Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Anti-Anti Pascal's Wager

It's been a while.  We'll save the explanations and excuses for another time, however.

I was involved recently in a discussion on Facebook with a friend who is, for personal reasons, "taking a break from organized religion."  As part of that discussion, one individual felt the need to post this:
After the original status poster indicated that he did not ask for a debate on his status, I pulled out of the conversation, but noted that I saw problems with this approach and that it might make a "fun blog post."  So here is that blog post.
pwndleet Incorporated in Atheism: The Case Against God was "Smith's Wager," with which the author had closed a taped lecture and a later speech delivered in 1976 to the Society of Separationists. From the transcript of that speech:
As ...
one final argument or satire on an argument, you may have heard of Pascal's wager at some point. Blaise Pascal was the famous French mathematician, philosopher, and theologian. He came up with this argument which consequently became quite famous, which went something as follows. Reason can't prove or disprove the existence of God. Weigh the odds. If the atheist is correct, we're going to die, nothing will happen, and nothing is lost. But if the Christian is correct, the nonbelievers are going to believe in Hell for eternity. So it seems like the practical odds would lie with Christianity. We would wager on Christianity because the practical odds are so important. If you wager on Christianity and there is no god, you don't lose anything.
The first obvious problem with this is it completely shoves aside the whole issue of intellectual integrity, as if you can just do a complete turn-about in your beliefs willy-nilly without suffering any psychological damage, which simply isn't possible. It would require such a gross miscarriage of intellectual integrity to do this kind of thing that it's inconceivable that someone with Pascal's kind of mind would even offer it.
But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager:
1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.
2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.
Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him. Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.
Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason on the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.
Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.
Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.
We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again.
[edit]
See More

Firstly, let me say that I am not a huge fan of Pascal's wager as an apologetics tool.  I find it to be an interesting thought experiment, but really as far as arguments for God's existence go, it is rather weak.  It suggests that reason can not be used to defend God's existence or lack thereof.   I might suppose that Pascal was using this approach for folks who believe that to be true, but most other arguments for God's existence rely heavily on reason...if they didn't they wouldn't be very good arguments.  So perhaps this is a useful tool for someone who doubts that belief or disbelief in God is reasonable...but overall it would seem that, at least with regard to Catholic theology and Atheism, arguing God's existence is all about reason.

We should bear in mind that we are talking about God's very existence now, not necessarily his nature.  Some aspects of God's nature can be determined from reason (omnipotence, for instance) while others certainly can not (existence as a Trinity, for instance) and require revelation.

So I'd like to step through Smith's wager and poke a few holes in it then see if it still floats.

But I want to offer you a kind of counter-wager, called the "Smith's wager." Here are the premises of my wager:
1. The existence of a god, if we are to believe in it, can only be established through reason.
2. Applying the canons of correct reasoning to theistic belief, we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people.
I hold that the premises are flawed. 

Regarding the first, that the existence of "a god" can only be established through reason.  Most Catholic and many protestant theologians would say that God's existence can be established through reason.  Indeed, even St. Paul points out in his letter to the Romans (Chapter 1, verse 19-20) "Whatever can be known about God is clear to them: he himself made it so. Since the creation of the world, invisible realities, God's eternal power and divinity, have become visible, recognized through the things he has made."  The only problem with this premise is the word "only."  There are other ways in which the existence of God can be established...namely revelation.  But for the purposes of this argument I'm willing to concede the first premise.

The second is very problematic.  Now, I haven't read Smith's book, and so perhaps he actually makes this argument and makes it using some form of logic therein.  But to suggest that it be taken at face value that "we must reach the conclusion that theism is unfounded and must be rejected by rational people" is a bit presumptuous.  As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me just how many atheistic philosophers are so quick to dismiss believers as irrational people.  Some folks are just so impressed with themselves that anyone who holds a contrary viewpoint must be either stupid or irrational.  <sigh>  With this in mind, let us approach the wager Smith lays out.
Now comes the question, "But what if reason is wrong in this case?", which it sometimes is. We are fallible human beings. What if it turns out that there is a Christian god and He's up there and He's going to punish us for eternity for disbelieving in Him.
Here Smith shows his lack of understanding of the Christian God, or at least a very immature understanding.  He presents a view of the God of Christianity as the "angry old man in the clouds."  I remember being about six years old and finding this concept of God equally contemptible and highly unlikely.  That's part of why I remained an atheist for much of my youth - God was explained to me in these terms by my contemporaries, who were also six years old.  It made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to me now.

