emotional

That's the scientific name for Pascal's Wager. You can read my refutation of it <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/pwager.htm" target="_blank">here</a>, but I'd also like to post it here on the boards.

---------

Refutation of Pascal’s Wager
(Argument from Afterlife Blackmail)

Blaise Pascal, the 17th-century mathematician and philosopher, formulated a pragmatic argument to show why it is better to be a Christian than an atheist: if atheism is true, then neither the atheist nor the Christian have anything to lose; but if Christianity is true, then the atheist goes to hell and loses everything, while the Christian goes to heaven and gains everything. In this article I wish to make the lesser counter-argument that Pascal’s Wager is not even pragmatically sound, and the greater counter-argument that the Wager has the property of morally backfiring upon its theist author.

“You lose nothing”

What has the atheist to lose by betting on belief? Only his whole life. By professing to believe that which he disbelieves, and carrying things out which are the result of belief, the unbeliever can only lose his true self, true life and true desires. At a time when he would rather be with friends, having good food and drink and a hearty discussion, he would be uttering insincere words of praise to God at a house of prayer. The atheist has only a finite, limited lifetime to lose. The atheist, knowing that life is for a limited time only, never to repeated, has traded the good, inwardly-flowing life for a sham which only serves the purpose of being on the safe side.

Pascal’s Wager is an enticement to trade this certain life for a speculative life after death. It is therefore the perfect example of burning oneself alive for God, and is comparable to those Muslim suicide terrorists who sell their lives for Islamic jannah (paradise). It is the opposite of “listen to your own self” and “do what you feel is right”; it is “fear God, listen to Him only, and don’t you dare think for yourself”.

Blaise Pascal in Islamic Hell

Our dear Pascal was a Christian, and when he talked about his Wager, he suggested wagering on Christianity, of course. But what has that wagering profited him? It is true that Christianity is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and there is no other religion by which mankind could be saved; but so too is Islam. I quote the Qur’an, 3:85:

وَمَنْ يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلمِ دِينًا فَلَنْ يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِي الأَخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخسِرِينَ

waman yabtaγi γaira l’islāmi dīnan falan yuqbala minhu wahuwa fī l’aχirati mina lχāsirīn

And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the lost

Strong words indeed. One can just imagine Pascal, expecting to be led to Jesus to receive his eternal mansion, only to be greeted by an Arabic-speaking God. “But I was sincere in my Christianity!”, he will say; to which Allah will reply, “Ya sayyid Baskaal, you were sincerely wrong. Only those who follow the book I gave my last prophet, Muhammad, are entitled to go to heaven; to jahannam (hell) therefore you go!” And Pascal will be roasting in Islamic hell to this very day.

In the view of the existence of ever so many vendors of Way, Truth and Life, the Wager is no safe bet at all. It is no longer a 50-50 chance of going to heaven or hell, because the Christian as well as the atheist are condemned to Islamic hell. Therefore, if you are destined to go to hell, you might as well enjoy life in the process, and be an atheist.

The Odds

But even when looked pragmatically, playing the odds of Pascal’s Wager would not lead one to a theistic religion. Part of playing the odds is to look at the evidence, and the evidence, unfortunately for Pascal, is in favour of atheism. Scientific discoveries and textual criticism of Holy Scripture have made a strong case for atheism. The latter means that Holy Scripture no longer has the authority it purported to have, and the former negates arguments for existence of God. Often the two areas overlap: the discovery of biological evolution and neurochemical brain interactions has invalidated what Holy Scripture says about God and the human soul, so that scripture is no longer to be believed.

Pascal’s Wager assumes an odds-neutral play between atheism and theism, where there is a 50-50 chance of each being true; evidence, however, tips the odds in favour of atheism. Therefore atheism is the safer bet, there being much more probability for it.

Wagering against morality

I pray you, dear reader, to take a closer look at Pascal’s Wager. A closer look will reveal an implicit spirit of blackmail, of “or else...”, of Mafia protectionism. Pascal’s Wager, if it is to be given a scientific-sounding name, is in effect the Argument from Afterlife Blackmail:

You had better believe, because if you don’t believe, you run the risk of being tortured in hell for eternity. That’s not a nice prospect, is it? If you believe, there’s a high chance that God will cover you with His gold — eternal pleasure in heaven. But if you don’t, you take the risk of a fire that shall not be quenched. Surely, considering all these options, it is better to believe?

You had better pay the Mafia Don. If you don’t, there’s a chance your house will be burnt down. If you do, you’ll enjoy the protection of his strong henchmen. Surely it is better to pay and be safe than to risk and be sorry?

