Wednesday, April 18, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

The Empty Wager

by Sam Harris, On Faith

Reposted from:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/04/the_cost_of_betting_on_faith.html

sam

The coverage of my recent debate in the pages of Newsweek began and ended with Jon Meacham and Rick Warren each making respectful reference to Pascal's wager. As many reader's will remember, Pascal suggested that religious believers are simply taking the wiser of two bets: if a believer is wrong about God, there is not much harm to him or to anyone else, and if he is right, he wins eternal happiness; if an atheist is wrong, however, he is destined for hell. Put this way, atheism seems the very picture of reckless stupidity.

But there are many questionable assumptions built into this famous wager. One is the notion that people do not pay a terrible price for religious faith. It seems worth remembering in this context just what sort of costs, great and small, we are incurring on account of religion. With destructive technology now spreading throughout the world with 21st century efficiency, what is the social cost of millions of Muslims believing in the metaphysics of martyrdom? Who would like to put a price on the heartfelt religious differences that the Sunni and the Shia are now expressing in Iraq (with car bombs and power tools)? What is the net effect of so many Jewish settlers believing that the Creator of the universe promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean? What have been the psychological costs imposed by Christianity's anxiety about sex these last seventy generations? The current costs of religion are incalculable. And they are excruciating.

While Pascal deserves his reputation as a brilliant mathematician, his wager was never more than a cute (and false) analogy. Like many cute ideas in philosophy, it is easily remembered and often repeated, and this has lent it an undeserved air of profundity. If the wager were valid, it could be used to justify any belief system (no matter how ludicrous) as a "good bet." Muslims could use it to support the claim that Jesus was not divine (the Koran states that anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus will wind up in hell); Buddhists could use it to support the doctrine of karma and rebirth; and the editors of TIME could use it to persuade the world that anyone who reads Newsweek is destined for a fiery damnation.

But the greatest problem with the wager—and it is a problem that infects religious thinking generally—is its suggestion that a rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition for which he has no evidence. A person can profess any creed he likes, of course, but to really believe something, he must also believe that the belief under consideration is true. To believe that there is a God, for instance, is to believe that you are not just fooling yourself; it is to believe that you stand in some relation to God's existence such that, if He didn't exist, you wouldn't believe in him. How does Pascal's wager fit into this scheme? It doesn't.

Beliefs are not like clothing: comfort, utility, and attractiveness cannot be one's conscious criteria for acquiring them. It is true that people often believe things for bad reasons—self-deception, wishful thinking, and a wide variety of other cognitive biases really do cloud our thinking—but bad reasons only tend to work when they are unrecognized. Pascal's wager suggests that a rational person can knowingly believe a proposition purely out of concern for his future gratification. I suspect no one ever acquires his religious beliefs in this way (Pascal certainly didn't). But even if some people do, who could be so foolish as to think that such beliefs are likely to be true?

Posted by Sam Harris on April 18, 2007 3:42 PM

Posted: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #32932 by John P on April 18, 2007 at 6:35 pm

Ah yes. The old, how-can-you-fool-an-omniscient-entity-into-thinking-you-believe-in-him? argument.

Who's going to fall for that?

ummm. me?

Other Comments by John P

2. Comment #32933 by GodlessHeathen on April 18, 2007 at 6:37 pm

It boggles my little mind how often Pascal's Wager has to be explained and re-explained.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

3. Comment #32934 by John Phillips on April 18, 2007 at 6:39 pm

Additionally, one would assume that a supposedly all knowing, all seeing god would be able to differentiate between those who are true believers and those only taking Pascal's wager. Then again, if his so called earthly representatives are any example, perhaps not.

Other Comments by John Phillips

4. Comment #32936 by celticcrossfire on April 18, 2007 at 6:53 pm

I hadn't read the debate in its entirety, but my, oh my, Warren just kept getting beat.

But he's right and Pascal's wager highlights it; atheism has a bad PR campaign. I was given Pascal's wager before I had read the books by Harris and Dawkins and was subsequently unaware of it. Now, I'm ready for it.