But this is a very narrow and terribly inaccurate view of God as understood by Christians (or at least Catholics).  See, we don't believe in a God who just up and punishes us simply for disbelieving in Him.  We believe in a God who loves us so much that He allows us to reject Him using the gift of free will.  We believe in a God who allows us to make choices and does not force his will on us.  As such, if in our choices on Earth we willfully reject him, He allows those choices to stand once we've left this Earth.  That is, we believe that it is not God who sends us to Hell, but we who send ourselves there.  Hell is eternal separation from God.  Nothing more.  Nothing less.

And God does not hold us accountable for that which we have no control over.  If our upbringing makes us resistant to His grace, God takes that into account.  Because He knows our hearts better than we do...he made us and knows how we work and what our motivations are...more on this in a moment...
Here's where my wager comes in. Let's suppose you're an atheist. What are the possibilities? The first possibility is there is no god, you're right. In that case, you'll die, that'll be it, you've lost nothing, and you've lived a happy life with the correct position. Secondly, a god may exist but he may not be concerned with human affairs. He may be the god of traditional Deism. He may have started the universe going and left it to its traditional devices, in which case you will simply die, that is all there is to it, again, and you've lost nothing.
There are arguments against both of these possibilities, but since they aren't critical to dealing with this particular case we'll leave those for another time.
Let's suppose that God exists and He is concerned with human affairs -- He's a personal god -- but that He is a just god. He's concerned with justice. If you have a just god, he could not possibly punish an honest error of belief where there is no moral turpitude or no wrongdoing involved. If this god is a creator god and He gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world, then He would take pride in the conscientious and scrupulous use of reason on the part of His creatures, even if they committed errors from time to time, in the same way a benevolent father would take pride in the accomplishments of his son, even if the son committed errors from time to time. Therefore, if there exists a just god, we have absolutely nothing to fear from such a god. Such a god could not conceivably punish us for an honest error of belief.
Here is where we get into the real meat.  This is actually the closest Smith comes to truly describing the God I believe in.  A personal God, who is just.  One who does not punish an honest error of belief.  Indeed, what does Jesus say in John Chapter 22?  "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin."  God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know through no fault of our own!  Indeed He is just. 

But this is not a free pass, as Smith seems to assert.  To carry his analogy further, while a father praises the accomplishments of his son, despite the errors committed, a good father does not praise the errors themselves.  Errors are to be corrected and learned from.  A good father might encourage his son when an error has been made ("good try, try again!") but would never tell his son to repeat that error (unless that father held the belief that the error was not an error).  And certainly, if a child made the same error over and over again, the good father would work to correct that error, using just punishments when necessary.  Indeed, a child may fear his father, especially when he knows he has done wrong and has done so willfully.

All analogies limp.  We can call God Father because that is an image that gives us the best concept of Him this side of heaven.  It is human language that serves a purpose.  When we view God as a Father figure, we must understand that he has none of the faults of our earthly fathers and that the virtues are infinitely greater.  He deals with us with wisdom beyond our understanding. 

So, does God praise the atheist's "conscientious and scrupulous use of reason" when it is used to deny His very existence?  Possibly.  If indeed that individual's understanding is the closest to the truth that he could get with the tools given to him, it is possible that God would find no fault with him and admit him to paradise.  Certainly He could reveal himself to that person at the moment of his death and allow him to make a choice for or against him. 

