some evidence in that regard? Of course not.

But what if it were a test of skeptism? What if the creator(s) were purposely providing an apparently godless universe in order to see who could accept the evidence correctly and who would commit the "sin" of self-delusion?

In this case, when one arrived in the afterlife, one might find the non-believers being rewarded and the religious getting a swift kick in the posterior before going on to soul reform school (except the fundies, who of course go to "hell" for the delicious irony of it).

I wasn't sure if I should put this here or in the humor section, but I am being halfway serious. Any reason why this argument is any more or less valid than Pascal's?

Tibbs

Rational BAC

Sounds valid to me. If that works for you, it works for me.

Just goes to show you how underated Pascal's Wager is today.

I would even daresay call it a universal truth, since even an atheist can find validity in its interpretation.

copernicus

Hi, Tibbs. It shouldn't surprise you to hear that this idea has come up before on this board. I started one such thread here, on the "Existence of God" thread. It wasn't long before people brought up the relevance to Pascal's Wager, and njhartsch pointed out an earlier post of his that pursued the same theme. This is a perfectly valid response to Pascal's Wager, and that is why the idea keeps cropping up spontaneously among those whom Pascal's wager was directed at.

Virgil Tibbs

Opps. I guess with a board with this many members/posts that that sort of thing is inevitable for a newcomer (these forums kick ass, btw... I'd never imagined this many non-believers could be exchanging ideas in one place!). I just thought up a new sig, which may turn out to be un-original as well, but what the heck?

Tibbs

EDIT: Hmm... sig not showing up yet. Maybe the forum is just being slow. It should say, "Atheism: The None True Faith"

Quantum Ninja

I wrote about the very same idea in a philosophy paper last semester. Pascal's Wager is a generally dangerous line of thinking to subscribe to, in my opinion. His argument basically says that in the absence of evidence, you should stick with the option that is most beneficial to you. But someone could come up with any absurd proposition and tell you that if you believe in it, you'll go to heaven, and that otherwise you'll go to hell.

"If you kill twenty people in your life time, you'll be rewarded with eternal life in heaven! Failure to do this will result in eternal torture in hell!"

Alright, sounds good to me! Hold on while I go grab my pick-axe!

You shouldn't believe in things simply for the benefits they provide. That's not how belief works or how it should work.

notMichaelJackson

VT, you might be interested in the Atheist's Wager.

BioBeing

Virgil - don't worry, its all a cycle! Oh, but no sigs here.

Heres my fave Pascals wager site : http://elephanticity.5u.com/wager.html

Godless Wonder

Here's the thing which I have never understood about Pascal's Wager. Let's suppose for a moment that you agree to "take Pascal's wager", and decide that the safest bet is to believe in God.

This still does not provide any means of being able to actually do it. It may provide some motivation to desire to be able to believe in God, but it does not help one whit in being able to actually do it. I cannot make myself believe that 2+2=7, and I cannot make myself believe that I am actually Eddie Van Halen, and I cannot make myself believe that God exists, no matter how much I might desire to believe any of those, I simply cannot _do_ it.

Yet somehow this does seem to work for some people. (Unless I am mistaken) Martin Gardner, who there's pretty much no arguing is an intelligent person, wrote about giving himself permission to take the leap of faith and believe in the immortality of the soul, as this somehow makes life easier or more meaningful, or something.

Even if I were on the fence, and I couldn't seem to figure out if I thought God existed or not, I couldn't manage to "take a leap of faith" and somehow become more certain one way or the other than available evidence warranted. For me there would be no difference between "taking a leap of faith" and merely pretending. I think faith must be a very strong kind of pretending, in which the pretender pretends so well they manage to fool even themselves. But, not having experienced any kind of faith, that is only speculation on my part. (And if I am right, even successful experience of faith would not by definition allow me to know that I was correct that it is only a kind of very strong pretending.)