Other Comments by celticcrossfire

5. Comment #32938 by TranshumanAtheist on April 18, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Those Nigerian email solicitations look like a better deal than Pascal's Wager. One, we know that humans had to compose the spam that keeps winding up in our computers' mailboxes, while we don't have any evidence that a god exists and has offered a human anything. And two, we know that large amounts of money in foreign bank accounts exist (though you won't ever get any of it this way!), whereas we don't have any evidence that a heaven exists.

In other words, Pascal's Wager looks worse than a blatant scam.

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

6. Comment #32942 by Bremas on April 18, 2007 at 7:18 pm

Sam and Transhuman, I will pocket both of those arguments.

Other Comments by Bremas

7. Comment #32943 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 7:20 pm

It boggles my little mind how often Pascal's Wager has to be explained and re-explained.

I've done my part...http://propterhoc.wordpress.com

That such madness could actually convince anyone is what is truly scary!

Other Comments by edge100

8. Comment #32944 by MarcusA on April 18, 2007 at 7:23 pm

So according to Warren belief in God should be reduced to the same level as bad advertizing. "I believe in Cola Brand X because I can't afford not to". Sounds like a salesman telling shoppers that they can't afford not to buy the extended service warranty. I'll take the risk.

Other Comments by MarcusA

9. Comment #32945 by ratio on April 18, 2007 at 7:24 pm

To be fair to Pascal, I think he had in mind a reason to allow yourself to be exposed to argument in favour of the existence of god. If you listened to the arguments and were genuinely persuaded to believe you would be better off (in terms of his wager) than if you refused to listen.

/r

Other Comments by ratio

10. Comment #32946 by maton100 on April 18, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I have a new wager. Don't believe; therefore, if heaven exists, you won't have to go and hang out with William Dembski in a white nightgown.

Other Comments by maton100

11. Comment #32947 by Patrick McArdle on April 18, 2007 at 7:33 pm

As usual, Mr. Harris expresses complex ideas with such lucidity, this reader sits in awe of both substance and style. His dismantling of Pascal's Wager, although incomplete (we can write much, much more about how bad it is) utterly succeeds at eviscerating the folly behind the gamble. Never has betting looked so foolish!

As Mr. Harris notes, some persons choose to believe because it gives them comfort. When we hear such a reason for belief from, say, a Christian or Muslim, we should ask how believing that almost every human who ever lived now suffers excruciating, permanent torture could possibly make a sane person feel better.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

12. Comment #32952 by etny on April 18, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Sam is missing a key point, which Dawkins expressed so naturally in a recent interview. Namely, "what's so special about having faith?"
Isn't living a good, ethical life what it's about? What kind of God would save you because you have believed in him, and what kind of God would send you to hell because you failed to do so (regardless of how good a human being you have been...).
Mr Warren, believing and preaching such blind nonsense rings of the Middle Ages and is the lowest degree of faith and religion.

Other Comments by etny

13. Comment #32955 by Big T on April 18, 2007 at 8:14 pm

Sam Harris is right on target again. Both he and Dawkins have cleverly pointed out that Pascal's Wager is not an intelligent reason to believe in (or fake belief in) God. I don't believe Pascal meant for the wager to be taken seriously, but some people less intelligent than Pascal (or Harris or Dawkins, for that matter) can't seem to see this, and some of them seem to think it is a good reason to believe in God. What nonsense.

Other Comments by Big T

14. Comment #32960 by commonhumanity on April 18, 2007 at 8:43 pm

My French teacher first introduced me to Pascal's Wager. She said she believed because of it. The other students said they did also.

I saw through it immediately (though I had been an extremely religious Southern Baptist in my youth). Pascal said if there is no God, you have lost nothing by saying you believe. His statement is untrue. I would have lost my most valuable possesion (next to life itself) if I had violated my integrity, if I had lied to myself and others. I am unable to believe in God without evidence, and I will not, cannot say that I believe when I do not.
Dorothy Sutton

Other Comments by commonhumanity

15. Comment #32961 by imatoski on April 18, 2007 at 8:48 pm

I've always thought of the non-believer as being on the best side of that wager. Assume two people doing equally good things throughout their life.