But we must be careful.  If we agree with Smith's proposition that God "gave us reason as the basic means of understanding our world," then it is fair to say that God expects us to make use of that gift and actively seek truth.  Looking back, I can honestly say that when I was an atheist, much of my resistance to arguments for God's existence had to do with the fact that belief in God would be inconvenient for me.  That is, for a time I refused to intellectually engage the arguments for God because I was afraid that doing so would convince me, and I would have to change the way I lived.  And, for a time, even after I had engaged some of the arguments, I obstinately refused to acknowledge their efficacy, again because I did not want to admit that there was something more important than myself in the universe.  In other words, I was not being intellectually honest.  I understand this very well, and that is why it doesn't surprise me that atheistic thinkers like Dawkins and Hitchens tend to be so caustic and condescending in their writing.  Let's face it - sometimes truth is terribly inconvenient.  But God, like any good father, desires that we will fully use the faculties He has given us.

So on the one hand, I will concede that God will not punish us for an honest error of belief.  However, if our error of belief is borne from dishonesty with ourselves or a simple failure to pursue the truth out of fear or laziness, I don't think we can count ourselves as particularly secure.

Now we came to the last possibility. Suppose there exists an unjust god, specifically the god of Christianity, who doesn't give a damn about justice and who will burn us in Hell, regardless of whether we made honest mistakes or not. Such a god is necessarily unjust, for there is no more heinous injustice we could conceive of, than to punish a person for an honest error of belief, when he has tried to the best of his ability to ascertain the truth. The Christian thinks he's in a better position in case this kind of god exists. I wish to point out that he's not in any better position than we are because if you have an unjust god. The earmark of injustice is unprincipled behavior, behavior that's not predictable. If there's an unjust god and He really gets all this glee out of burning sinners and disbelievers, then what could give him more glee than to tell Christians they would be saved, only to turn around and burn them anyway, for the Hell of it, just because he enjoys it? If you've got an unjust god, what worst injustice could there be than that? It's not that far-fetched. If a god is willing to punish you simply for an honest error of belief, you can't believe He's going to keep his word when He tells you He won't punish you if you don't believe in Him because He's got to have a sadistic streak to begin with. Certainly He would get quite a bit of glee out of this behavior. Even if there exists this unjust god, then admittedly we live in a nightmarish universe, but we're in no worse position than the Christian is.
What Smith describes here is certainly not the God of Christianity.  I can only imagine a handful of Christian sects who would even partially embrace this definition.  Here Smith completely departs from a semi-logical argument and sets up a straw-man which he handily knocks down.  It detracts from his entire train of reason and betrays his own concept of what he seems to think the Christian God is, fully exposing his lack of understanding. 
Again, if you're going to make the wager, you might as well wager on what your reason tells you, that atheism is correct, and go that route because you won't be able to do anything about an unjust god anyway, even if you accept Christianity. My wager says that you should in all cases wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism. If there's no god, you're correct; if there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer; if there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason; and if there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.
With all of these problems in the argument, the conclusion is not very convincing.  None of his possible outcomes accurately characterize the God most Christians believe in.  Certainly he does not address the Catholic point of view.  His assertion that the only reasonable stance is atheism is broken. 
We come back full-circle to our original point, that atheism must always be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth. I think that, as atheists, when you try to communicate the atheistic message this is the central point you should hammer home again and again.
[edit]
I would argue that Christianity, particularly Catholicism, must also be considered within the wider context of the respect for reason and the respect for truth.  If truth exists, and can be sought, I think we would all, atheist and theist alike agree that we should use our reason to do so.  But no matter where we are in our search for that truth, we must be careful not to deceive ourselves for the sake of convenience.  We must be fully honest when applying our intellect, and that is easier said than done.  One doesn't need to go far in scientific research history to see that numbers are often fudged and false positives created in hopes of gaining financial success or notoriety.  Humans are a deceptive lot, and we are better at deceiving no one than we are at deceiving ourselves.

As always I welcome thoughts and discussion from all sides, as long as it is kept civil :)

1 comment:

  1. Nice job babe. My particular problem with this whole argument starts at the beginning. Using Aristotlian logic, the premises are flawed, therefore, the entire argument is flawed. And I want to know where he got the idea of the "Christian God" who willy-nilly sends people to Hell. There is no proof of this anywhere. That is not a reasoned argument at any level.

    ReplyDelete