I hope this analogy has made it clear that the theist who wishes to honour God must not use Pascal’s Wager. If anything, this is the most God-dishonouring argument one could ever come by. Pascal’s Wager backfires upon its author by exposing his religion for what it really is: blackmail, manipulation, fire insurance, protectionism. It is the opposite of morality. Morality consists of doing the good because it is good; but Pascal’s Wager consists of believing because of selfish lust of reward and fear of punishment.

It was Pascal’s Wager, of all things, that made me realise how poor a basis for morality theism is. Theism applies the Pascalian system in all walks of life: heaven if you do God’s will, hell if you do not. Carrot to eat if you serve God well, and stick to be beaten by if you fail to serve. Reward for the faithful, sheepish slave, punishment for the daring, freethinking infidel. Theism, in its core, is nothing but an egocentric system meant to get selfish gain for its followers by submitting to God’s will. In the theistic scheme of things there is no good and no evil, just what pleases God and what offends him; and thus is genocide justified if it is done under God’s will, and conversely the feeder of the hungry is destined to go to hell because of mere unbelief. Theism is a world of chaos, of illogic, where fair can easily be foul, and foul be fair, only because God wills so or not.

The moral person should choose atheism; for unless the universe is one of blind, pitiless indifference, and not one governed by God’s fickle will, there can be no concept of moral good and evil. Above all, Pascal’s Wager should be rejected as the epitome of immorality.

---------

diana

Nice writeup, devnet. (As usual.)

I've thought about doing a writeup of all the holes in the PW, but it would be so extensive that the idea is too daunting, so I don't do it.

The first time I heard the argument (in Philosophy 101, lo many years ago), my first reaction was, "Would any god be fooled by 'worship' so shallow as Pascal is suggesting? What an insult to God...if he exists."

Since then, my biggest personal problem with the argument is that it assumes belief is something you can simply choose.

I may be an insufferable bigot, but I think anyone who can simply choose to believe something and voila!--he believes!--is softheaded.

d

Edited for subject-verb agreement.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

emotional

I like Pascal's Wager because the theist who makes it shoots himself in the foot. With Pascal's Wager issued, the theist has lost any claim to have a religious basis for morality.

I really don't understand: if good is just what pleases God, and bad is just what displeases Him, how can there be any basis for morality? Such a basis is no more sound than saying that good is the service of the King of England and bad is rebellion against him. It's entirely arbitrary and fickle.

BTW diana, I've sent you a responding PM.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: devnet ]</p>

Ojuice5001

My problem with Pascal's Wager is that it rewards the creators of religions (human or divine) for making the worst threats possible. If you can believe most non-fundamentalist theologians, Yahweh's hell is "separation from God," or some other thing that's not as bad as the firey hell that Muslims still foretell. And Allah's heaven is, shall we say, more fun than Yahweh's. That means that by the logic of Pascal's Wager, we should become Muslims--you gain more by being a Muslim, and lose more by not being one. And yet, any lover of freedom knows that it is a bad idea to choose your rulers on that basis.

[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

diana

To take it a step further, the "God is necessary for morality" position also is non-sensical.

If God defines goodness, then it's meaningless to define God as omnibenevolent or to say he's all about love and goodness, etc. The only way it makes sense to define God as "good" is to make "good" a concept that exists without God--which means that we don't need God for goodness.

George Smith made the argument better, though. My paraphrase sucks.

(Thanks for the response, devnet.)

d

Sephiroth

I like Pascal's Wager since as far as morality goes it reduces the Christian god to the status of a mafia gangster. Of course the fundies won't admit it; too bad some people still believe that might makes right.

&lt;Godfather voice&gt;I'll make you an offer you cannot refuse, worship me or go to Hell!&lt;/Godfather voice&gt;

wade-w

My initial reaction to Pascal's Wager was along the lines of "You only choose between Christianity and Athiesm? What about all the other choices?"

Then I wondered how a supposedly omniscient god would be fooled by such a cynical reason to believe.

Excellent analysis, Devnet!

Oxymoron

devnet -
That's really rather splendid. I like!

I would go as far to say that all belief is choice. Clearly, people can and do believe anything they jolly well want, even if it flies in the face of their own personal experience and knowledge of the world. The real issue is whether they can test their chosen beliefs against the world out there.

emotional

To be repeated over and over: what difference is there between the one who bets on Pascal's Wager for the gain of heaven than the Muslim who commits an act of terrorism for the gain of heaven (think 9/11 here)? Both involve the trading of one's certain life here for the promise of the afterlife.

Egoinos

....derailing your serious argument slightly...

(From Terry Pratchett's "Hogfather")

This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..."