The atheist one does good things because that is want he elects to do under his own free will. The believer does good things because he has expectations of going to heaven.

If their is a just God who would he think the more deserving. The atheist with a good heart or the briber?

Other Comments by imatoski

16. Comment #32962 by Satanburiedfossils on April 18, 2007 at 9:02 pm

With all due respect to H. P. Lovecraft, you might want to consider this wager:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu#Cthulhu.27s_Wager

Now where are the wagers for the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Pink Unicorn?

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

17. Comment #32968 by WilliamP on April 18, 2007 at 9:49 pm

I think that there is as much evidence to believe that Pascal's wager (as Harris describes it) will backfire as there is to believe it will work. It isn't really based on faith in god, which is a requirement for entry into heaven. Also, it's a form of gambling, which most major religions frown on. If god exists, then there's no reason to believe that he'll accept it, and it might even get you into hell.

Satanburiedfossils-
That's a great webpage. I often evoke Cthullu (an ADMITTEDLY ficticious god) when I discuss religion. The funny thing about Lovecraft's gods is that they are just as real as the gods of the Bible or Koran- it's just that their creator was honest in admitting their falsehood.

Other Comments by WilliamP

18. Comment #32969 by Patrick McArdle on April 18, 2007 at 9:56 pm

"The atheist one does good things because that is want he elects to do under his own free will. The believer does good things because he has expectations of going to heaven."

A version of this appears in Mr. Harris' discussion with Rev. Warren, where the latter says, "[i]f death is the end, shoot, I'm not going to waste another minute being altruistic." While context makes it sound as if Mr. Warren was not claiming this attitude for himself, he did think it applied to many a Christian. That's a very sad thing for one believer to say about another.

I donate blood, six times per year (the maximum frequency) because, as an atheist, I believe that this life is all we'll ever get, and I should use my good health to benefit other humans, just as others would do for me. I doubt I speak only for myself, when I say that atheism makes one appreciate life much more than believing in some pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die ever can, because the latter belief must devalue actual life here on earth.

Other Comments by Patrick McArdle

19. Comment #32971 by ferfuracious on April 18, 2007 at 10:19 pm

There is an infinity of possible deities, all, some, one or none might exist.

A deity that punishes believers and rewards unbelievers is just as likely as a deity who does the reverse.

So there is no reason why there shouldn't be a large proportion of possible deities that punish believers and reward unbelievers.

One can lack belief in every possible deity at once, but it is significantly more difficult to believe in all of them simultaneously. And even if you did believe in all of them, jealous deities such as God would punish you for this just as they would punish an unbeliever.

So if you actually did make a decision based on probabilities, the best bet is to be an atheist because you can satisfy the demands of more deities than the conventional theist can.

Other Comments by ferfuracious

20. Comment #32979 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 18, 2007 at 11:05 pm

To this subject one must add that a lifetime of study would not suffice to plumb the depths of every religion, and their myriad subdivisions. Hence people generally adopt whats local and convenient. Thus a trip to Hell, in most cases will be an accident of geography, nothing more. Bummer.

My 2nd "episode" in From faith to freedom is up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtgNlP28yBo

Had real trouble getting the sound synced., all comments, critiques etc. welcome. I'm hoping that this will be instructive and helpful for "recovering fundamentalists", as well give those of you with no exposure to the mind set, a little insight into same.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

21. Comment #32988 by SteveN on April 19, 2007 at 12:13 am

One of the other problems with Pascal's wager that Sam didn't mention in this short article (although I'm pretty sure that both he and Richard have covered it before) is that the wager imposes a false dichotomy - it's either God or no God (with a capital G). With humankind worshipping or having worshipped over 3000 gods, what are the chances of someone picking the right one? I'm pretty sure that Zeus or Ra will be much nastier to a mortal who spent his/her life worshipping a false god than one who worshipped none at all! I therefore submit that the safest and most logical choice to avoid an eternity of torture, even if you think that god of some sort must exist to explain the universe, is atheism ;-)

Note added in Edit: Dammit! I didn't see the post 20 by ferfuracious who says more or less the same thing.

Other Comments by SteveN

22. Comment #32991 by nogod42 on April 19, 2007 at 12:52 am

I would like to think the creator of the universe would know what my lifelong intentions are. I think the pious sell their beliefs short when they imply a sort of "hedging of bets" regarding one's eternal outcome. Simply picking the "safest" option is by no means honorable. This seems a very weak argument for something supposedly so important.

I find it quite difficult to believe that if I'm a genuinely "good" person, this supposed supreme being will be blinded by the fact that I was driven by proof and logic. Come on...if you were omniscient and omnipresent, would it be hard for you to figure out if someone believes in you? You wouldn't exactly have to go around counting the Jesus fish on cars.

This argument seems as a last grasp at viability.

Other Comments by nogod42

23. Comment #32995 by Will S on April 19, 2007 at 1:10 am

I'd seriously like to hear a religious person's comments on the following conjecture. (I don't suppose for a moment that it's true, but it seems to be at least as likely as most religious positions.)

Suppose there is a deity and that s/he values above all other virtues intellectual integrity and proper respect for evidence. Suppose that s/he has deliberately created a universe from which decent evidence for his/her existence has been carefully exluded. S/he is now subjecting us humans to a test. If we retain our integrity and remain life-long atheists, we'll be wafted to Heaven to enjoy eternal life among the saints (Charles Darwin, Bertrand Russell et al)

On the other hand ... if we succumb to temptation, and believe, against the evidence, that there's a God, we're consigned to Outer Darkness, along with all the religious apologists, popes etc.

Under Pascal's Wager, that makes atheism the desirable position - only it has to be sincere atheism, of course.

Other Comments by Will S

24. Comment #32996 by NJS on April 19, 2007 at 1:13 am

Nonsense aside, I find the proposition that a "good" non-believer is hellbound and a "bad" believer has a chance of heaven to be one of the the most inherently evil ideas in religion. It sums up the "gang" mentality to a tee.

Other Comments by NJS

25. Comment #33027 by sheepscarer on April 19, 2007 at 3:17 am

Much as I'd like to believe that my personality will live on after death and that there is a loving entity who keeps watch over us and that Coventry City will one day win the Premiership, I'm afraid I can't just switch on belief. Such self-delusion is hard for me to grasp - by it's nature delusion must take a conscious effort which surely reveals its own motive. I'm sure that most professed and convinced believers have more than a niggle of doubt and will cling on to life like the rest of us when oblivion draws near.

Other Comments by sheepscarer

26. Comment #33043 by Rtambree on April 19, 2007 at 3:59 am

Eternal Life.

Imagine a concerted, sustained, international effort to tackle gerontology and ageing. If death is such as issue for so many religious people, then why not tackle it (on a scale even larger than an Apollo program or Human Genome Project)?
De-prioritise all other university and private research funding until we've solved the problem of death (or at least radically extended lifespands to hundreds of years or more).

Many species of animals and plants can effectively live indefinitely if the conditions are right.

Instead of wishing some invisible friend in the sky would wave a wand and whisk your "soul" away, lifespans of 1,000 years or may be technically possible.

If the global military budget devoted to killing each other was devoted to longevity extension (telomere replacement, more effective genetic repair mechanisms, anti-oxidants, discovering what it is about caloric restriction, etc, etc), then there'd be no need for all this religious mumbo-jumbo. It would just evaporate because science can deliver the goods. Military budgets total hundreds of billions of dollars. In addition, there's enormous wastage of academic funding in theology grants, templeton prizes, obscure philosophy departments, and other deadwood throughout the world's universities. Humanity could easily through a trillion dollars a year to the problem.

There's no practical or theoretical reason why it can't be done. Overcrowding wouldn't be a problem because we know that in proposerous countries with high longevity, birth rates shrink to below two per couple. If death is the biggest issue for all people (the only certainty) then why we aren't we doing something about it?

In 100 years, we've doubled average life span by simply washing hands, better diet, sanitation, etc. Imagine what direct manipulation of genes and cellular machinery could do?

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #33045 by newatheist on April 19, 2007 at 4:04 am

As Sam Harris points out, Rick Warren is not only betting against atheists, but muslims, buddhists, and all other religions. That's got to reduce his odds. A quick google (sorry no more reliable source) put the worldwide christian population percentage as 33%. Is this what Rick Warren is betting on? A 1 in 3 shot? As for the cost (both individually and to humanity) of religious belief, I'm sure Mr Warren would tell you he's just fine with all that. As long as he gets to go to heaven, the world can go to hell.

Other Comments by newatheist

28. Comment #33049 by Yorker on April 19, 2007 at 4:17 am

A good article by Sam, written in his usual, easily-understood manner; however, I'm somewhat surprised by the degree of hero-worship of him on display here. Let's be honest, writing against religion is not a difficult thing to do, although Sam may be a genius � as he's been called here � his writings so far give me no reason to label him so. When and if, he comes up with some breakthrough in his real subject, neuroscience, then perhaps he might be worthy of the term genius, until then, I will enjoy his anti-theistic rants.

I feel similarly about Dawkins, but have more respect for Richard because of his excellent scientific work, I feel sure that he would himself agree that writing a work like TGD probably didn't tax him as much as writing "Ancestors Tale", for example. I'm also sure that both Sam and Richard would probably not see themselves as geniuses, because geniuses rarely do.

I always feel uneasy about hero worship; history has shown it to be a dangerous human characteristic that often blinds the worshipper and has the effect of dulling critical reasoning capacity. It seems to be most strongly prevalent in the young; thankfully, it diminishes with age and experience.

As for Pascal's Wager, I've always seen it the way Sam does. Many years ago I prepared the following short statement that after my death and subsequent judgement, I would recite to God in the unlikely event that I had been totally wrong about him.

"God, I admit my error. Yes, I have been wrong about you all these years, but excuse me God, if I don't genuflect and quake before your wrath. You see, I have no fear; I was told many times by several of your sheep that you are a loving and forgiving deity, kindly disposed toward errant sinners who recant their evil words."

"So, with this in mind, I can't see how you can possibly refuse me entry to Heaven, after all, you'd be making yourself look like a spiteful, petty asshole if you decided to make an example of a poor cretin such as I. Therefore, I look forward to a happy eternal existence with only one condition that I must insist upon. I have spent my life learning, so I need an interesting job up here, I will not be fobbed off with crap work like sewing the wings on angels or similar shit like that, so bear this in mind and we can have a fruitful partnership."

I think I have him by the bollocks, what do you think?

Other Comments by Yorker

29. Comment #33068 by Yorker on April 19, 2007 at 5:01 am

27. Comment #33043 by Rtambree

Imagine a concerted, sustained, international effort to tackle gerontology and ageing. If death is such as issue for so many religious people, then why not tackle it (on a scale even larger than an Apollo program or Human Genome Project)?

I agree with Hitchens that fear of death is a main reason that religion is still around, but I think that "curing" a religite of death would draw the teeth of his god and almost prove his non-existence. It would be amusingly interesting though to see how religites would react when faced with the offer of 80 years say, then death, or 1,000 years with possible future extension.

Instead of wishing some invisible friend in the sky would wave a wand and whisk your "soul" away, lifespans of 1,000 years or may be technically possible.

Aubrey de Grey would agree with you here but he still hasn't convinced many of his peers. Personally, I'm not sure I'd want a 1K-year life, even if of high quality.

�there's enormous wastage of academic funding in theology grants, templeton prizes, obscure philosophy departments, and other deadwood throughout the world's universities.

Yes, no argument here, philosophy is not of much practical value and theology could be dispensed with entirely.

If the global military budget devoted to killing each other�.

We could end poverty and hunger, provide free education and medical care for all, etc, etc. This, I think, should be humankind's number one priority; unfortunately, nationalism, patriotism, greed and religion will have to disappear first before we can ditch militarism. On the bright side, Costa Rica took the lead in dumping its military, as far as I know it hasn't been invaded yet. I think I could make a strong case for the UK to disarm, but that is beyond the scope of this comment.

Other Comments by Yorker

30. Comment #33076 by FleaCircusDirector on April 19, 2007 at 5:20 am

The Magician and Juggler Penn Gillette suggested on his radio show an argument against Pascals Wager. If you believe in the wrong god then would the real god could be more angry with you than if you had not believed at all which is an argument that we should all be atheist.

Other Comments by FleaCircusDirector

31. Comment #33079 by Ole on April 19, 2007 at 5:29 am

Had Blaise Pascal lived to finish his Pensées, perhaps there would not have been a Wager?
(After his dead, papers and notes left by Pascal were collected by others and published as the Pensées).

Anyway, what struck me as strange when I read the debate with Warren, was that he resorted to this "infamous" Wager. Why, I thought? Did he not know that for century's now the Wager has been met with serious criticisms. It started already with Voltaire. (Btw, there is nothing new in Harris arguments.).

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

32. Comment #33080 by Philip1978 on April 19, 2007 at 5:31 am

Yorker:I think I have him by the bollocks, what do you think?

Yorker, I think you are on to something there, my only comment to be said on the matter of having god by the bollocks is, what if god turns out to be female? hehehhehe

Other Comments by Philip1978

33. Comment #33086 by uzi on April 19, 2007 at 6:09 am

If we could cheat death and prevent old age, that would be the end of human evolution. If we're arrogent enough to think we're as good as we can possibly get, and that evolution has an end-of-the-road marker and--holy shit--we've arrived! Then perhaps we would want to live forever.

Without death there will be no room for the next generation, no room for change, meaning no adaptation to the new challenges posted by the otherwise changing world. I think that would ultimately lead to mass starvation on a global scale, or some deadly disease against which we are totally unprepared to ward off.

Sucks to die, but it is a part of life. Enjoy the time you have, and don't squander it.

Other Comments by uzi

34. Comment #33091 by Seero on April 19, 2007 at 6:30 am

Atheist's Wager
The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a God that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Other Comments by Seero

35. Comment #33094 by beeline on April 19, 2007 at 6:48 am

People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Douglas Adams; Interview with American Atheist Magazine.

Other Comments by beeline

36. Comment #33098 by MagGuy on April 19, 2007 at 7:13 am

If any one wants to pursue issues concerning Pascal's Wager further you might find the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy to be a useful resource. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

Other Comments by MagGuy

37. Comment #33110 by Santi Tafarella on April 19, 2007 at 8:01 am

I appreciate Sam's attempts at consciousness raising, but I'd like to offer him a little of his own. Could somebody who knows him remind him that we live in the 21st century, and that it is annoying and archaic for a progressive-thinking person to exclusively use the male pronoun (when he is referring to humanity in general). Look again at the fourth paragraph in the above article. Would his girlfriend or somebody pretty puleeeese bop him on the head for all of us feminists out here?

Other Comments by Santi Tafarella

38. Comment #33114 by BMMcArdle on April 19, 2007 at 8:24 am

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

39. Comment #33128 by CruciFiction on April 19, 2007 at 11:51 am

I would urge all to also consider posting their comments at the link to the "On Faith" page where Sam's article appears for exposure to many more eyes.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/04/the_cost_of_betting_on_faith.html

Other Comments by CruciFiction

40. Comment #33143 by rchoquette on April 19, 2007 at 1:20 pm

- Belief Paradox -

All Deities demand the non-belief of competing Deities.

Amongst the Deities in competition for the non-belief of their counterparts;
Mathematically, the Deities cancel out belief altogether, caving in on itself; the result is non-belief, thus a balanced equation.

It looks like the Deities left a loophole for non-belief. If they were of Divine origin, they should have known this. Actually, they didn't think about this because the inventors of the Deities are the ones that left the loophole.

- Belief Paradox -

Other Comments by rchoquette

41. Comment #33148 by Linda_K on April 19, 2007 at 1:41 pm

I have a subscription to Newsweek, and I remember reading the debate. You know how you're in an arguement with someone, and you pretty much have them beat, but they don't know it, so they keep talking and bringing up irrelavent things to try to get a grasp on you? That was how it was.

Other Comments by Linda_K

42. Comment #33219 by TMHill on April 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm

The gamble that atheists believe that religious people are taking is that they are staking their own (and other's) happiness in this life - which we [b]know[/b] we have - against potential upside in some intangible world which they can never be sure of having.

In this context, contrary to the immediate impression of Pascal's wager, the atheist bet is the more risk free.

However, a religious person should also never entertain Pascal's wager, since to the truly believing, its not a gamble at all. Its "who they are"

Other Comments by TMHill

43. Comment #33462 by mackbeemer on April 20, 2007 at 8:31 am

It is disheartening to me to find that opponents of a given position so often give the weakest exposition of the position they wish to attack, thus in the end attacking a straw man.

Sam Harris' exposition of Pascal's Wager falls into this error, as does Richard Dawkins'. A closer reading of Pascal's actual discussion reveals he did not imagine that one could will oneself to believe something. What he advocated on the basis of his wager was this: act as if you believe (i.e., attend worship services, read scripture, etc., etc.). Doing so will, sooner or later, result in actual, real, "unwilled" belief.

The fault of the argument lies in its tacit assumption that there are only two alternatives: unblief on the one hand, and Christianity on the other. Given that simplistic and false assumption, the argument has a certain persuasiveness about it. But of course, there are many more than two alternatives, and as Harris intimates, each religion can construct a "Pascalian Wager" of its own resulting in our current cacophony of competing incompatible religious claims. Pascal's argument made sense when and where he made it. It is useless today.

Other Comments by mackbeemer

44. Comment #33537 by gmurphy on April 20, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Dovetailing somewhat on mackbeemer's comment and, with biases disclosed (I have a PhD in theology), I disagree with Harris' assessment of the Wager for two reasons: 1) The Wager appears in a diatribe against apathy. Pascal was incensed by people who treat the question of religion (and the existence of God) as some trifling matter, as though its use were nothing more than a parlor debate to cure bordeom while, at the same time, they would make a big stink about some supposed offense to their "honor" or go on and on about events at the Parisian theatre, etc. The Wager, then, in context, is not so much a calculation or a piece of some nebulous probabilty calculus, but a method to underscore the simple enormity of the question as Pascal saw it. The question of God MATTERS. Even the great Oxford atheist JL Mackie recognized this saying that there can be no question more important, more pressing than that of the existence of God. So, Pascal was trying to wake people from their dogmatic slumbers, to try and get them to stop playing footsie with game-playing philosophy. 2) Pascal specifically addressed the issue of the inability to merely move oneself in belief, one way or the other. Harris completely neglects this fact which leads me to wonder whether he's really read that much of Pascal, much less the Wager in its native context. Immediately following the Wager, Pascal adds rhetorically, "Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?" His answer: "True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions" (and then items mackbeemer mentions).

Ultimately, one may still disagree with the Wager, but I don't think it should be for the reasons given by Harris.

Other Comments by gmurphy

45. Comment #33541 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 2:21 pm

(I have a PhD in theology),

You'll find that of little value here. We don't have much respect for those with PhD's in fairiology either.

As to your comments about PW, most atheists, and I suspect Harris as well, object to it's modern usage by theists. This is invariably as a kind of Gotcha! to show that it's a safer bet to "beleive" than not to "beleive".

This meaning I'll grant you is daft, and has been refuted ad nauseum in the thread. However. if there is a misunderstanding of Pascals intent it's on the theistic side not ours.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

46. Comment #33544 by gmurphy on April 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm

First of all, I only mentioned my PhD to make my own theistic BIASES known (as I clearly stated). Whether you think a PhD in theology is worthless or not is your own problem (though, I can only wish that it were as easy to get, and as cost efficient, as a degree in fairiology would likely be). Secondly, while I agree that the Wager is frequently misused by theists (which ceaselessly frustrates me), that is no excuse for the thoughtful atheist to respond, in turn, to a strawman. It would be better for the atheist to correct the misguided theist as to its true meaning (and, for that matter, for both sides to actually READ Pascal before they pontificate about his philosophy). Lastly, being new to this community, I didn't realize that the forum had such hostility to theists merely trying to inject some additional clarity. Perhaps this is not the best forum for me.

Other Comments by gmurphy

47. Comment #33546 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Lastly, being new to this community, I didn't realize that the forum had such hostility to theists merely trying to inject some additional clarity. Perhaps this is not the best forum for me.

Oh don't be such a pansy. I went easy on you. We really are rather allergic to theology. Forewarned is forearmed. eh? :-)

The vast unwashed masses of religiondom wouldn't know a profundity if it bit them in the ass. Total overkill.

Once the majority of mankind has been dragged up from subsistence level existence, a little common sense should see them right. Theology don't enter into it, in fact Theology's function is to obscure the obvious absence of a God.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

48. Comment #33548 by gmurphy on April 20, 2007 at 2:46 pm

My goodness, if what I am reading here is a reasonable representation of current atheistic discourse, the task of the Xian apologist has certainly been lowered by several levels. Comments such as this last one lead me wonder just how much theology you (and other atheists) have actually studied.

Similarly, many atheists seem to have a penchant for superimposing the universality of human stupidity onto religion, instead of rightly attributing it to humanity itself. There's a bit of post hoc species fallacy at play here in which everything that is facile and intellectually lame must have a religious root. This is hardly the case.
At any rate, I tried this little forum, but it appears I will have to look elsewhere for meaningful dialogue.

Other Comments by gmurphy

49. Comment #33554 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 20, 2007 at 3:08 pm

This is hardly the case.
At any rate, I tried this little forum, but it appears I will have to look elsewhere for meaningful dialogue.

Oh no ... I'm so injured!!!! Don't let the door hit your ass etc.:-)

Comments such as this last one lead me wonder just how much theology you (and other atheists) have actually studied.

Personally, I've dabbled, but you got the bit about it being a non subject right? I suspect you may be confusing it with philosophy. Not the same thing.

Do forgive my being reluctant to indulge a discussion on a collection of myths randomly selected by a clutch of 3rd and 4th century paedofiles. If I've caused offence, be assured, it's absolutely intentional.

everything that is facile and intellectually lame must have a religious root.

Nope, pure empiricism. There are a growing body of studies that show religious faith correlates negativley with intelligence, education and in the benightened US of A, political affiliation.

Are all religious people stupid Republicans? No. Are all Atheists brilliant? Of course not. However, the mean Atheist is more intelligent, educated and successful than your mean theist, and no where near as mean:-)

Join the winning team, if you've studied theology for any length of time, you know religion is made up bullshit that has morphed through the ages to pacify the masses:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

50. Comment #33557 by Seti on April 20, 2007 at 3:15 pm

To gmurphy: Most atheists know a fair amount about the bible and its many flaws. Theology, however, is a pretty pointless topic of study - akin to a fashion article on the emperor's new clothes.

As for the link between human stupidity and religion, perhaps it would be most accurate to say that religion is the most prevalent manifestation of, and excuse for, human supidity. There are others, but many of them tend to be pseudo-religions like the Cultural Revolution of Mao Zedung, or share the same beleif in the supernatural like thinking your dead uncle is hanging around to have a few words with you via a long-dead native American called Running Bear.

I would agree that not everything which is facile and intellectually lame has a religious root - simply that anything which has a religious root is more than likely to be facile and intellectually lame.

Other Comments by Seti

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last